Your fancy schmancy dream machine

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!!!

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!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dave:
Today has been a rare and wonderful one here on RAH.

This post of yours and so many others are
worthy of the Barnyard Seal of Approval
that I hardly know where to begin. g

OTOH...
Could be I've finally filtered out the worst
case lame-o's that cause blood to boil.


Barnyard BOb -- stranger than fiction

Well yes and no. Hey if it weren't for dreamers we'd all be flying spamcans
only, and maybe not even flying. But I'll let the dreamers go first. I'll
be right behind them.

"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!!!

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.

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



You may suggest anything you please.

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

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.

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


P-51 syndrome, David.

If you are never really going to build it, why not build a P-51?
Hellofalot more impressive than some weekend flyer!


I have a friend who wants to build a scaled ME-262 Swallow.
Granted, the guy is an A&P, and he did work on the Stormbirds.
But he's never built an airplane before.

Setting the bar that high on a first time project (especially
a new design first time project), well, I dunno.

People have done it before.

But not many.



Richard

Hey I resemble that remark. By now many of you may have viewed my
fancy dream machine at:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html

And you're pointing out something I've seen a few times here in RAH
and maybe we need a rec.aviation.experimental

Some people want to push the boundaries, even if its only in their own
heads, and try to do something new or better than before. And other
people are happy building what someone else designed, and thats great.
It takes all kinds. There's enough drilling, clecoeing, sanding,
layingup, painting to keep anyone busy, but hopefully you don't spend
so much time on the grunt work that you miss the opportunity to
invent.

Personally I get depressed at the thought of investing years of grunt
labor to end up with an airplane with similar numbers to a Cessna 150.
(Ya, but its MY sheet metal bending skills that made that spam can).
You can have a great time learning how to work various materials, each
one for the first time, and when you pass on, nobody will ever know
that you once got really good at fiberglassing so you could solve that
really tough fairing problem that each and every other builder of that
kit also had to solve. Or you figured out this trick so you could
make a bracket that supported a control rod. I figure people have
already done that before, so its not what interests me.

Someone once asked Edison "What good is an idea by itself?" to which
he responded "What good is a baby?" Its the potential that can become
of it.

So we need to have skilled technicians that can roll sheet, and paint
a smooth coating, but we also need people to concentrate on the
physics and try to really understand the phenomenon that are at work
over that rolled sheet and paint, to push the envelope, "to infinity
and beyond..."

And oh ya, thousands of hours of crop duster time spraying poisonous
chemicals on turnips doesn't make someone an expert in anything except
applying pesticide to crops using an airplane. When I have a question
about that topic I'll keep that persons name in mind.

Jay wrote:
Hey I resemble that remark. By now many of you may have viewed my
fancy dream machine at:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html

And you're pointing out something I've seen a few times here in RAH
and maybe we need a rec.aviation.experimental

Some people want to push the boundaries, even if its only in their own
heads, and try to do something new or better than before. And other
people are happy building what someone else designed, and thats great.
It takes all kinds. There's enough drilling, clecoeing, sanding,
layingup, painting to keep anyone busy, but hopefully you don't spend
so much time on the grunt work that you miss the opportunity to
invent.


Jay I took a look at your design concept and your web page. It is a fantastic
concept but I would really hate to be in it flying somewhere always looking at
where I had been instead of where I was going.
I took the liberty to copy a couple some things here for the sake of discussion
that you say on your web page which I take exception with and almost find
offensive to those of us that take pride in the aircraft we built and fly.

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

and economics has a direct effect on public saftey bacause:

* Expensive up-keep is more likely to be put off.
* Engine replacement will be put off long past when it should be.
* Used engines and components (no joke) will be used and reused in active
aircraft.
* More likely that a broken or worn part will try to be repaired instead of
replaced as it should be.
* Airframe manufacturers are more likely to underpower their aircraft to
reduce cost of goods sold, and increase the proportion of the aircraft that they
build.

-----------------------------------------
I find fault in just about everything you say in the above sentences, I do not
believe that any of it is true and to try to sell a concept on the above
statements is wrong IMO. I post this here because I would like you to submit any
proof you have that the above is true. don't get me wrong I wish you all the
luck in the world with your design but lets keep it real.

Jerry

and economics has a direct effect on public saftey bacause:

* Expensive up-keep is more likely to be put off.
* Engine replacement will be put off long past when it should be.
* Used engines and components (no joke) will be used and reused in active
aircraft.
* More likely that a broken or worn part will try to be repaired instead of
replaced as it should be.
* Airframe manufacturers are more likely to underpower their aircraft to
reduce cost of goods sold, and increase the proportion of the aircraft that they
build.

-----------------------------------------
I find fault in just about everything you say in the above sentences, I do not
believe that any of it is true and to try to sell a concept on the above
statements is wrong IMO. I post this here because I would like you to submit any
proof you have that the above is true. don't get me wrong I wish you all the
luck in the world with your design but lets keep it real.

Jerry
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jay is your basic harmless delusional WANNABEE chatterbox
living in LA LA LAND, wanting to play with big boys before
he has grown up. He attracts like minded choir boys, so....
not too much to worry about and it keeps him off the streets.


Barnyard BOb --

Read comments interspursed below...

Jerry Springer wrote in message rthlink.net...

Jay I took a look at your design concept and your web page. It is a fantastic
concept but I would really hate to be in it flying somewhere always looking at
where I had been instead of where I was going.

That was in the early drawings when I was trying to figure out a way
to control the CG for a tandem seating close enough to be able to
still use a high aspect wing and not always be a little nose heavy
(for stability) or have to adjust ballast (sailplane style). I've
riden backwards (adjacent escape door) on commercial jets and apart
from takeoff and landing, as a passenger, you'd never know the
difference. When you're up high, and the ground is just crawling by,
it isn't a problem. A lot of 2 seaters are mainly used as a one
seater with the occassional buddy or wife that wants a ride. Why
penalize the balance of the whole plane just for a non-flying
passenger?

I took the liberty to copy a couple some things here for the sake of discussion
that you say on your web page which I take exception with and almost find
offensive to those of us that take pride in the aircraft we built and fly.

Didn't mean to offend, but I'd have to admit it was written in a way
to ellicit a response and get people thinking. I know a lot of people
buy used engines for their homebuilts, it doesn't mean I hate your
airplane, the economics force the decision. Did you know that since
this post came out, over 100 people have looked at the page and only
you and BOb have bothered to write anything? I'll address each point
in order below...

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

and economics has a direct effect on public saftey bacause:

Nobody in the government cares to change anything unless they might
get in trouble for not acting. So by putting it in the context of a
public safety issue, it just might get some administrator to take a
look see and reconsider how the economics and locations of GA airports
have changed since 1950. The real reason is selfish. I don't like
having to fly around constantly plotting my next emergency landing
spot because a single point failure in the most complex sub-system
(AKA engine) of my plane has decided to fail. When I rent a plane I
don't get the opportunity (or have the ability) to do the kind of
diagnostic required to really ensure I won't suffer a loss of power in
flight. Who knows what the history on the engine is or if a wasp
decided the week before to build a nest somewhere in the induction
system. Checking the oil, and looking for water in the gas is just
the beginning of what you'd really need to do to know for sure. It
may not matter as much if you're flying in Kansas, but in LA, its
nothin but houses 25 miles in each direction surrounded by a ring of
mountains and ocean.

* Expensive up-keep is more likely to be put off.

You're average Joe is going to do just enough to get things signed off
till next year. If he doesn't like what his mechanic has to say, he
might find another one next time.

* Engine replacement will be put off long past when it should be.

Replacing one valve here, or cylinder there, and leaving the rest old
just isn't the most reliable approach, but because the parts are so
expensive, thats what a lot of people do.

* Used engines and components (no joke) will be used and reused in active
aircraft.

At my EAA chapter someone was referring to the engine in their plane
as "the one from that crashed EZ a few years back". I'm sorry, but a
set of calipers ain't gunna prove thats its good as new. The
metalurgy required to really know for sure is just too impractical.

* More likely that a broken or worn part will try to be repaired instead of
replaced as it should be.

I hate to buy anything with moving parts that has been used by someone
else. You have no way of really knowing what abuse its been through
and how much life it has left. Do you really want to gamble your
health and that of the random people below you that the guy selling
you that engine is going to be completely honest (or even fully
understand) the condition of that used engine parted out to fix yours?

* Airframe manufacturers are more likely to underpower their aircraft to
reduce cost of goods sold, and increase the proportion of the aircraft that they
build.

This was for all those light twin guys that were saying "the twin I
fly, on single engine, will climb at -200fpm at gross" That airplane
is either underpowered or its gross is over rated, pick one. So the
airframe manufacturer didn't want to give 50% of his selling price to
Continental, but he wanted to advertise a large lift, so this is what
you get.

We had a big discussion about this several months back under the topic
"2 ordinarly vs one extrodinary" or something like that. Back then I
didn't have any renderings or modeled numbers to show what I was
imagining.

-----------------------------------------
I find fault in just about everything you say in the above sentences, I do not
believe that any of it is true and to try to sell a concept on the above
statements is wrong IMO. I post this here because I would like you to submit any
proof you have that the above is true. don't get me wrong I wish you all the
luck in the world with your design but lets keep it real.

Jerry

My tuppence-worth comments on the goals listed at the bottom of the
linked page:

Goals:
Raise awareness in the general aviation public of the advantages of
the inline twin configuration to drive new product development with
regulatory relief in the form of:
1) In regards to pilot licensing, petition FAA to count the number of
thrust lines rather than the number of engines. Would allow single
engine pilots to fly in-line twins such as the Cessna 337 with just a
type checkout like any other new aircraft. This being done to reflect
the particular training requied to handle the most serious issue in
tradition twin engine aircraft: yaw moment induced by loss of power on
one side, especially at low airspeeds.


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.


2) Petition FAA to allow for longer (2x?) intervals between mandatory
service/inspection for aircraft using in-line twin configuration due
to robust operation of inline twin configuration.


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.


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.

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.