Flying on the Cheap - Wood

wrote:




Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
and unsafe to me.

The Curtiss OX-5 was the "proven" aircraft engine at one time. if
everyone thought like you it still would be. Designing an airframe
around a Lyc today is more chronologically retarded than if Burt Rutan
had used an OX-5 or OXX-6 in the first VariEze. (Do the math: I'm
right. The OX-5 was a 1915 engine and the VariEze flew in 1975 or so.
The OXX-6 came along in 1921 or so and the Milwaukee Tank aircooled
conversion around then. This is 2006, although that probably has
escaped the attention of the Lycophiles.)


If safety is the ONLY
criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.

Two beefy guys can easily lift a PT-6, at least the small series. A
PT-6A-27 weighs 149 kg according to one Web site on Google.


I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
every
homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.

What does that tell you? MANY homebuilts are marginal airplanes? That
much is true.


...

I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
gear drive could fix that.

Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?

You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.


--

FF

P.S. What's a 'JDM pull'?

Japanese Domestic Market. They scrap cars prematurely to artificially
fluff their new car markets.

On 12 Aug 2006 17:30:49 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


wrote:




Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
and unsafe to me.

The Curtiss OX-5 was the "proven" aircraft engine at one time. if
everyone thought like you it still would be. Designing an airframe
around a Lyc today is more chronologically retarded than if Burt Rutan
had used an OX-5 or OXX-6 in the first VariEze. (Do the math: I'm
right. The OX-5 was a 1915 engine and the VariEze flew in 1975 or so.
The OXX-6 came along in 1921 or so and the Milwaukee Tank aircooled
conversion around then. This is 2006, although that probably has
escaped the attention of the Lycophiles.)


If safety is the ONLY
criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

You ever see now much fuel these things burn? Admittedly, slowly
shoving the torque to 100% in a Glas air III or Aircomp is a real
rush, but they make the 300 HP Lycosarus positively look like an
economy engine.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.

Two beefy guys can easily lift a PT-6, at least the small series. A
PT-6A-27 weighs 149 kg according to one Web site on Google.


I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
every
homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.

What does that tell you? MANY homebuilts are marginal airplanes? That
much is true.


...

I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
gear drive could fix that.

Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?

You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.


--

FF

P.S. What's a 'JDM pull'?

Japanese Domestic Market. They scrap cars prematurely to artificially
fluff their new car markets.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Bret Ludwig wrote:
wrote:




Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
and unsafe to me.

The Curtiss OX-5 was the "proven" aircraft engine at one time. if
everyone thought like you it still would be.

No, because I do not think everyone should restrict themselves to
tried and true engines. Rather, I think that homebuilders who are
only interested in building and flying an airplane, and not interested
in R&D should.

Designing an airframe
around a Lyc today is more chronologically retarded than if Burt Rutan
had used an OX-5 or OXX-6 in the first VariEze. ..

Which is why one calls that a 'straw man' argument.


If safety is the ONLY
criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.

Two beefy guys can easily lift a PT-6, at least the small series. A
PT-6A-27 weighs 149 kg according to one Web site on Google.

Like I said, too heavy. Also way too much power I'll warrant.

If safety were the only consideration, the homebuilder wouldn't
be building an airplane.



I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
every homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.

What does that tell you? MANY homebuilts are marginal airplanes? That
much is true.

I'll agree that many are. (Volksplanes come to mind.) OTOH consider
the FAI records set by planes powered by VW and or Rotax engines,
or consider planes like the Corby Starlet and the Sadler Vampyre.



...

I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
gear drive could fix that.

Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?

You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.

If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
roll control.

OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
than engines, most do not.

Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'
airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.

--

FF

wrote:



You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.

If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
roll control.

OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
than engines, most do not.

Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'
airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.


If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

Bret Ludwig wrote:
wrote:



You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.

If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
roll control.

OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
than engines, most do not.

Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'
airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.


If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.

--

FF

If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.

--

FF


Thought the kits are no longer available, you can get a lot of performance
for the dollar by purchasing one of the Schreder sailplane designs!
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N990/N990.html

Wayne Paul wrote:

If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.


Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.


Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.


Bert,

Here is a picture of a homebuilt Schreder HP-16T being launched using 1,500
feet of rope hooked to a pickup truck.

http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP...P/N16VP_6b.jpg

Local area pilots have used this technique at the Nampa, ID and Ontario, OR
airports as well as from the Alvord Desert dry lake.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"

On 15 Aug 2006 06:52:46 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


wrote:



You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.

If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
roll control.

OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
than engines, most do not.

Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'

I've known a couple of them who got killed doing that and some that
had planes with rater strange handeling characteristics. Of course
like building, flying one with no break out force or stick gradient is
a challenge:-)) Then installing a 6 cylinder IO-540 with a 3-blade
hartzell in place of a IO-360 and 2-blade prop that required moving
the wing forward to get some semblance of a reasonable GC, or adding
wide profile tires that required a thicker wing root of a different
and symmetrical airfoil to accommodate the gear which required a
different angle of incidence for the outboard wing sections to
maintain sufficient lift...

airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.


If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

Cheaper? Are you kidding? By the time I finish the G-III (If I ever
do) I'll have more than twice the price of the Deb in it and that is
going with a used engine and prop.

OTOH price is a relative thing. If you build it you can economize
where ever you'd like or, go hog wild and get the best of everything.
You can use a minimal panel with steam gages, or the latest in glass
panel and technology.

We just have to remember that every airplane is a group of compromises
flying in formation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:
...

Cheaper? Are you kidding? By the time I finish the G-III (If I ever
do) I'll have more than twice the price of the Deb in it and that is
going with a used engine and prop.

OTOH price is a relative thing. If you build it you can economize
where ever you'd like or, go hog wild and get the best of everything.
You can use a minimal panel with steam gages, or the latest in glass
panel and technology.

Let's not forget that the articles that prompted this thread were about
how to build a plane with at least the same performance and safety
as many kit planes, but for much less money.

People have scratch built ultralights for under $1000 in materials and
less than 400 hours times which works out, even including labor rated
at, say $20/hr, to about what one might pay for a completed UL.

It might be better economics to get a second job to pay for plane
but it won't be as enjoyable and they won't know thier plane as
well.

--

FF