Your fancy schmancy dream machine

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

----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.

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!!!)

Richard

Sorry about that. Here is a wet noodle that you may use to get my
attention.

~`~`~`~`~`~`~```~`~`*(o)
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Thats blood dripping from the noodle g.

Big John


On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:43:58 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:

Sorry John, that was Earnie ...




Big John wrote:

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!!!)

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

"Corrie" wrote in message
om...
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.

(Pet peeve: It's "lose," not "loose": You might *lose* your life if
your wing-attach bolts come *loose*. I see this error more and more,
even in the current issue of Custom Planes. It bugs me.)

(Kotter) "Alright, Sweathogs, who's first?"

"Ooo! Oooo! Mista Kotter! Let me! Let me!"

"Since he spelled it 'lose' and 'loose' in the same sentence, he covered all
the bases . No matter which one is right, he can claim a typo on the other
one. You lose! ;o)"


Redundant, fail-safe (or gracefully degrading) systems increase
confidence, yes.

(Kotter) "Okay, Epstien - how about this one?"

(Epstien) "Well, Merriam-Webster says redundant means, 'exceeding what is
necessary or normal : Superfluous'." "I think he should use a more
descriptive word like, 'backup'."

The Sport classification seems to be aimed
at, erm, uh, ok, I'll say it - dilletantes. Folks who want to fly,
but who don't want to (or can't afford to) spend a whole lot of time
and money doing it.

(Kotter) Good - last one. Vinnie, your turn.

(Barbarino) "Lessee - dilletantes. Just like 'loose' it ain't even spelled
right. Try 'dilettantes'. And then there's the usage. Merriam- Webster
defines the word as:

1. an admirer or lover of the arts
2. a person having a superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge
: dabbler
Synonym: see Amateur

Suggest the more descriptive term, 'Tightwad."

(Kotter) "Okay, Hogs. One more question before we go to lunch. Anyone here
know the meaning of 'Net Nazi'?"

Corrie - All tongue in cheek. Rich S.