Flying on the Cheap - Wood

Jim Carriere wrote:
wrote:
...

Personally I've seen some very knot-free and fine grain birch and fir at
the local Lowe's. Of course, there is also plenty "doghouse grade" wood.

Lowe's is fifteen minutes closer to me than HD

Other than plywood I've never seen birch in one of the Borgs after
visitng
more than a score of them in four states. Selection is highly
variable,
even within the same company in the same region.

If you don't like what you see in one, go to another.

--

FF

Peter Dohm wrote:

...

Now, if we can just get rid of those damanble dolly launches to transfer the
amphibians from airport to seaplane base--and the belly landings coming
back...


They're working on it.

Meanwhile your options include repostionable floats (leaving the
gear fixed) and motorgliders, which are allowed retracts. Actually,
I haven't found a prohibition against multiple engines for
motorgliders either.

--

FF

Bret Ludwig wrote:
wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
...

Direct drive VW made sense in 1965. Not today. Use a liquid cooled car
engine and a redrive, perhaps a Honda since they are attractively
priced as JDM pulls.

Have you seen many airplanes flying with liquid cooled car
engines and a redrives?

A few.

How many with Honda engines?

Fewer.

Is the CVCC engine better (or worse) for flying than other
auto engines?


The CVCC is rarer than a Lycoming now since the Honda cars made with
it are almost all crushed out. I think they discontinued CVCC in the
_very_ early eighties. Most Honda mechanics working today have never
seen one. You must be a fossil to even remember CVCC.

I remember getting 50 mpg while cruising at 60 mph in my 1300cc
Civic with the CVCC engine turning about 500 rpm slower than
my brother's Toyota Corolla. So I think it was a damn fine
fuel efficient high torque at low rpm engine.


The point is not what is most common today but what would offer the
best prospects for inexpensive, safe flying.

Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
and unsafe to me.

If safety is the ONLY
criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.

I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
every
homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.


...

I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
gear drive could fix that.

Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?

--

FF

P.S. What's a 'JDM pull'?

wrote:

I remember getting 50 mpg while cruising at 60 mph in my 1300cc
Civic with the CVCC engine turning about 500 rpm slower than
my brother's Toyota Corolla. So I think it was a damn fine
fuel efficient high torque at low rpm engine.

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

You're comparing apples to oranges. 50mpg @ 60mph is about 10
horsepower, which tells us the vehicle is fairly light and well
streamlined. But it has nothing to do with airplanes. Expressions
such as 'high torque' and 'low rpm' are meaningless unless quantified,
and if ten horsepower are all you need, there are much lighter engines
than the Honda Civic.

-R.S.Hoover

On 11 Aug 2006 08:09:50 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" wrote:


Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0500, Jim Carriere
wrote:
snip.

Getting an inkling on why Cessna is going to certify its new LSA in *normal*
category, not SLSA? :-)

The fact is that Cessna would be better off just to make the airplane
everyone wants-a 150 hp 150 Aerobat with gear hardpoints for tricycle
or conventional gear (or floats)...

Sorry, don't see it. Few people want conventional gear today; no reason to go
through all the work to certify taildragger versions.

Doubt the market is there for a 150 aerobat, either....there were 5,303 Cessna
150s of 1970 model year or later in the January 2006 FAA aircraft registration
database, and only 257 were Aerobats. That's only ~5% of the fleet...sure
doesn't look like the Aerobat was that popular.

Can you point to any published statistics that show market demand for low-power
(and even 150 HP is "low power") aerobatic taildraggers?

If Cessna certified its new airplane as an LSA, their certification costs would
be much lower. However, they would put themselves at legal risk as owners
re-certify their Cessnas as ELSAs in order to do their own maintenance.

On the other hand, by pursuing Normal category certification, they ensure the
planes remain in as-certified configuration and would be maintained and
inspected by fully-trained mechanics. The certification itself costs more, but
it's a process they're very familiar with.

Ron Wanttaja

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0500, Jim Carriere

wrote:
snip.

Getting an inkling on why Cessna is going to certify its new LSA in
*normal*
category, not SLSA? :-)


The fact is that Cessna would be better off just to make the airplane
everyone wants-a 150 hp 150 Aerobat with gear hardpoints for tricycle
or conventional gear (or floats)-and leave LSA alone. Like CB radio,
LSA is going to turn into a quagmire.

If "quagmire" is defined as something I can buy for 1/4 of what it cost when
it was over-regulated, I'm a big fan. Also, if LSA was going to provide the
relief from the government bureacracy that CB'ers gained 25 years ago,
again, I'm for that too...

Give me quagmire!!!

wrote:
wrote:

I remember getting 50 mpg while cruising at 60 mph in my 1300cc
Civic with the CVCC engine turning about 500 rpm slower than
my brother's Toyota Corolla. So I think it was a damn fine
fuel efficient high torque at low rpm engine.

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

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Respectfully, I was comparing the Honda engine with the Toyota
engine.

... But it has nothing to do with airplanes. ...

That depends on whether or not either one is any good for
airplanes. Which as you point out, is probably not the case.

But I still wonder if the CVCC combustion system would be
good for an airplane engine.

--

FF

wrote:

But I still wonder if the CVCC combustion system would be
good for an airplane engine.

Back in the 70's there was a Honda car TV commercial that featured an
airplane builder that loved his Honda car so much, he powered his plane
with the same engine. It shouldn't be that hard to find out what
happened to that plane.

Tony

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I remember getting 50 mpg while cruising at 60 mph in my 1300cc
Civic with the CVCC engine turning about 500 rpm slower than
my brother's Toyota Corolla. So I think it was a damn fine
fuel efficient high torque at low rpm engine.

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

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Respectfully, I was comparing the Honda engine with the Toyota
engine.

... But it has nothing to do with airplanes. ...

That depends on whether or not either one is any good for
airplanes. Which as you point out, is probably not the case.

He has NO IDEA whether or not Honda car engines would be good or bad
for airplanes. The hardcore DIY converters seem to be much more
interested in the Suzuki/Geo engines, but that doesn't mean the Hondas
would be bad. I have no idea what Honda engines weigh, which since they
have a superior reliability record even in markets like Germany where
people run them WOT for a long time (and since they are used as
outboard powerheads at power settings equal or higher than in the cars,
again with apparently superb reliability) would probably be the main
factor. Of course, most any car engine is going to outperform a
Lycoming today in terms of engine life at WOT. The Lycoming is a 1930s
farm tractor engine built using WWI split crankcase, bolt on cylinder
technology and belongs, really, in a museum. If it were really so great
it would find many other uses besides aircraft. The military used them
in generators and lifeboats and found they were cantankerous and
troublesome and sensibly got rid of them. If only they had reefaged
them instead of selling them surplus they would have done Experimental
aviation a great favor.


But I still wonder if the CVCC combustion system would be
good for an airplane engine.

The CVCC was a low intensity (vis-a-vis Ford PROCO, for example)
stratified charge system designed primarily for emissions compliance
without using catalytic converters, which were very expensive to
maufacture and required unleaded gas which sold at a premium back then.
(I'm old enough to remember the days of "punching" catalysts and filler
restrictors to burn leaded gas at considerable savings-and satisfaction
of F'ing the EPA, which we hated.) Since aircraft engines are not
emissions controlled and unleaded gas is a lot cheaper than avgas, the
advantage is nonexistent.

CVCC was pretty troublesome, to be honest, and there were a fair
number of people who converted their CVCC Hondas to the Canadian
non-CVCC head and carb at some point in the car's lifecycle,
particularly in areas where the cars didn't rust but which were outside
emissions inspection areas-of course, most garages couldn't tell the
difference anyway.

wrote:




Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
and unsafe to me.

The Curtiss OX-5 was the "proven" aircraft engine at one time. if
everyone thought like you it still would be. Designing an airframe
around a Lyc today is more chronologically retarded than if Burt Rutan
had used an OX-5 or OXX-6 in the first VariEze. (Do the math: I'm
right. The OX-5 was a 1915 engine and the VariEze flew in 1975 or so.
The OXX-6 came along in 1921 or so and the Milwaukee Tank aircooled
conversion around then. This is 2006, although that probably has
escaped the attention of the Lycophiles.)


If safety is the ONLY
criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.

Two beefy guys can easily lift a PT-6, at least the small series. A
PT-6A-27 weighs 149 kg according to one Web site on Google.


I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
every
homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.

What does that tell you? MANY homebuilts are marginal airplanes? That
much is true.


...

I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
gear drive could fix that.

Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?

You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.


--

FF

P.S. What's a 'JDM pull'?

Japanese Domestic Market. They scrap cars prematurely to artificially
fluff their new car markets.