Flying the small block Chevy

Is there an existing design (besides the Mustang and Spitfire scale
replicas) that would nicely take an iron block SBC with a belt redrive?
I figure that would be very popular with builders with hot rod
backgrounds, especially a two seater like a little T-6/Vibrator/Provost
trainer. True a smaller engine would make for a more economical design
using a smaller engine but fuel is still relatively cheap, compared to
everything else in an aircraft.

On 2 Nov 2005 19:16:10 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

Is there an existing design (besides the Mustang and Spitfire scale
replicas) that would nicely take an iron block SBC with a belt redrive?
I figure that would be very popular with builders with hot rod
backgrounds, especially a two seater like a little T-6/Vibrator/Provost
trainer. True a smaller engine would make for a more economical design
using a smaller engine but fuel is still relatively cheap, compared to
everything else in an aircraft.

The republic seabee does very well. You'll have to register it in
Canada in the owner maintenance category though.

I believe the composite "Velocity"/Canard design does quite well with a
Chevy block. Lots of work setting everything up ie. cooling etc.

larry

My Zenith 801 flies nicely with a V-8 in it,,,altho it is an aluminum
block Ford and about the same weight as a full dressed 0-360 Lyc..

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com



Larry wrote:
I believe the composite "Velocity"/Canard design does quite well with a
Chevy block. Lots of work setting everything up ie. cooling etc.

larry

There was a guy in the EAA group I used to belong to who put one in a
Grumman American Yankee. The install looked complete and ready to use -
but he never flew it that I am aware of. Then he moved out of town, so
I have no idea if it was a success or not (I later moved myself).

David Johnson

On 3 Nov 2005 18:22:26 -0800, wrote:
There's at least a couple murphy mooses (meece?) under construction
using them as well. I don't know of any that are flying yet though.

I really don't want an amphib (I know a Spencer Air Car or two had
them) or a big Helio-alike cabin plane. I'd personally really like
something with two seats and the flying qualities, if not the speed, of
a T-6-i.e. a Vultee Vibrator class airplane. Something with the T-6's
virtues and vices- you learn to fly well and fast in a Texan, it has
the mother of all stall breaks-but not round engine operating costs. I
figure a BT-13 has 450 hp (??) and fixed gear, a slightly smaller two
seater with Cherokee Six like wing and power loading would haul an
admittedly overweight 250 hp cruise, 300 T/O hp engine and two old fat
guys around nicely.

On 4 Nov 2005 12:53:16 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

I really don't want an amphib (I know a Spencer Air Car or two had
them) or a big Helio-alike cabin plane. I'd personally really like
something with two seats and the flying qualities, if not the speed, of
a T-6-i.e. a Vultee Vibrator class airplane. Something with the T-6's
virtues and vices- you learn to fly well and fast in a Texan, it has
the mother of all stall breaks-but not round engine operating costs. I
figure a BT-13 has 450 hp (??) and fixed gear, a slightly smaller two
seater with Cherokee Six like wing and power loading would haul an
admittedly overweight 250 hp cruise, 300 T/O hp engine and two old fat
guys around nicely.

Don't know where you are getting your information Bret, but the BT13
was not well liked by pilots and civilians alike. Pilots didn't like
it because it stalled suddenly and precipitiously and displayed in
general, nasty slow speed habits. It killed it's fair share of cadets
in it's day and continues to kill them now. Civilians did not like it
because the prop made such a racket that windows rattled and dishes
fell off shelves whenever it flew by.

If that's what you want, buy one.

Corky Scott

Charles K. Scott wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 12:53:16 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:
snip

Don't know where you are getting your information Bret, but the BT13
was not well liked by pilots and civilians alike. Pilots didn't like
it because it stalled suddenly and precipitiously and displayed in
general, nasty slow speed habits. It killed it's fair share of cadets
in it's day and continues to kill them now. Civilians did not like it
because the prop made such a racket that windows rattled and dishes
fell off shelves whenever it flew by.

The BT-13 is no longer in military training service anywhere and so I
doubt it kills cadets any longer. It probably does kill the odd warbird
owner or two, especially in "bull markets" when incompetents get big
credit lines and buy themselves a toy they can't handle.

The characteristics I want to emulate are those of the T-6, which is
also considered a fearsome beast by the untrained. However, numerous
instructor pilots and military aviators have commented, both in the
literature and in personal discussions I have had with them, that they
felt old school aviators trained in T-6s and tip tank afflicted T-33s
were at advantage over those coming from the relatively viceless Tweet
and Talon.

The idea should be, "if you can fly this airplane properly then when
you get the money a warbird will be a straightforward transition".
However I am not talking about a primary trainer, because it's about
impossible to improve on the venerable Cub (or similar machines like
the Champ/Scout/Citabria) for the role, and because I don't believe
homebuilding is for people without having these basics down before
starting.

I don't advocate making an airplane squirrely on purpose, nor making
it so loud and shaky it causes problems with the citizenry underneath:
but let's face it, you buy a warbird so people will think you have a
pair and pay attention to you. The essential driving mechanism behind
all collectibles markets is WGBD: I just want to provide a way to do it
without destroying a real piece of history, and without getting you
killed unless you really, really need to be filtered out of the gene
pool.

On 7 Nov 2005 11:56:22 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

The BT-13 is no longer in military training service anywhere and so I
doubt it kills cadets any longer. It probably does kill the odd warbird
owner or two, especially in "bull markets" when incompetents get big
credit lines and buy themselves a toy they can't handle.

I think if you check my comment, you'll see I did not say that it was
still killing cadets. But it is still killing pilots still flying it.
One died just this summer not ten miles from where I'm typing this.

Sudden loss of power on takeoff from a private grass strip bordering
the Connecticut river. The pilot turned out over the river and was
probably attempting to make it back to the field with the engine
sputtering and not producing power. The airplane hit in a corn field
short of the runway, nose down. The airplane burned and both
occupants were killed. The pilot was supposedly a very experienced
warbird pilot who was a member of a BT13 association, from what I
gathered from the news. The passenger I think was his son.

Would he have made it in any other airplane? Don't know. All I'm
saying is the slow speed handling qualities are known to be
treacherous.

My preference is to fly for fun without having to be unduly concerned
about what happens when I get slow. Each to their own, you certainly
don't have to listen to me. I wish you well.

Corky Scott