Your fancy schmancy dream machine

Richard Lamb wrote:

But for the likes of most of our gentle readers, dream on.

That's what P-51 Syndrome is all about.


And I think that even old Barnyard would agree that tickling someone's
P-51 dreams is a lot better than than discussing the shape of Bill
Clinton's ******.

(Please, for the sake of aviation, SOMEBODY back me up on this one point!!!)

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

Richard

You'll have to define the meaning of the word "is" first.

Big John

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:01:18 GMT, Ernest Christley
wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:

But for the likes of most of our gentle readers, dream on.

----clip----.


And I think that even old Barnyard would agree that tickling someone's
P-51 dreams "is" a lot better than discussing the shape of Bill
Clinton's ******.

(Please, for the sake of aviation, SOMEBODY back me up on this one point!!!)

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:35:24 -0400, David O
wrote:



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.

I look at what I fly...A Debonair (cheap version of the straight
tailed Bonanza)

I look at what I've been building for a couple of years... glasair-III
and I've accumulated almost a whole hour flying one :-))

Were I going to try to utilize all the features I've seen listed, I'd
build *at least* two planes.

So my go faster, high performance plane lands closer to a hundred than
fourty...I don't mind that.

So, the STOL will only cruise at 160 to 180 knots...That's a pretty
good range even if it does take a pretty good sized engine and drink
gas like crazy.

So, it takes two planes to do it. That ain't bad. It could take 3 or
4.

and...by the time I finish the G-III I'll be too old to build another
any way.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)


David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com -- Oshkosh Bound!!!

A "fancy" designed plane may be somewhat harder to build but not
necessarily any harder to fly. I have seen cases where leaning to fly
a super stable forgiving high wing plane seemed to scare pilots from
moving onto the plane they truly wanted to fly. The word "scare" may
be harsh since learning to fly a plane that virtually flies itself
doesn't do a good job of teaching one to fly.
Also the "Over Confident Cessna Pilot" syndrome isn't uncommon. Why
not just learn to fly the plane you want to fly right away rather than
wasting time?

I feel virtually anyone can design and build an airplane if they are
willing to put in the necessary time. Hasn't virtually all the
engineering work been done in the 20s on light planes? As long as one
doesn't stride too far from what has worked in the past I'm confident
that with enough tinkering anyone should be able to design and build
their own airplane. I think I could test fly and learn to fly it at
the same time but this would be an unnecessary risk.

I have thought about a wire braced biplane design but disliked the
slow cruise speed. My dream machine would be an amphibious seaplane, a
tail dragger design for good STOL performance. I'd make a mid engine
design and put the prop. high on the tail using a stabilator for the
necessary powerful elevator. For good cruise (125mph on 50HP) the
plane would be sailplane like, I may use retractable wing tip floats.
With the use of slats and powerful flaps I would try a stepless or a
contoured step.

The main reason I want to design my own plane is that I haven't seen a
design exactly like this. With the high lift wing and good power to
weight getting off the water should be no problem, at least looking at
what has worked in the past.

I have already spent a lot of time on the project and I would need to
spend much more to actually build it. Anyway I like to think of it as
"planning" rather than "dreaming".

Brock

"Brock" wrote in message
om...

I feel virtually anyone can design and build an airplane if they are
willing to put in the necessary time. Hasn't virtually all the
engineering work been done in the 20s on light planes? As long as one
doesn't stride too far from what has worked in the past I'm confident
that with enough tinkering anyone should be able to design and build
their own airplane. I think I could test fly and learn to fly it at
the same time but this would be an unnecessary risk.

Your absolutely right on, Brock! I can't believe that all those assholes
that tried to design and build airplanes since the discovery of fire tried
and failed. They were absolutely so stupid!!!!

I encourage you to grab a drill and a saw and build the machine that
everyone else is incapable of conceiving - much less building. It's about
time that someone with some BRAINS got with the program.

You GO girl!!!

Rich S.

Rich S. wrote:
"Brock" wrote in message
om...

Your absolutely right on, Brock! I can't believe that all those assholes
that tried to design and build airplanes since the discovery of fire tried
and failed. They were absolutely so stupid!!!!


No, they weren't stupid. They just didn't have the advantage of a
library full of books, a dozen computer simulation programs, college
courses, NACA studies printed online.

Some of you snot nosed ****ers are so full of yourselves. Anyone with
above average intelligence can design a build a plane with the right
attitude. Unfortunately, that attitude does not include, "Heh, Bubba.
Watch this!!", but there's no reason to believe that someone can't do it
just because you can't.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:25:51 GMT, Ernest Christley
wrote:

Some of you snot nosed ****ers are so full of yourselves.

I must say, of all the posters in this thread, you seem the most "snot
nosed and full of yourself".

Anyone with above average intelligence can design a build a plane with the right
attitude.

One need only look to the early ultralight years to see the carnage
wrought by the designs of those of "above average intelligence" who
*thought* they had the "right attitude". Many of those designers
lacked experience with time proven airplane designs and building
techniques.

Go build your Delta Dyke, Ernest, and stop bull ****ting about
"advancing the state of aviation" - something of which you clearly
haven't a clue. The original poster suggested that you dreamers
build, fly, and maintain a time proven design first, that's all. If
after that you still want to design and build your dream machine then
have at it. You may still kill yourself in the process but your
chances of building something that doesn't kill you will be better
than if you hadn't built that first time proven design. A simple
concept but, apparently, not simple enough for some.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:25:51 GMT, Ernest Christley
wrote:

Rich S. wrote:
"Brock" wrote in message
om...

Your absolutely right on, Brock! I can't believe that all those assholes
that tried to design and build airplanes since the discovery of fire tried
and failed. They were absolutely so stupid!!!!


No, they weren't stupid. They just didn't have the advantage of a
library full of books, a dozen computer simulation programs, college
courses, NACA studies printed online.

Well put.


Some of you snot nosed ****ers are so full of yourselves. Anyone with
above average intelligence can design a build a plane with the right
attitude. Unfortunately, that attitude does not include, "Heh, Bubba.
Watch this!!", but there's no reason to believe that someone can't do it
just because you can't.

Some of these ****ers are not only so full of themselves, they don't
know **** to boot. Most haven't even soloed by the way they write.
They are the Kitplanes subscribers of the world who have 3 hours in
their logbook mostly. Then they get in here and try to talk the talk
and walk the walk. It's hillarious at times.

Or you have the old ****ers who think they know it all and who've been
flying for40 years but been screwing it up for that 40 years...doing
the same **** wrong over and over, yet, somehow surviving.

RAH, collectively has a mean aviation IQ of about 50. Expect that and
you might get some entertainment out of the place.

Badwater Bill

(Brock) wrote in message . com...
A "fancy" designed plane may be somewhat harder to build but not
necessarily any harder to fly. I have seen cases where leaning to fly
a super stable forgiving high wing plane seemed to scare pilots from
moving onto the plane they truly wanted to fly. The word "scare" may
be harsh since learning to fly a plane that virtually flies itself
doesn't do a good job of teaching one to fly.
Also the "Over Confident Cessna Pilot" syndrome isn't uncommon. Why
not just learn to fly the plane you want to fly right away rather than
wasting time?

I feel virtually anyone can design and build an airplane if they are
willing to put in the necessary time. Hasn't virtually all the
engineering work been done in the 20s on light planes? As long as one
doesn't stride too far from what has worked in the past I'm confident
that with enough tinkering anyone should be able to design and build
their own airplane. I think I could test fly and learn to fly it at
the same time but this would be an unnecessary risk.

Materials have changed quite a bit since then and so has the
availability of computers. There is still lots to try and learn.

I have thought about a wire braced biplane design but disliked the
slow cruise speed. My dream machine would be an amphibious seaplane, a
tail dragger design for good STOL performance. I'd make a mid engine
design and put the prop. high on the tail using a stabilator for the
necessary powerful elevator. For good cruise (125mph on 50HP) the
plane would be sailplane like, I may use retractable wing tip floats.
With the use of slats and powerful flaps I would try a stepless or a
contoured step.

Go ahead and capture your design in X-Plane and see if it'll fly on
50hp. You're going to have to put some wheels on it because I don't
think they're modeling water take-offs (at least not in V5). It won't
tell you if the wings will fall off, and it won't tell you that its
impossible to make a float plane that weights the same as the pilot,
but provided with proper input, it will give you a good run on the
aerodynamics/stability of your model. You know the computer rule:
Garbage in garbage out. People have made some amazing aircraft with
all kinds of weird shapes that really do fly, but usually they would
need the equivalent of something the weight of balsa and the stregth
of steel, or a power plant that puts out 1000hp and weighs 200lbs. Or
the take off speed is over 200mph.

Del Rawlins wrote in message
Two minivans? Man, you really do have problems. That is just sick.

I know, I know. Even worse, my house in the suburbs has a picket
fence. Not a white picket fence - low-maintenance cedar - but it's a
picket fence nonetheless. No dog or cat - allergies - but we make up
for it by having 4 kids. As the song says, who woulda thunk it? In
my defense, my lawn looks really lousy.

Two minivans is the wife's idea. One is fine by me - personally, I
want a pickup as a second vehicle. But the notion of having two
vehicles that the whole fandamly can fit in does make some sense - if
the one (current) van goes down, somebody has to stay home. My wife
doesn't fly, but she does understand redundancy. ;-D

Lawn flamingoes or gnomes?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired