dogfight

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:


Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B...d-edna.arp.jpg

I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of adventurers
and it's years since I read the story, so my account mightn't be 100%..
That looks sorta kinda like the capro, (capra, capo, something like that)
Italian made planes of late, with the shoulder mounted wings.

I have often wondered why that configuration is not more popular. I've not
flown one, but it would seem like the visibility while flying level, turning
or anytime would be superior to high or low wings, than either upward or
downward views, depending whether it is high or low wing.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@ 207.14.116.130:


Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B...d-edna.arp.jpg

I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of
adventurers and it's years since I read the story, so my account
mightn't be 100%..
That looks sorta kinda like the capro, (capra, capo, something like
that)
Italian made planes of late, with the shoulder mounted wings.


You don't mean the little Macchis from the fifties, do you? They were
high wing but kind of swept forwards.
Might be one of the new ultralights, Might even be a warmed over version
of the Malmo.
I know someone with a Bolkow built one he has been rebuilding for years
now, so I'll eventually get to fly one. his has an O 200 in it.
It, or a derivitive, was kitted in the UK as the ARV, I think, and was
available with a Wankel/Norton rotary engine. Don't know what became of
that, though.

I have often wondered why that configuration is not more popular.
I've not flown one, but it would seem like the visibility while flying
level, turning or anytime would be superior to high or low wings, than
either upward or downward views, depending whether it is high or low
wing.


It's a clever looking little airplane. I'd say it would e cheap enough
to make and might be a perfect LSA these days..


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

You don't mean the little Macchis from the fifties, do you? They were
high wing but kind of swept forwards.

Nope, and I'll be darned if I could find it, even with a while searching for
it. I remember it from an article in AOPA, I think. It was probably 5-7
years ago. On the cover, as I recall.

It looked a lot like this, but it was not this one:

http://www.ldap.cz/en/mfi.htm

I could be all wrong, but I thought it was an Italian design, that had been
certified for a while in like form, anyway. I thought it had a name like
Cappra, or something.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

You don't mean the little Macchis from the fifties, do you? They were
high wing but kind of swept forwards.

Nope, and I'll be darned if I could find it, even with a while
searching for it. I remember it from an article in AOPA, I think. It
was probably 5-7 years ago. On the cover, as I recall.

It looked a lot like this, but it was not this one:

http://www.ldap.cz/en/mfi.htm

I could be all wrong, but I thought it was an Italian design, that had
been certified for a while in like form, anyway. I thought it had a
name like Cappra, or something.

Don't remember seeing it though I'm sure it's in my sport aviation pile
somewhere.
The link you posted above *is* the Malmo as it was modified in the UK as
the ARV, I'm pretty sure. Nice to see it being mae still. Should be a
pretty good LSA. If I were in the market for something like that the
simplicity would appeal to me in a big way.

Bertie

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:07:48 -0500, "Morgans" wrote:

Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B...d-edna.arp.jpg

I have often wondered why that configuration is not more popular. I've not
flown one, but it would seem like the visibility while flying level, turning
or anytime would be superior to high or low wings, than either upward or
downward views, depending whether it is high or low wing.

Cockpit access issues and CG, would be my guesses. Kind of an awkward clamber
into the cockpit, without even a wing to stand on and nothing above you to grab
onto. Imagine trying to get into the cockpit while wearing a skirt...that was a
consideration, back in the '50s and '60s. Then again, I thought this was once
produced in Scotland, too...:-)

CG-wise, it lacks growth capacity. If you hang a bigger engine on the front,
you can't balance it by shifting the cabin back slightly because the wing spar
passes directly behind the pilot's shoulders.

Years and years ago, I looked into a VW-powered homebuilt with a similar
configuration, the HAPI Cygnet SF-2A. Geeze, I still even have the info pack.
It says, "The Cygnet is designed to use a 60HP VW engine. Anything larger will
weigh too much..." Of course, HAPI was also in the VW engine business.

Back to my first point, the brochure show a woman...in jeans...climbing in. No
way she could do it in a skirt; the cockpit side rails is pretty high.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja schrieb:

Cockpit access issues and CG, would be my guesses.

I don't think so. Cockpit access is no issue, and the pilot sits pretty
near the CG. But if you take a closer look, the pilot's sight is not
that great, either, at least if you believe that the pilot should be
able to look over his shoulder before turning:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Bo208C_HB-UPF_68.jpg

The main disadvantage is the wing spar which prevents a reasonable and
easy accessible luggage room behind the pilot and which limits the whole
design to two seaters.