A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Texas Parasol Plans...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 12th 06, 01:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

And my apologies to the rest of the group for airing
dirty laundry in public...

Richard
Ads
  #12  
Old February 12th 06, 01:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans at Matronics


We're up!

http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/...006/index.html

  #13  
Old February 12th 06, 01:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans are on line at Matronics


http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/...006/index.html



Enjoy.

Richard
  #14  
Old February 12th 06, 01:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:33:20 GMT, Richard Lamb wrote:

And my apologies to the rest of the group for airing
dirty laundry in public...


Absolutely no problem, Richard, I appreciated hearing your side of it.
Congratulations on getting the plans online for free downloading... wish we
could do that with the Fly Baby.

Ron Wanttaja

  #15  
Old February 12th 06, 02:31 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:33:20 GMT, Richard Lamb wrote:


And my apologies to the rest of the group for airing
dirty laundry in public...



Absolutely no problem, Richard, I appreciated hearing your side of it.
Congratulations on getting the plans online for free downloading... wish we
could do that with the Fly Baby.

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks, Ron.

It would be no problem, technically, to put the plans in machine form.
Well, other than the legality issues...
Find a solution to that one and I can have them ready in a week or two.

I think I was about 12 years old when Air Progress Homebuilt issue presented
the Fly Baby. I wanted one so bad I could taste the spruce.

I still think it's one of the all time best all wood amateur built designs.
A real classic.

Always will be too.

Richard
  #16  
Old February 12th 06, 02:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...


Richard Lamb wrote:


Those drawings are straight from my first parasol.
And yes, I did fly it just as it is drawn, with the exception
of using a VW on it rather than a Rotax.

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

That's a lie and Richard knows it.

The set of plans Richard has posted are the same ones he sold to me
(and many others) for $80. As of February, 2003, I had identified
numerous errors in the plans and provided corrections to several other
builders. Richard's contribution was to refer to my questions as
'yammering.'

I was trained to audit blueprints for errors but the errors in the
Parasol drawings will be obvious to all -- compare the dimensions of
the cabanes to the width of the fuselage, or the dimensions shown for
the landing gear/strut carry-throughs.

Richard built a plane. And Richard made some drawings. But the
drawings depict parts that COULD NOT FIT TOGETHER. The extent of the
errors made it clear that they were not simple typos -- they appeared
to be for a fuselage OTHER than the one shown in the drawings. This
lead to an interesting series of exchanges between Richard and I in
2003, because if you modified the carry-throughs to attach to the
fuselage, it caused interference between the landing gear or the
struts. So which did he adjust? He could offer no explanation, making
it painfully clear that he had NOT designed the airframe and had taken
measurements from at least two airframes in creating 'his' drawings,
which he then sold to the public at eighty bucks a whack. Waytago,
Richard.

Since the parts don't fit, the plane won't fly, which makes any
question of safety moot. But in the process of discovering that you'll
**** away a lot of money on metal that will end up being unusable.

I still have the file of drawings, should anyone be interested. But
which way you go with the corrections is up to you -- I abandoned the
project when it became obvious it was a scam.

-R.S.Hoover

  #17  
Old February 12th 06, 03:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:29:46 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:

Well, folks, there you have it.
The experts have again spoken.

Clare, I can understand your anger.
But it's misplaced.
You got had.
But not by me.
I did everything I could to warn you guys.
Although I wonder if Gary ever passed that on to you.


No- Gary built a wing according to plans and sandbag tested it under
an engineer's supervision. The engineer stopped the loading before
failure because of excessive deflection IIRC.

He took a design with a 350 pound recommended empty weight and
built something else.


No fuselage was included in the testing

Beefed up fuselage structure, .065 wall
spars (which did nothing to add strength - just cheaper),
ALL METAL SKINS on the fuselage AND wing, and converted auto engines.


No, the fuselage was NEVER FINISHED NO ENGINE WAS EVER INSTALLED.
What was the final weight you guys came up with? 550? 650? Empty!

But the answer was always, "But that's the way we want it".

No, you are fantacising.

So Gary offered to hired an engineer to design a wing compatible
with your wants. But that gentleman died before finishing the
work - and now it's MY problem? Sorry, guy. No way.

That's why I finally bit down and asked you guys not to call
it by the Texas Parasol or Chuckbird name.


It's not - and you damned well know it.

Those drawings are straight from my first parasol.
And yes, I did fly it just as it is drawn, with the exception
of using a VW on it rather than a Rotax.

And sleaves in the spars by your own admission. Which are NOT in the
plans.

Rave if you must, Clare, but there are several dozen of these
planes _flying_ for over 20 years now. Doc, who has been
the test pilot on almost all of these, had over 650 hours on
his "Lucky Lady" when the airfield changed hands and he quit.
Doc loved to play acro with it. Loops (well, tall skinny ones),
spins, rolls. I'll trust my life to his test work because I've
seen what he can do with it.

As for you "analysis"?

So far we've seen NO structural failures, and only one fatality -
on a first flight, ran out of gas and spun it in.
(I can't tell you how hard that was to deal with.)



Changing the subject only a bit...

I went out to Kitty Hawk Airfield last weekend to look at a CGS
Hawk I was hoping to buy. The fellow I met with (Don) was very
knowledgeable about the design - AND that particular airplane.
I'm very impressed with Chuck's design, but I walked (ran?) away
from this airplane.

A few years ago some fool decided the plane needed more power
and mounted an 80 hp Rotax 912 on it. (anybody here familiar
with the Hawk?). On the first takeoff, the engine twisted plumb
off the mount, cut the tailboom off and (obviously) crashed, killing
the pilot.

Don was very up-front and honest about it - and the condition of
the rebuilt machine. The tailboom was extended, the nose also,
and a Rotax 582 installed. It weighs well over 350 pounds.
But many of the other local "experts" call it a POS death trap.

Unfortunately, it is still refered to as a CGS Hawk - and I'll bet my
bottom dollar that Chuck S absolutely hates that.

Just about the same way I feel about what you fellows have done.

Disgusted,

Richard


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
  #19  
Old February 12th 06, 05:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

In article k.net, Richard
Lamb says...
I went out to Kitty Hawk Airfield last weekend to look at a CGS
Hawk I was hoping to buy. The fellow I met with (Don) was very
knowledgeable about the design - AND that particular airplane.
I'm very impressed with Chuck's design, but I walked (ran?) away
from this airplane.

A few years ago some fool decided the plane needed more power
and mounted an 80 hp Rotax 912 on it. (anybody here familiar
with the Hawk?). On the first takeoff, the engine twisted plumb
off the mount, cut the tailboom off and (obviously) crashed, killing
the pilot.


Rich any more info on this crash? I haven't heard about it .Usually any time a
Hawk goes in I hear about it.


Don was very up-front and honest about it - and the condition of
the rebuilt machine. The tailboom was extended, the nose also,
and a Rotax 582 installed. It weighs well over 350 pounds.
But many of the other local "experts" call it a POS death trap.

Unfortunately, it is still refered to as a CGS Hawk - and I'll bet my
bottom dollar that Chuck S absolutely hates that.



Unfortunately it happens more then I'd like it to. Every wants to be a designer
and "improve" your airplane,then when there's problems they drop it on your lap.
They will always call it a Hawk so they can sell it .Then some poor unsuspecting
guy buys it and blames me for the problems because he was told it was a Hawk.


Just about the same way I feel about what you fellows have done.


Understood completely.

See ya

Chuck S

Disgusted,

Richard


  #20  
Old February 12th 06, 06:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...


Richard Lamb wrote:


Well, if it won't fly then I guess it just won't fly...

Glad you opted out, Robert.

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

And that is exactly the kind of flippant, smart-assed response builders
got when they sought information about the errors in the drawings.

Nice job, Richard. You do yourself proud.

-R.S.Hoover

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Richard Lamb and the Texas Parasol Plans ...and Sirius Aviation Richard Lamb Home Built 12 August 9th 05 08:00 PM
want to trade 601 plans for 701 plans [email protected] Home Built 0 January 27th 05 08:50 PM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 05:26 PM
Texas Soars into Aviation History A Piloting 7 December 17th 03 03:09 AM
good book about prisoners of war Jim Atkins Military Aviation 16 August 1st 03 10:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.