Flying on the Cheap - Wood

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...

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

Wayne Paul wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.


Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.


Bert,

Here is a picture of a homebuilt Schreder HP-16T being launched using
1,500
feet of rope hooked to a pickup truck.

http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP...P/N16VP_6b.jpg

Local area pilots have used this technique at the Nampa, ID and
Ontario,
OR
airports as well as from the Alvord Desert dry lake.


Almost all soaring in the US is done by aero tow.

Winch, vehicle and other methods are not very popular in the US but
more so in Europe.


Winch operation are becoming more popular in the US as fuel and insurance
cost continue to escalate.




I always just assumed that terrain and cost were the determining factors and
that aero tow was mainly used in flat terrain. I would expect that with
hills and a little wind the less costly methods would be more
popular--unless the launch point was in the bottom of a valley.

(This is a subject in which I lack experience, but would like to know much
more.)

Peter

pbc76049 (removethis) wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Let's not forget that the articles that prompted this thread were about
how to build a plane with at least the same performance and safety
as many kit planes, but for much less money.


NO.... INCORRECT...........
Lets go back and READ.
The thread started out talking about inexpensive wood sources and how
sometimes
good stuff can be had at box stores like Home Depot. RS Hoover specifically
referenced his past writings on wood selection in post one of this thread.
It had NOTHING to do with performance, just the use of lo buck wood.
SOMEBODY morphed this into a design circular argument, but getting back on
point
isn't on some folks agenda.

How does buying your own wood, instead of buying the wood as
part of a kit, change the performance of the plane?

--

FF

Here is what a Honda engine can do in an airplane:

http://www.firewall.ca/cam100.htm


Hope this helps

J.P.

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.

Here is what a Honda engine can do in an airplane:

http://www.firewall.ca/cam100.htm


Hope this helps

J.P.

I can offer no opinion regarding the longevity at comparable power loadings.
But, they do seem to be honest about the weight comparison.

Peter

On 16 Aug 2006 10:43:03 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


Roger wrote:

airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.


If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

Cheaper? Are you kidding? By the time I finish the G-III (If I ever
do) I'll have more than twice the price of the Deb in it and that is
going with a used engine and prop.


In other words you could have bought a T-6 or an L-39 when you
started and they would now be worth much more than the G-III (I assume
by G-III you do not mean what averyone else I know means by a G-III-a
large Grumman with two turbofans used to haul VIPs and train Shuttle

Any one except those that build their own airplanes. :-))

Actually I could have purchased a relatively low time, very nice L-39
with a brand new (spare) engine still in the can for what I paid for
the Deb or what I have in the G-III. The T-6s were about double that
price back then.

As for wood I'd think, which means I don't know for sure, that pallets
and shipping containers which may look rough, probably have better
wood in them than the stuff we purchase to put into homes now days.
The crate my G-III came in is far better wood than I can find at any
of the local lumberyards except the one that mills the stuff when you
order it. There is a *slight* difference in price.:-))

I should have kept the Ash tree that died in the front yard. It was
out by the power lines so the power company came out, trimmed it and
left me with a 20 foot tallt, stump about 2' across at the base and
over a foot at the top, that must have weighed well over a ton. Man
but that was some dense stuff. OTOH it's a crime to even ship, or
move dead Ash from one location to another around here. (courtesy of
the "Emerald Ash Borer")

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

pilots on approaches.)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:03:51 -0600, "Wayne Paul"
wrote:


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

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.


Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.


Bert,

Here is a picture of a homebuilt Schreder HP-16T being launched using 1,500
feet of rope hooked to a pickup truck.

http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP...P/N16VP_6b.jpg
Good Lord, but that is one BIG photo at full resolution but it doesn't
show the truck . :-))

Not too many years ago (less than 10, maybe 5) they had a sail plane
operation over at Mt Pleasant MI (MOP). No tow plane and apparently
not much money so they used a pickup truck, rope, and pulley
arrangement for launch. The pulley was anchored down toward the
departure end of the runway. This left the pickup going West while the
sail plane went east. It really shortens the amount of runway needed.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Local area pilots have used this technique at the Nampa, ID and Ontario, OR
airports as well as from the Alvord Desert dry lake.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"



Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

This brings to mind several things about building on the cheap.

A couple years ago one of the locals who is not a pilot, but was
interested in building an airplane decided to build an Emeraud.

The project was a prime example of "building on the cheap". The
builder has been in poor health most of his life and has only worked
at a few non demanding odd jobs so he had little money.

He scrounged, for just about everything and eventually ended up with a
good looking airplane. He some where he found an APU with a good 125
HP engine ... Cheap! He did a very nice job of construction and I
think you could probably find examples of just about everything Bob
said in the original post. However when he got to the engine he
didn't have the money for it even if it was cheap. So at this point he
took on a partner with two things in mind. One was money for the
engine and the other was a pilot who could take him for rides in his
airplane.

Welll... best laid plans...
I've mentioned this airplane before. It's the one where the new
partner had only been checked out in, I believe it was a two seat
Cessna tail dragger. The Emeraud with 125 HP was a different animal.

They were doing taxi tests when for some reason instead of easing in
the power the new partner firewalled it. The thing went ballistic with
the nose coming up higher and higher. He panicked and pulled the power
instead of shoving the nose down. So what goes straight up will pretty
much come straight down. Fortunately there was a slight cross wind.
Very slight as it was almost calm, but it was enough. The wing had
enough lift to bring the nose back up and it impacted just to the side
of the runway. It hit hard enough to drive the wheels (with tires)
into the ground far enough for the wing the hit the ground.

The only damage to this "Flying on the Cheap", wood airplane was the
gear and struts ripped off the main spar, a foot long vertical crack
in the bottom fiberglass cowl, and two sets of teeth marks in the
glare shield. Well, the prop was kinda short which meant the engine
had to be rebuilt ... again, but the point is this was one of the
"stick built", scrounged parts, "Flying on the Cheap" airplanes and it
came out of the crash far better than you could have expected from a
Cessna or Piper.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com