View Single Post
  #17  
Old February 12th 06, 03:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:29:46 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:

Well, folks, there you have it.
The experts have again spoken.

Clare, I can understand your anger.
But it's misplaced.
You got had.
But not by me.
I did everything I could to warn you guys.
Although I wonder if Gary ever passed that on to you.


No- Gary built a wing according to plans and sandbag tested it under
an engineer's supervision. The engineer stopped the loading before
failure because of excessive deflection IIRC.

He took a design with a 350 pound recommended empty weight and
built something else.


No fuselage was included in the testing

Beefed up fuselage structure, .065 wall
spars (which did nothing to add strength - just cheaper),
ALL METAL SKINS on the fuselage AND wing, and converted auto engines.


No, the fuselage was NEVER FINISHED NO ENGINE WAS EVER INSTALLED.
What was the final weight you guys came up with? 550? 650? Empty!

But the answer was always, "But that's the way we want it".

No, you are fantacising.

So Gary offered to hired an engineer to design a wing compatible
with your wants. But that gentleman died before finishing the
work - and now it's MY problem? Sorry, guy. No way.

That's why I finally bit down and asked you guys not to call
it by the Texas Parasol or Chuckbird name.


It's not - and you damned well know it.

Those drawings are straight from my first parasol.
And yes, I did fly it just as it is drawn, with the exception
of using a VW on it rather than a Rotax.

And sleaves in the spars by your own admission. Which are NOT in the
plans.

Rave if you must, Clare, but there are several dozen of these
planes _flying_ for over 20 years now. Doc, who has been
the test pilot on almost all of these, had over 650 hours on
his "Lucky Lady" when the airfield changed hands and he quit.
Doc loved to play acro with it. Loops (well, tall skinny ones),
spins, rolls. I'll trust my life to his test work because I've
seen what he can do with it.

As for you "analysis"?

So far we've seen NO structural failures, and only one fatality -
on a first flight, ran out of gas and spun it in.
(I can't tell you how hard that was to deal with.)



Changing the subject only a bit...

I went out to Kitty Hawk Airfield last weekend to look at a CGS
Hawk I was hoping to buy. The fellow I met with (Don) was very
knowledgeable about the design - AND that particular airplane.
I'm very impressed with Chuck's design, but I walked (ran?) away
from this airplane.

A few years ago some fool decided the plane needed more power
and mounted an 80 hp Rotax 912 on it. (anybody here familiar
with the Hawk?). On the first takeoff, the engine twisted plumb
off the mount, cut the tailboom off and (obviously) crashed, killing
the pilot.

Don was very up-front and honest about it - and the condition of
the rebuilt machine. The tailboom was extended, the nose also,
and a Rotax 582 installed. It weighs well over 350 pounds.
But many of the other local "experts" call it a POS death trap.

Unfortunately, it is still refered to as a CGS Hawk - and I'll bet my
bottom dollar that Chuck S absolutely hates that.

Just about the same way I feel about what you fellows have done.

Disgusted,

Richard


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***