"Morgans" wrote in message
...
|
| "Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
| ...
| On Dec 2, 2:07 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
|
| It says right in the descriptions, that this is not intended to fly, but
| driven in a parade, or as an advertising gimmick.
|
| I'm pretty sure that text was not in the original item description. I
| think it was added during the Dec-02-08 10:53:13 PST revision.
| *********************************
|
| Morgans wrote:
| That explains a good deal.
|
| It was pretty obvious that thing would never fly. If someone paid money
for
| plans or sketches of that, and it was built close to specifications, it
| would be an understatement to say that they had been taken, big time.
|
| Way over built; wood too large, way too much of it. Hardware quality
stuff
| everywhere, it would appear. An engine that size is intended to fly
| something in the 254 pound (old ultralight rules) class, not a 500 plus
| pound monster with "questionable" aerodynamics. g
|
| I don't know how much that engine is worth, but perhaps the value of the
| engine, and the heat all that wood would supply in a fireplace or wood
stove
| may make it an acceptable deal! g
| --
| Jim in NC
|

Considering the price of engines these days, I emailed for details out of
curiosity. He says it's a 25 hp Mercury, and assumes it 440cc from searching
the internet. ?????????????

He did volunteer in his first sentence that the prop was not airworthy.

A clean wing, like the Mitchell, will fly very well on 25 hp. But there are
probably lighter 25 hp, two-strokes around.