On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:57:57 -0500, brian whatcott
wrote:

Peter Dohm wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
brian whatcott wrote:
cmyr wrote:

I chose what I believe is the best of both worlds by going with a
Jodel design. Efficient and economical on low H.P.,no apparent vices,
and most of the designs are former production aircraft with years of
goverment oversight to weed out any problems.
John G.
Good move! I have flown various Jodel flavors and can confirm that they
fly well. They are well liked and without vice.
Though how that trademark cranked wing does it, I'm not sure...

Brian W

Low wing load, moderate power loading, and a lot of leading edge.
No secrets there.

Actually, I envy you that one, Brian.
I've never had the pleasure.
I've heard they are really sweet.


--

Richard Lamb


I, too, have always heard that they were well known for extremely docile
handling; and my very limited experience with models as a kid suggests that
the docile handling is a common trait of that geometry.

You could certainly do much worse, and I did once think of building a D9. I
might even consider one of their designs again--but the obvious problem is
that scratch building in wood is a lot of work and not a lot cheaper that a
prepunched metal kit from Vans!

Peter



For me the concern is the wooden structure. I know that spruce is not a
durable wood - it qualifies because it is among the highest strength to
weight materials. I continually marvel that an aluminum structure can be
left outside year after year and still hold up. I don't think you could
expect that performance of wood.

Brian W

you cant expect that performance in any material unless the surfaces
are passivated or coated to diminish any hydroscopic effect.

most of us have invented the hangar.

Stealth Pilot