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
|
|||
|
|||
2nd airplane
On Aug 29, 12:13 pm, wrote:
Well-said. Just because something has the horsepower doesn't mean you need to use it. NOR does it inherently mean that you're going to lose much speed. The drag of the airframe determines how fast you go. The amount of horsepower you're using determines how much fuel you burn. As I've said in previous posts about this, compare the numbers for different engines on the same airframe (e.g. PA28 or PA24). In a PA-28 for instance, you can go from 10 gph to 7.5 gph and only lose 5-10 mph. With something like a 182 I'm sure it's even more. As a current Mooney owner and former Aeronca and J-3 pilot I can assure you that you cannot do Aeronca./J-3 type flying in a Mooney. The problem is that the comfortable flying speed is so much higher that you need to be higher off the ground and have less ability to just play around. When you're going 2 or 3 times faster you cover more ground and have more terrain, etc to worry about. In the J-3 flying at 300 feet over farms was no big deal because you were doing 50 mph. -Robert |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
2nd airplane
-----Original Message----- From: Robert M. Gary ] Posted At: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:22 PM Posted To: rec.aviation.owning Conversation: 2nd airplane Subject: 2nd airplane On Aug 29, 12:13 pm, wrote: .... As a current Mooney owner and former Aeronca and J-3 pilot I can assure you that you cannot do Aeronca./J-3 type flying in a Mooney. The problem is that the comfortable flying speed is so much higher that you need to be higher off the ground and have less ability to just play around. When you're going 2 or 3 times faster you cover more ground and have more terrain, etc to worry about. In the J-3 flying at 300 feet over farms was no big deal because you were doing 50 mph. -Robert Exactly what I was thinking; it would be very difficult to get a Bo, or Mooney, or even a 172 down and stopped in under 300' on grass like you can with a Birddog or Cub or Airknocker. I didn't intentionally mean to ponder only about high-wing aircraft in my original post, but now realize I did. It seems to me that downward visibility would also be important if I was just futzing around at 60 to 90 kts. Even the O-1 can be made to sip fuel if you don't push it too hard. I really think it just converts everything over 8 gph or so to nothing but noise anyway. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
2nd airplane
EridanMan wrote:
(BTW, I'd suggest a Citabria, but I don't know the ins and outs of maintaining them or Champs). I had a citabria before I got my bonanza. It was the 7ECA model with the o-235 lycoming. The only maintenance problem I had that was difficult was locating a replacement fuel shut off valve. Kind of an odd thing to break but once it did, it took me a month to find one. Everything else on it seemed to be pretty straight forward. I averaged around 6 gallons an hour at 90knots. I can fly at modest speeds with low fuel consumption in the bonanza but it's really not the same. Dave M35 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
2nd airplane
On Aug 29, 3:34 pm, "Jim Carter" wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Robert M. Gary ] Posted At: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:22 PM Posted To: rec.aviation.owning Conversation: 2nd airplane Subject: 2nd airplane On Aug 29, 12:13 pm, wrote: ... As a current Mooney owner and former Aeronca and J-3 pilot I can assure you that you cannot do Aeronca./J-3 type flying in a Mooney. The problem is that the comfortable flying speed is so much higher that you need to be higher off the ground and have less ability to just play around. When you're going 2 or 3 times faster you cover more ground and have more terrain, etc to worry about. In the J-3 flying at 300 feet over farms was no big deal because you were doing 50 mph. -Robert Exactly what I was thinking; it would be very difficult to get a Bo, or Mooney, or even a 172 down and stopped in under 300' on grass like you can with a Birddog or Cub or Airknocker. I didn't intentionally mean to ponder only about high-wing aircraft in my original post, but now realize I did. It seems to me that downward visibility would also be important if I was just futzing around at 60 to 90 kts. Even the O-1 can be made to sip fuel if you don't push it too hard. I really think it just converts everything over 8 gph or so to nothing but noise anyway.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That's true. I used to go in and out of grass fields with the Aeronca and J-3 that I would *never* take the Bo or Mooney to. Some of the fields had gopher holes that would rock you pretty good. Dropping a nosewheel into a 1' deep hole and then back out again doesn't sound good. -Robert |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
2nd airplane
Robert M. Gary wrote:
That's true. I used to go in and out of grass fields with the Aeronca and J-3 that I would *never* take the Bo or Mooney to. Some of the fields had gopher holes that would rock you pretty good. Dropping a nosewheel into a 1' deep hole and then back out again doesn't sound good. -Robert Aww, you've just got the wrong Bo! Newps' Bo can haul 3000 lbs in or out of a twenty foot boulder field, then cruise 1500 miles home at 350 kts while burning a cool 2.5 gallons (MoGas, that is) per hour... Happy Flying! Scott Skylane |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
2nd airplane
On Aug 29, 3:59 pm, dave wrote:
EridanMan wrote: (BTW, I'd suggest a Citabria, but I don't know the ins and outs of maintaining them or Champs). I had a citabria before I got my bonanza. It was the 7ECA model with the o-235 lycoming. The only maintenance problem I had that was difficult was locating a replacement fuel shut off valve. Kind of an odd thing to break but once it did, it took me a month to find one. Everything else on it seemed to be pretty straight forward. I averaged around 6 gallons an hour at 90knots. I can fly at modest speeds with low fuel consumption in the bonanza but it's really not the same. Dave M35 I used to fly and instruct in a Decathlon (which is mostly a Citabria). Its hands down the easiest tailwheel plane to fly that I've ever seen. However, you're paying (in $$$ and complex fuel/oil) for the ability to fly inverted, etc. If you want to fly up-rigtht all the time its probably not the best deal. -Robert |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
2nd airplane
Robert,
I think you got some bad information. Most citabrias don't have any inverted systems. Only the decathlons and 7KCAB's have inverted fuel and oil. The 7ECA, GCA and others are about as simple as they come. You can check the spec's of the new ones at american champion's website. Other than the metal spars and a little higher gross weight, not much difference between the new ones and the old ones. Dave M35 Robert M. Gary wrote: I used to fly and instruct in a Decathlon (which is mostly a Citabria). Its hands down the easiest tailwheel plane to fly that I've ever seen. However, you're paying (in $$$ and complex fuel/oil) for the ability to fly inverted, etc. If you want to fly up-rigtht all the time its probably not the best deal. -Robert |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
2nd airplane
Jim Carter wrote: Exactly what I was thinking; it would be very difficult to get a Bo, or Mooney, or even a 172 down and stopped in under 300' on grass like you can with a Birddog or Cub or Airknocker. You're right there. I need 550 feet to land or takeoff with the Bo. If your aim is to fart around at 50-80 mph then a J3 may be for you. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
2nd airplane
Scott Skylane wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: That's true. I used to go in and out of grass fields with the Aeronca and J-3 that I would *never* take the Bo or Mooney to. Some of the fields had gopher holes that would rock you pretty good. Dropping a nosewheel into a 1' deep hole and then back out again doesn't sound good. -Robert Aww, you've just got the wrong Bo! Newps' Bo can haul 3000 lbs in or out of a twenty foot boulder field, then cruise 1500 miles home at 350 kts while burning a cool 2.5 gallons (MoGas, that is) per hour... Correct, excpet not with mogas. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
2nd airplane
But not necessarily because of the engine. My Bo runs at 45% power at 8
gph and gets 150 mph indicated with the 520. Around the local area, which is probably 75% of my flying I'm burning about 35% less gas than the 182 I used to have(8 vs 12.5 gph). Kind of an irrelevant point. The idea was that for a second bird, I would pick specifications as opposite as possible to my primary bird, if my primary bird fulfilled my cruise mission, then there is absolutely no point in considering cruise in my second bird and vice versa. He said he had a cruise ship already, If I had such a bird (My poor 140 isn't, I would then only see two options, either getting an extraordinarily expensive, ultra fun plane (Extra-300, Mig-17) or an extraordinarily cheap, fun plane, depending on how deep my pockets were. I assumed that this gentleman was not made of money, and hence, he would choose as I would and go with the inexpensive option, which would generally necessitate a smaller engine for thermodynamic/weight reasons, hence an O-320 or smaller. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Whose airplane is it anyway? | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 31 | March 29th 07 12:39 AM |
You know you own an airplane when... | Doug Vetter | Owning | 36 | March 22nd 07 01:14 AM |
My airplane - NO MY airplane.... | Casey Wilson | Piloting | 5 | September 30th 05 06:41 PM |
Which airplane? | Ghazan Haider | Owning | 18 | September 2nd 05 03:25 AM |
my first airplane ! | Ballan | Home Built | 6 | April 29th 04 08:55 PM |