Skycather's not TOO ugly, just needs tailwheel

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:40:44 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

wrote in news:5d010219-865f-4d06-a28e-
:

We did a Glastar in the taildragger configuration. It has a
steel-tube frame inside it, to which the wings, gear, engine mount all
attach. Converting it from a trike, say, involves taking the nosegear
strut out of its socket in that frame and turfing it, and moving the
mains forward into another set of sockets already there. The tailwheel
bolts through hard points in the aft tailcone.


Is the glass at all structural, or does the steel tubing extend to the
tail?

The glass is structural. The tubing is a sort of "cage" around just the cabin
area...it includes the wing and strut attach points, the pickup points for the
engine mount, the seat mounting, and the main and nose gear attach points.

http://www.wanttaja.com/glastar.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

On Jan 9, 6:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:5d010219-865f-4d06-a28e-
:



We did a Glastar in the taildragger configuration. It has a
steel-tube frame inside it, to which the wings, gear, engine mount all
attach. Converting it from a trike, say, involves taking the nosegear
strut out of its socket in that frame and turfing it, and moving the
mains forward into another set of sockets already there. The tailwheel
bolts through hard points in the aft tailcone.

Is the glass at all structural, or does the steel tubing extend to the
tail?

Bertie

The steel structure ends immediately aft of the seats, with a
couple of struts running to the tailcone above the rear windows where
the compositie structure is a bit light.

Dan

On Jan 9, 8:44 pm, wrote:
Is the glass at all structural, or does the steel tubing extend to the
tail?

Bertie

I think all the way to the tail. Met a glastar rep on the ramp once.
He gave me their promo DVD for the Sportsman. II found the plane very
appealing because it was about a hour (2 max) of work to go from trike
to tail dragger with two people. The DVD shows the operation -- it is
really cleverly engineered.

Pictures he
http://www.glasairaviation.com/kitcontentglastar.html

You can see the structure ending immediately aft of the forward
cabin. There are a couple of brackets attached to the composite shell,
just aft of the windows, where the struts from the cagewill go. The
struts aren't installed in the picture.

Dan

"BT" wrote in message
...
Not Many...
Husky
Cub Crafters
Legend Cub


All crap airplanes fjukkwit. Real pilots wouldnt touch them

Bertie
BT

wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 3:40 pm, Ricky wrote:
After looking at Skycatcher quite a bit I decided it looks fine, nice,
not great, just o.k.

My dad was responsible for the "Texas Taildragger" C-150, 152, 172
conversions and I think the Skycatcher would look GREAT with a
tailwheel.
Then again, almost anything looks better with a tailwheel. Those
C-172s had quite a bit of sex appeal with the conventional gear, so
did the 150s-172s.
Then putting the 150 or 180 horses on the nose of the 150s-172s
(another of my dad's conversions & STCs) made them an altogether
different aircraft, a beast akmost...

Skycatcher looks fine, just needs a tailwheel.

Ricky

I would expect that the composite construction would make
it much harder to convert. No hard points and difficult to retrofit
them.
Not many folks building "real" airplanes any more.

Dan

"Ricky" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 3:52 pm, William Hung wrote:

How does it make the 150 " - Required less hangar space"? Please
explain.

Wil

What Bertie said...you can tuck the backside in under other airplanes
and the whole aircraft was a bit shorter with moving the mains forward
and adding the tailwheel.
When I got into flying I used to wonder how it took less hangar space,
too.

And I am always right.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in
:


"Ricky" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 3:52 pm, William Hung wrote:

How does it make the 150 " - Required less hangar space"? Please
explain.

Wil

What Bertie said...you can tuck the backside in under other airplanes
and the whole aircraft was a bit shorter with moving the mains forward
and adding the tailwheel.
When I got into flying I used to wonder how it took less hangar space,
too.

And I am always right.


Bertie


True.


Bertie


Hey, I might take the rest of the day off!

Bertie

On Jan 8, 2:40*pm, Ricky wrote:
After looking at Skycatcher quite a bit I decided it looks fine, nice,
not great, just o.k.

My dad was responsible for the "Texas Taildragger" C-150, 152, 172
conversions and I think the Skycatcher would look GREAT with a
tailwheel.
Then again, almost anything looks better with a tailwheel. Those
C-172s had quite a bit of sex appeal with the conventional gear, so
did the 150s-172s.
Then putting the 150 or 180 horses on the nose of the 150s-172s
(another of my dad's conversions & STCs) made them an altogether
different aircraft, a beast akmost...

Skycatcher looks fine, just needs a tailwheel.

Ricky

There is one Mooney (F model I believe) out there that has a
tailwheel. Its a very interesting airplane. There is a picture of it
on the web somewhere but I'm not able to find it right now.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:96e9e0f1-48cc-4383-bbb0-
:

On Jan 8, 2:40*pm, Ricky wrote:
After looking at Skycatcher quite a bit I decided it looks fine, nice,
not great, just o.k.

My dad was responsible for the "Texas Taildragger" C-150, 152, 172
conversions and I think the Skycatcher would look GREAT with a
tailwheel.
Then again, almost anything looks better with a tailwheel. Those
C-172s had quite a bit of sex appeal with the conventional gear, so
did the 150s-172s.
Then putting the 150 or 180 horses on the nose of the 150s-172s
(another of my dad's conversions & STCs) made them an altogether
different aircraft, a beast akmost...

Skycatcher looks fine, just needs a tailwheel.

Ricky

There is one Mooney (F model I believe) out there that has a
tailwheel. Its a very interesting airplane. There is a picture of it
on the web somewhere but I'm not able to find it right now.

Sounds pretty unlikely. Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare. It's not a Cherokee!
He did design plenty of taildraggers, though, And retractable ones. all the
way back to the Alexander Bullet.
Maybe someone with a strong engineering bent modified one but it would have
been unbelievably time consuming.

Bertie

The glass is structural. *The tubing is a sort of "cage" around just the cabin
area...it includes the wing and strut attach points, the pickup points for the
engine mount, the seat mounting, and the main and nose gear attach points.

http://www.wanttaja.com/glastar.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

That's right, I forgot!

Doh!

* * You can see the structure ending immediately aft of the forward
cabin. There are a couple of brackets attached to the composite shell,
just aft of the windows, where the struts from the cagewill go. The
struts aren't installed in the picture.

* * * * * Dan

So, what happens to these composites when they crash? There are a lot
of composites these days, and a bunch of LSA composites.

I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the passengers
into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really bad.

But maybe they do really well. Anyone got some facts on it?