Skycather's not TOO ugly, just needs tailwheel

On Jan 10, 6:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote om:



On 2008-01-11, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:9a6dc13d-0a34-4154-84ba-
:
I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the
passengers into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really
bad.
FRom what I've read, they're not so good in a crash. Wood is supposed
to be even worse, with aluminum considerably better and all bested by
good old fashioned steel tubing.

I dunno how they are in general, but my roommate's dad crashed his
Quickie, and said that it looked like one of those styrofoam beer
coolers that had been hit ont he freeway: lots and lots of tiny little
pieces.

He wasn't hurt too badly, however; biggest problems were fractures to
the left kneecap and heel.

I only know what I've read in Sport Aviation and such about this. Some guys
in RAH would know for sure abou tthe statistics, though. I know someone who
had a bad one in a Long Eze and wlaked away from it. Engine failure and an
off runway landing. He skipped along the ground like a sled shedding pieces
of airplane as he went. He was bruised but OK. Anectdotal stuff doesn't
tell you much though, you have to look at like vs like. Steel tube is way
ahead of everything else, though. It absorbs energy better than
anything.Wood is supposed to be the worst.

Bertie
I've read of at least one guy who crashed his tube-and-rag affair
while doing an aerobatic routine at an airshow, and the medics had to
hacksaw him out of the wreck. He'd been pierced by a few chunks of
busted tubing.
I don't think there's any ideal construction. They all have
their shortcomings. Best not to crash them at all:-)

Dan

wrote in
:

On Jan 10, 6:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote
om:



On 2008-01-11, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:9a6dc13d-0a34-4154-84ba-
:
I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the
passengers into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really
bad.
FRom what I've read, they're not so good in a crash. Wood is
supposed to be even worse, with aluminum considerably better and
all bested by good old fashioned steel tubing.

I dunno how they are in general, but my roommate's dad crashed his
Quickie, and said that it looked like one of those styrofoam beer
coolers that had been hit ont he freeway: lots and lots of tiny
little pieces.

He wasn't hurt too badly, however; biggest problems were fractures
to the left kneecap and heel.

I only know what I've read in Sport Aviation and such about this.
Some guys in RAH would know for sure abou tthe statistics, though. I
know someone who had a bad one in a Long Eze and wlaked away from it.
Engine failure and an off runway landing. He skipped along the ground
like a sled shedding pieces of airplane as he went. He was bruised
but OK. Anectdotal stuff doesn't tell you much though, you have to
look at like vs like. Steel tube is way ahead of everything else,
though. It absorbs energy better than anything.Wood is supposed to be
the worst.

Bertie
I've read of at least one guy who crashed his tube-and-rag affair
while doing an aerobatic routine at an airshow, and the medics had to
hacksaw him out of the wreck. He'd been pierced by a few chunks of
busted tubing.
I don't think there's any ideal construction. They all have
their shortcomings. Best not to crash them at all:-)

Oh definitely. But tube structures absorb the impact as near perfectly
as is. That accident probably would have been even harder on the guys
body had he been in a wood airplane. I know of a few ( Stampes, for
instance) that are notorious for collapsing around the pits.
As i said, anectdotal stuff is next to useless. I thnk I have figures
somewhere, probably in an EAA publication. I'll keep an eye out for it
next time I'm rummaging


Bertie

On Jan 10, 6:17*pm, wrote:
On Jan 10, 6:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:





On Jan 10, 5:19 pm, John Smith wrote:

In article ,
*Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare.

Why move just the landing gear when you can move the whole, one-piece
Mooney wing?

I'm still trying to locate the picture. Perhaps he move thed tail
assembly back enough to set the CG aft of the mains?
Unlike a 172, the CG is not close to the mains normally though, its
pretty far forward. In a 172 you have to be careful if a couple big
guys climb in the back that the tail doesn't hit the ground before the
pilot gets in. I"ve never seen this tendancy in my Mooney.

-Robert

* * * * * *Shifting the CG by lengthening the tail or adding weight
will put the airplane's balance in a lethal condition. Main gear
wheels are located with reference to the CG, not the other way 'round.
A taildragger will have its mains roughly 15° ahead of the CG (which,
of course, requires that you know the vertical CG as well as the
longitudinal) in the level flight attitude. The axles will normally be
very close to being directly under the leading edge of the wing, a
long way ahead of the mains on a kiddy-plane--oops, I mean a trike.

Its not clear if the individual in question put as much thought into
the design you have or not. The only claim is that it flew and flew at
least regularly enough to appear at some Mooney events. There is no
claim that it flew well or necessarily even safely.

-Robert

On Jan 10, 7:27*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
John Smith wrote in news:jsmith-C04ACE.20235210012008
@news-server.columbus.rr.com:

If the above photo is not enough let me know & I'll hunt for some
more. I have lot's of pictures of various 150s, 152s & 172s with all
the mods but my scanner is inop at the moment.

What I would like to see is the belly skin removed and a before and
after image of the gear relocation.

I think therfe was a nice article of a straight tail 172 Texas taildragger
conversion in a recent Sport Aviation. The owner did it himself, I think .
Put a big engine in it, some STOL mods and had a poor man's 180. looked
pretty cool and he did a real nice job on it.

Bertie

If you can tell me the issue of Sport Aviation this is in I would be
very interested in obtaining it.

Thanks,

Ricky

Ricky wrote in
:

On Jan 10, 7:27*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
John Smith wrote in
news:jsmith-C04ACE.20235210012008 @news-server.columbus.rr.com:

If the above photo is not enough let me know & I'll hunt for some
more. I have lot's of pictures of various 150s, 152s & 172s with
all the mods but my scanner is inop at the moment.

What I would like to see is the belly skin removed and a before and
after image of the gear relocation.

I think therfe was a nice article of a straight tail 172 Texas
taildragger

conversion in a recent Sport Aviation. The owner did it himself, I
think .

Put a big engine in it, some STOL mods and had a poor man's 180.
looked pretty cool and he did a real nice job on it.

Bertie

If you can tell me the issue of Sport Aviation this is in I would be
very interested in obtaining it.

Last couple of months. Dec or Nov, I think. I have this months (jan) next
to me and it's not in there. I'll have a look.


Bertie

On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
[back country camping]
Nice. I think if I were to go for an airplane for that mission it would
be a bearhawk or even just an old Pacer.
I like rags.

An Auster Autocrat upgraded to 160 hp works really well for that too :-)
With no glider in tow, ours gets airborne using very, very little
runway. If the Atlantic wasn't in the way I'd take ours to Idaho for a
bit.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On Jan 11, 4:39 am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
[back country camping]

Nice. I think if I were to go for an airplane for that mission it would
be a bearhawk or even just an old Pacer.
I like rags.

An Auster Autocrat upgraded to 160 hp works really well for that too :-)
With no glider in tow, ours gets airborne using very, very little
runway. If the Atlantic wasn't in the way I'd take ours to Idaho for a
bit.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

I once owned an Auster AOP VI. Fantastic short-field
performance. I miss that airplane.

Dan

I'm still looking for that 172 article! It wasn't the Nov issue anyway...

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:48:33 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I would expect that the composite construction would make
it much harder to convert. No hard points and difficult to retrofit
them.

What composite construction. The Skycatcher is an aluminum airplane,
except for the composite engine cowling.

Really, it's a warmed over C-150 (which is itself a warmed over C-140)
with reduced gross weight to meet the LSA restrictions. I can't
imagine spending over 100 big ones on it.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never entertain wicked thoughts...Wicked thoughts entertain me.

On 2008-01-19, Dana M Hague wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:48:33 -0800 (PST),
What composite construction. The Skycatcher is an aluminum airplane,
except for the composite engine cowling.

Indeed.

Really, it's a warmed over C-150 (which is itself a warmed over C-140)
with reduced gross weight to meet the LSA restrictions. I can't
imagine spending over 100 big ones on it.

Not to mention waiting till 2011, as the Cessna sales rep told me today...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390