![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Corrie wrote:
David, what you say makes a good deal of sense. You can read about a fancy-schmancy design in this month's Flying - Pete Garrison finally got his Melmoth II in the air. But even first-time builders with modest ambitions may have certain requirements. Example: I'm looking for a moderately-performing 2-place low-wing wood design such as the Piel Emeradue or Cvjetcovic CA-65, with a folding wing so that the aircraft can be stored off-airport and trailered. Is that so much to ask? The kind souls on the Emerauder list have clued me in about one particular 3-piece-wing design for the Piel. With a couple of hours of hard work, it appears possible to remove & replace the outer wing panels - not what I'm looking for. Perhaps the Cvjetcovic design is more "user-friendly" - at least the outer panels stay attached - but information is hard to come by. However, I've got time to do some more digging - I probably won't be able to even begin building for another couple of years. I frankly doubt that I'll be able to build more than one airplane. I'm 41 now. It's clear that the process takes from 5 to 10 years, especially if you have a family - and I do. Maybe I'll have to settle for a Volksplane in the end. But here at the beginning, I prefer to keep my options open. Corrie David O wrote in message . .. There have been many posts in recent months by people contemplating their own complicated and even radical designs. Reading between the lines, it appears that many of those people have yet to build their first plane. May I kindly suggest that one's first plane should be a time-proved kit or plans-built plane with no major builder modifications. Build it, fly it, and maintain it for several hundred hours. After you've accomplished this, revisit your fancy schmancy dream machine. I expect that by that time, for most people anyway, reality will have dawned. David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com -- Oshkosh Bound!!! A couple of things, Corrie? One, I'd hardly refer to Melmoth II as fancy-schmancy. Maybe it's more airplane than most. But there's nothing wrong with that. And two, IIRC, Melmoth (I?) was a first-time origional design - designed, built, and flown by one man - Pete Garrison. Nothing wrong with that, either. But for the likes of most of our gentle readers, dream on. That's what P-51 Syndrome is all about. For you to build something like Melmoth (either) could indeed take a dozen years or more. (Pete? What was it? 6 year?) There's just so much you have to learn how to do, and do well. It would take me a lot longer than that - just to pay for it! It's just not a reasonable thing for most people to do. Let me offer a suggestion. Take five or siz thoushand bucks and Build something a lot simpler. A SINGLE seater. Perhaps like a Volksplane (although I like my parasol a lot better. Go figure) If you are 41, and you want to build an airplane, you maybe better get off your dead a$$ and get started - on something. Even if it's not a P-51... Richard http://home.flash.net/~lamb01/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|