Your fancy schmancy dream machine

My tuppence-worth comments on the goals listed at the bottom of the
linked page:

Goals:
Raise awareness in the general aviation public of the advantages of
the inline twin configuration to drive new product development with
regulatory relief in the form of:
1) In regards to pilot licensing, petition FAA to count the number of
thrust lines rather than the number of engines. Would allow single
engine pilots to fly in-line twins such as the Cessna 337 with just a
type checkout like any other new aircraft. This being done to reflect
the particular training requied to handle the most serious issue in
tradition twin engine aircraft: yaw moment induced by loss of power on
one side, especially at low airspeeds.


IIRC, inline-twin is a separate category. Just because you're rated
to fly a 337 doesn't mean you can strap on an Apache. The feds
already recognize the distinction.


2) Petition FAA to allow for longer (2x?) intervals between mandatory
service/inspection for aircraft using in-line twin configuration due
to robust operation of inline twin configuration.


Doesn't make sense. The complexity of a system drives the inspection
/ MX schedule. The location of the system's components has little to
do with its complexity.


3) Petition FAA to allow otherwise compliant twin aircraft with a
single line of thrust (but 2 engines) to be part of the new "Sport"
aircraft classification.


Works fer me.

4) And regarding Sport classification, remove top speed limitation,
the stall speed requirement is sufficient; if someone can build a wing
with low speed stall characteristic and high top speed, then we'd all
like to have it.


A wing with those characteristics needs moving parts such as Fowler
flaps and slats. Think 727. That's likely to either be so heavy as
to outweigh the category, or require such exotic materials as to be
unaffordable.

----clip----


4) And regarding Sport classification, remove top speed limitation,
the stall speed requirement is sufficient; if someone can build a wing
with low speed stall characteristic and high top speed, then we'd all
like to have it.


A wing with those characteristics needs moving parts such as Fowler
flaps and slats. Think 727. That's likely to either be so heavy as
to outweigh the category, or require such exotic materials as to be
unaffordable.

The 727 is the dirtiest bird I ever saw when configured for landing on
final approach. I thing they hang everything out except the kitchen
sink. G

Some 727 history.

When the 727 first came out, the final approach speed had been
established by test pilots. They were able to transition from the high
drag landing configuration and flare properly to make a safe landing
without stalling. This (while by the book) approach speed was as low
as possible to qualify the bird for landing on some of the short
commercial runways.

When bird became operational with the Airlines there were a couple of
hard landings (crashes) where the bird (and some passengers) received
serious damage because the pilots flared and stalled due to high drag
from landing configuration.

Airlines were about ready to stop flying the bird when someone
suggested that the approach speed be increased 3-5 MPH to allow time
line pilots to flare and make normal landing. From then on every one
knows the success of the 727 for years and years.


And another round of hanger flying G


Big John


One of the landing accidents was at Salt Lake City. High density
altitude, etc. Bird fell out of the sky on flare and hit in the over
run short of R/W.

Thanks for contributing your 2 bits Corrie... read below...

(Corrie) wrote in message . com...
My tuppence-worth comments on the goals listed at the bottom of the
linked page:

Goals:
IIRC, inline-twin is a separate category. Just because you're rated
to fly a 337 doesn't mean you can strap on an Apache. The feds
already recognize the distinction.

I should go correct that, what I mean is to put it in the same
catagory as singles, so you only need a type checkout, like going from
a C-150 to a Piper Tomahawk.

Doesn't make sense. The complexity of a system drives the inspection
/ MX schedule. The location of the system's components has little to
do with its complexity.

Think of Christmas tree lights. Type A puts 'em all in series, lose
one and you've lost 'em all, type B puts 'em in parallel, loose one,
and you've only lost 2% of your christmas spirit.

If your car brake system didn't have 2 parallel and independant
circuits you'd have more regular service required, but since its a
cross coupled redundant system, you can get away with all sorts of
abuse and neglect and still hardely ever have a total brake failure.
Its the same idea here with the in-line twin, since you have a fail
soft condition, you can afford to spend less money inspecting and
reinspecting your known working system.

The way in which the system is arranged has everything to do with its
composit reliability.

3) Petition FAA to allow otherwise compliant twin aircraft with a
single line of thrust (but 2 engines) to be part of the new "Sport"
aircraft classification.

Works fer me.

great!

4) And regarding Sport classification, remove top speed limitation,
the stall speed requirement is sufficient; if someone can build a wing
with low speed stall characteristic and high top speed, then we'd all
like to have it.


A wing with those characteristics needs moving parts such as Fowler
flaps and slats. Think 727. That's likely to either be so heavy as
to outweigh the category, or require such exotic materials as to be
unaffordable.

If thats REALLY the case, why make the rule then? The other rules
(and those of nature) would seem to dictate this top speed by default.
But in the mean time, maybe we'll see something people hadn't
considered because they've been made possible by recent materials
developments or computer technology.

Jay I took a look at your design concept and your web page. It is a fantastic
concept but I would really hate to be in it flying somewhere always looking at
where I had been instead of where I was going.
I took the liberty to copy a couple some things here for the sake of discussion
that you say on your web page which I take exception with and almost find
offensive to those of us that take pride in the aircraft we built and fly.

--------------------------------------

and economics has a direct effect on public saftey bacause:

* Expensive up-keep is more likely to be put off.
* Engine replacement will be put off long past when it should be.
* Used engines and components (no joke) will be used and reused in active
aircraft.
* More likely that a broken or worn part will try to be repaired instead of
replaced as it should be.
* Airframe manufacturers are more likely to underpower their aircraft to
reduce cost of goods sold, and increase the proportion of the aircraft that they
build.

-----------------------------------------
I find fault in just about everything you say in the above sentences, I do not
believe that any of it is true and to try to sell a concept on the above
statements is wrong IMO. I post this here because I would like you to submit any
proof you have that the above is true. don't get me wrong I wish you all the
luck in the world with your design but lets keep it real.

Jerry

I liked his concept of design too Jerry. But I think the guy is
either a guy who never built an airplane then maintained it or he's
just a statistical outlier. Nobody I know who has an experimental
flying machine whether it be a helicopter, balloon or airplan takes
the short cuts he proposes. I know YOU don't, and I never have.

-- Expensive up-keep is too bad, but it is what it is. If you don't
do it, you die.

--Engine replacement is usually done long before it's needed. When
things start to show significant wear, the engine is rebuilt. I've
done it, you've done it.

--Used parts that are time proven are better than new parts in many
cases. Take a CAM. Once a CAM has proved to you it doesn't have some
goofy area in it that wears away in the first 1000 hours, you
reprofile it and use it again. It's much safer than a new CAM, casted
with some new ****ing alloys that have not been run 1000 hours. Same
wtih an engine case. Give me one that's been cycled 2000 times and
I'll build you an engine where the case won't crack.

-- I dont' get the broken part piece. It depends on the part. For
christ's sake, I had a broken NAV light the other day. I bought a new
one. I don't get his point there at all. If a part is critical and
it's busted...and it can't be fixed to new specs, then no homebuilder
I know would want to risk his ass on it. You buy a new one, or you
fix the bad one to original or better than new specs.

-- I don't see this. What albout the Harmon Rocket? The Glassair?
The Lancair. Christ. All of them are like flying a Lycoming strapped
to your back. What is this underpowered engine ****? This guy is
just writing to see his name show up on the screen.

I find fault in just about everthing he says too. He's just a big bag
of wind like most of the rest of RAH.

It always has been and it will always be...because the idiots and the
Galactically stupid muther ****ers can post here and act like the real
guys who have done it for real and done it for years...guys like you
and guys like me.

BWB

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!!!

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/

Richard Lamb wrote ...

... get started - on something.


And THAT is the fundamental difference between a dream machine and a flying machine.

Daniel

I'd love to. But it's probably going to be at least a year, perhaps
three, before I'm able to *begin* construction on an airplane. Y'see,
I have some "home-building" projects queued up ahead of the
"homebuilt" project.

However, please feel free to explain to my wife why I need an airplane
before she gets a garage, or the kids get their own bedrooms. I'll
show her the best of them, and post her responses here.

Corrie - planning ahead



(Daniel) wrote in message . com...
Richard Lamb wrote ...

... get started - on something.


And THAT is the fundamental difference between a dream machine and a flying machine.

Daniel

On 30 Jul 2003 09:33 AM, Corrie posted the following:
I'd love to. But it's probably going to be at least a year, perhaps
three, before I'm able to *begin* construction on an airplane. Y'see,
I have some "home-building" projects queued up ahead of the
"homebuilt" project.

However, please feel free to explain to my wife why I need an airplane
before she gets a garage, or the kids get their own bedrooms. I'll
show her the best of them, and post her responses here.

I can't help you much with the bedrooms issue, but at some point you are
going to have to explain to your wife that the garage (henceforth to be
known as the "shop") is for building the airplane, and not for storage
of automobiles and/or overflow of household items. You might as well
start prepping her for the idea, rather than hitting her with it all at
once. My own "shop" is not terribly huge, but it works fine for my
purposes since the ground transportation sleeps outside. I don't know
where you live, but it works for me here in Anchorage, so quitcher
bitchin and start building.

Though on second thought, I am reminded of a friend of mine, who grew up
sleeping on the couch in his parents' living room since his dad wasn't
willing to give up the gun room....

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Corrie wrote ...

I'd love to. But ... I have some "home-building" projects
queued up ahead of the "homebuilt" project.

Me too. Floor beams & joists, plumbing, septic, 2 & 1/2 baths, all
wiring, new kitchen, 3.5 tons of ceramic tile, roof, dual heating &
AC, attic insulation, french doors, brick work.... The plus side of
it is that I find a great many new tools and materials are
indispensible for plane building. Ooops, I mean homebuilding.

"Can't put on new roof without a big air compressor."
"Gotta have a big router to duplicate interior trim."
"Yes honey, that's a LOT of sandpaper, but it's cheaper that way."
"Yes, I need a LONG workbench, it's faster to finish 2 doors at once."
"Of course we need a disc/belt sander."
"Spraying gives a better finish"
"That aluminum? I used it to line up the walls. It's straighter than
wood & I'll find another use for it."
"The angle grinder? For cutting off nails & rebar."
"A random orbit sander is a must to refinsih those cabinets."
"My old drill bits were shot."
"You need good bolts or we'll end up redoing it in 4 years."
"You need a high quality paint mask with this varnish."
"You need MEK to clean it before you seal it & 5 gallon pails are much
cheaper."

The possibilities are endless, but you have to be careful. I'm open
to suggestions. Strobe lights to keep kids from falling in the hole
for the septic tank might not fly.

Daniel