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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
David, what you say makes a good deal of sense. You can read about a
fancy-schmancy design in this month's Flying - Pete Garrison finally got his Melmoth II in the air. But even first-time builders with modest ambitions may have certain requirements. Example: I'm looking for a moderately-performing 2-place low-wing wood design such as the Piel Emeradue or Cvjetcovic CA-65, with a folding wing so that the aircraft can be stored off-airport and trailered. Is that so much to ask? The kind souls on the Emerauder list have clued me in about one particular 3-piece-wing design for the Piel. With a couple of hours of hard work, it appears possible to remove & replace the outer wing panels - not what I'm looking for. Perhaps the Cvjetcovic design is more "user-friendly" - at least the outer panels stay attached - but information is hard to come by. However, I've got time to do some more digging - I probably won't be able to even begin building for another couple of years. I frankly doubt that I'll be able to build more than one airplane. I'm 41 now. It's clear that the process takes from 5 to 10 years, especially if you have a family - and I do. Maybe I'll have to settle for a Volksplane in the end. But here at the beginning, I prefer to keep my options open. Corrie 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!!! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Corrie wrote:
David, what you say makes a good deal of sense. You can read about a fancy-schmancy design in this month's Flying - Pete Garrison finally got his Melmoth II in the air. But even first-time builders with modest ambitions may have certain requirements. Example: I'm looking for a moderately-performing 2-place low-wing wood design such as the Piel Emeradue or Cvjetcovic CA-65, with a folding wing so that the aircraft can be stored off-airport and trailered. Is that so much to ask? The kind souls on the Emerauder list have clued me in about one particular 3-piece-wing design for the Piel. With a couple of hours of hard work, it appears possible to remove & replace the outer wing panels - not what I'm looking for. Perhaps the Cvjetcovic design is more "user-friendly" - at least the outer panels stay attached - but information is hard to come by. However, I've got time to do some more digging - I probably won't be able to even begin building for another couple of years. I frankly doubt that I'll be able to build more than one airplane. I'm 41 now. It's clear that the process takes from 5 to 10 years, especially if you have a family - and I do. Maybe I'll have to settle for a Volksplane in the end. But here at the beginning, I prefer to keep my options open. Corrie 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!!! A couple of things, Corrie? One, I'd hardly refer to Melmoth II as fancy-schmancy. Maybe it's more airplane than most. But there's nothing wrong with that. And two, IIRC, Melmoth (I?) was a first-time origional design - designed, built, and flown by one man - Pete Garrison. Nothing wrong with that, either. But for the likes of most of our gentle readers, dream on. That's what P-51 Syndrome is all about. For you to build something like Melmoth (either) could indeed take a dozen years or more. (Pete? What was it? 6 year?) There's just so much you have to learn how to do, and do well. It would take me a lot longer than that - just to pay for it! It's just not a reasonable thing for most people to do. Let me offer a suggestion. Take five or siz thoushand bucks and Build something a lot simpler. A SINGLE seater. Perhaps like a Volksplane (although I like my parasol a lot better. Go figure) If you are 41, and you want to build an airplane, you maybe better get off your dead a$$ and get started - on something. Even if it's not a P-51... Richard http://home.flash.net/~lamb01/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Lamb wrote ...
... get started - on something. And THAT is the fundamental difference between a dream machine and a flying machine. Daniel |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
----clip---- 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. The 727 is the dirtiest bird I ever saw when configured for landing on final approach. I thing they hang everything out except the kitchen sink. G Some 727 history. When the 727 first came out, the final approach speed had been established by test pilots. They were able to transition from the high drag landing configuration and flare properly to make a safe landing without stalling. This (while by the book) approach speed was as low as possible to qualify the bird for landing on some of the short commercial runways. When bird became operational with the Airlines there were a couple of hard landings (crashes) where the bird (and some passengers) received serious damage because the pilots flared and stalled due to high drag from landing configuration. Airlines were about ready to stop flying the bird when someone suggested that the approach speed be increased 3-5 MPH to allow time line pilots to flare and make normal landing. From then on every one knows the success of the 727 for years and years. And another round of hanger flying G Big John One of the landing accidents was at Salt Lake City. High density altitude, etc. Bird fell out of the sky on flare and hit in the over run short of R/W. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Lamb wrote:
But for the likes of most of our gentle readers, dream on. That's what P-51 Syndrome is all about. And I think that even old Barnyard would agree that tickling someone's P-51 dreams is a lot better than than discussing the shape of Bill Clinton's ******. (Please, for the sake of aviation, SOMEBODY back me up on this one point!!!) -- ----Because I can---- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/ ------------------------ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Richard
You'll have to define the meaning of the word "is" first. Big John On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:01:18 GMT, Ernest Christley wrote: Richard Lamb wrote: But for the likes of most of our gentle readers, dream on. ----clip----. And I think that even old Barnyard would agree that tickling someone's P-51 dreams "is" a lot better than discussing the shape of Bill Clinton's ******. (Please, for the sake of aviation, SOMEBODY back me up on this one point!!!) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Richard
Sorry about that. Here is a wet noodle that you may use to get my attention. ~`~`~`~`~`~`~```~`~`*(o) ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Thats blood dripping from the noodle g. Big John On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:43:58 GMT, Richard Lamb wrote: Sorry John, that was Earnie ... Big John wrote: Richard You'll have to define the meaning of the word "is" first. Big John On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:01:18 GMT, Ernest Christley wrote: Richard Lamb wrote: But for the likes of most of our gentle readers, dream on. ----clip----. And I think that even old Barnyard would agree that tickling someone's P-51 dreams "is" a lot better than discussing the shape of Bill Clinton's ******. (Please, for the sake of aviation, SOMEBODY back me up on this one point!!!) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I'd love to. But it's probably going to be at least a year, perhaps
three, before I'm able to *begin* construction on an airplane. Y'see, I have some "home-building" projects queued up ahead of the "homebuilt" project. However, please feel free to explain to my wife why I need an airplane before she gets a garage, or the kids get their own bedrooms. I'll show her the best of them, and post her responses here. Corrie - planning ahead (Daniel) wrote in message . com... Richard Lamb wrote ... ... get started - on something. And THAT is the fundamental difference between a dream machine and a flying machine. Daniel |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Corrie" wrote in message
om... Think of Christmas tree lights. Type A puts 'em all in series, lose one and you've lost 'em all, type B puts 'em in parallel, loose one, and you've only lost 2% of your christmas spirit. (Pet peeve: It's "lose," not "loose": You might *lose* your life if your wing-attach bolts come *loose*. I see this error more and more, even in the current issue of Custom Planes. It bugs me.) (Kotter) "Alright, Sweathogs, who's first?" "Ooo! Oooo! Mista Kotter! Let me! Let me!" "Since he spelled it 'lose' and 'loose' in the same sentence, he covered all the bases . No matter which one is right, he can claim a typo on the other one. You lose! ;o)" Redundant, fail-safe (or gracefully degrading) systems increase confidence, yes. (Kotter) "Okay, Epstien - how about this one?" (Epstien) "Well, Merriam-Webster says redundant means, 'exceeding what is necessary or normal : Superfluous'." "I think he should use a more descriptive word like, 'backup'." The Sport classification seems to be aimed at, erm, uh, ok, I'll say it - dilletantes. Folks who want to fly, but who don't want to (or can't afford to) spend a whole lot of time and money doing it. (Kotter) Good - last one. Vinnie, your turn. (Barbarino) "Lessee - dilletantes. Just like 'loose' it ain't even spelled right. Try 'dilettantes'. And then there's the usage. Merriam- Webster defines the word as: 1. an admirer or lover of the arts 2. a person having a superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge : dabbler Synonym: see Amateur Suggest the more descriptive term, 'Tightwad." (Kotter) "Okay, Hogs. One more question before we go to lunch. Anyone here know the meaning of 'Net Nazi'?" Corrie - All tongue in cheek. Rich S. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|