Interesting biplane project... look at the wing profile

On Dec 2, 2:07*pm, "Morgans" wrote:

It says right in the descriptions, that this is not intended to fly, but
driven in a parade, or as an advertising gimmick.

I'm pretty sure that text was not in the original item description. I
think it was added during the Dec-02-08 10:53:13 PST revision.

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 2:07 pm, "Morgans" wrote:

It says right in the descriptions, that this is not intended to fly, but
driven in a parade, or as an advertising gimmick.

I'm pretty sure that text was not in the original item description. I
think it was added during the Dec-02-08 10:53:13 PST revision.
*********************************

Morgans wrote:
That explains a good deal.

It was pretty obvious that thing would never fly. If someone paid money for
plans or sketches of that, and it was built close to specifications, it
would be an understatement to say that they had been taken, big time.

Way over built; wood too large, way too much of it. Hardware quality stuff
everywhere, it would appear. An engine that size is intended to fly
something in the 254 pound (old ultralight rules) class, not a 500 plus
pound monster with "questionable" aerodynamics. g

I don't know how much that engine is worth, but perhaps the value of the
engine, and the heat all that wood would supply in a fireplace or wood stove
may make it an acceptable deal! g
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
|
| "Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
| ...
| On Dec 2, 2:07 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
|
| It says right in the descriptions, that this is not intended to fly, but
| driven in a parade, or as an advertising gimmick.
|
| I'm pretty sure that text was not in the original item description. I
| think it was added during the Dec-02-08 10:53:13 PST revision.
| *********************************
|
| Morgans wrote:
| That explains a good deal.
|
| It was pretty obvious that thing would never fly. If someone paid money
for
| plans or sketches of that, and it was built close to specifications, it
| would be an understatement to say that they had been taken, big time.
|
| Way over built; wood too large, way too much of it. Hardware quality
stuff
| everywhere, it would appear. An engine that size is intended to fly
| something in the 254 pound (old ultralight rules) class, not a 500 plus
| pound monster with "questionable" aerodynamics. g
|
| I don't know how much that engine is worth, but perhaps the value of the
| engine, and the heat all that wood would supply in a fireplace or wood
stove
| may make it an acceptable deal! g
| --
| Jim in NC
|

Considering the price of engines these days, I emailed for details out of
curiosity. He says it's a 25 hp Mercury, and assumes it 440cc from searching
the internet. ?????????????

He did volunteer in his first sentence that the prop was not airworthy.

A clean wing, like the Mitchell, will fly very well on 25 hp. But there are
probably lighter 25 hp, two-strokes around.

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...m=260325125475

Item number 260325125475 if that URL doesn't work for you.

The thing I'm curious about is the wing profile. Sections like that
seem to work for the F-117 stealth fighter. But it seems a bit out of
place on this aircraft.

Thanks, Bob K.
Way to wierd to fly! Plus I can't imagine the thing would lift the nose
as the owner noted. 500# empty weight, 290 pound pilot and a 440cc
engine (which, if I recall, is about 35 HP)? That is one goofy shaped
airfoil for sub-sonic use (I'm making the assumption here that the thing
is designed to be sub-sonic!). I can't imagine getting too many bids on
that contraption...

Scott

On Dec 2, 3:08*am, Scott wrote:
*I can't imagine getting too many bids on
that contraption...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Scott,

I'm willing to be surprised :-)
A closer inspection may reveal a wealth of instruments and components
-- in addition to the engine -- that may be worth salvaging.

-R.S.Hoover

This based on my experience with 'out of the box' models I have
designed.

1. With enough thrust, probably would get off ground if enough control
(elevator) to get a positive angle of attack. At a slow (relatively)
speed, lift might only consist primarily of "flat plate" (bottom of
airfoil).
2. Would only have normal flight characteristics with a POSITIVE angle
of attack. Drag with a positive angle of attack would of course
require more thrust.
3. As wing approached zero angle of attack, any slip stream variation
(gust, etc) would cause wing to tuck and flight would take an unknown
trajectory. (probably beyond recovery?).

Bottom line. Just an accident waiting to happen if gotten airborne.

Big John
************************************************** ******************

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:27:11 -0800 (PST), Bob Kuykendall
wrote:

On eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...m=260325125475

Item number 260325125475 if that URL doesn't work for you.

The thing I'm curious about is the wing profile. Sections like that
seem to work for the F-117 stealth fighter. But it seems a bit out of
place on this aircraft.

Thanks, Bob K.