Aerocommuting in a homebuilt?

Wooduuuward wrote in message ...
Have a look at:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/j.ednie/gyr...marketing.html

Please don't take this as a slam, but what an annoying webpage.

Jim

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:39:46 -0400, Wooduuuward wrote:
Please don't take this as a slam, but what an annoying webpage.

Why annoying? could you elaborate?

On
my
browser
(IE
5.5)
all
the
text
is
displayed
vertically
like
this.

It
does
make
it
hard
to
follow
the
point
the
page
author
is
trying
to
make.

I
turned
my
monitor
ninety
degrees,
but
it
didn't
help
:
-
)
..

Ron
Wanttaja

I used to have that problem with IE 4.5 on a Mac,
then I switched to Netscape and it went away.
I use 5.5 IE on a Mac and don't see that happen anymore.
interesting, browser problem.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:39:46 -0400, Wooduuuward wrote:
Please don't take this as a slam, but what an annoying webpage.

Why annoying? could you elaborate?

On
my
browser
(IE
5.5)
all
the
text
is
displayed
vertically
like
this.

It
does
make
it
hard
to
follow
the
point
the
page
author
is
trying
to
make.

I
turned
my
monitor
ninety
degrees,
but
it
didn't
help
:
-
)
.

Ron
Wanttaja

In article , Richard Riley
writes:


In homebuilts, I'd look at the Glassair Super 2S, the Express, the
Velocity and (if you can find one at that price) the Swearengen SX300



The Express would be an outstanding choice for an IFR platform. The Velocity
would be OK too. The SX300 and Glassair would not be on my list. The KIS
(Pulsar) Super Cruiser is also a good choice with just below 200 mph cruise
(more possible with right engine prop combination). The Lancair ES would be at
the high end price wise but would be one of the best.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Landing. One of a gyroplanes pluses is it's ability to land and only
roll about twenty feet or less. Which to me is an important consideration
if you're wanting to use it to commute. True, top speed is 110 -120 mph.
but it can take wind gusts up to 30 knots without problems while in the air.


Richard Riley wrote:

Since he doesn't list STOL as a requirement, and he wants to do 200
mph in IFR, why would you think a gyro is a reasonable choice?

Netscape does get rid of the single col layout. Instead it displays
in tiny tiny tiny fonts and links the same color as the background.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:45:36 -0400, Wooduuuward
wrote:

:Have a look at:
:http://www3.sympatico.ca/j.ednie/gyr...marketing.html
:
:Jim Harper wrote:
:
: My mission will be me...or me and my lady, with minimal baggage,
: flying either the commute or other longer-legged vacation trips (see 1
: week in 5 off). I already own a homebuilt glider (HP-16 (also
: aluminum)) and am delighted with it. I'm in a glider club with several
: A&P friends and a AI as well, so I have resources available, and am
: experienced with the care and feeding of a homebuilt. I have extensive
: experience with taildraggers, so I don't need the -a version
: (tricycle), and anyway, a brief perusal of the NTSB data base shows
: more landing accidents with the tri-geared version than the
: conventional.
:
: So, what do y'all think? Assuming you want to comment. I am looking
: forward to your thoughts! Thanks!
:
: Jim

I would think you would have more than
a common browser. But yes, very well said. two thumbs up.

Peter Dohm wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Wooduuuward wrote:

I used to have that problem with IE 4.5 on a Mac,
then I switched to Netscape and it went away.
I use 5.5 IE on a Mac and don't see that happen anymore.
interesting, browser problem.

If it displays poorly on a very common browser, it's NOT a "browser
problem", it's a poorly designed page.

Mark Hickey


Well said!

Peter

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:39:46 -0400, Wooduuuward wrote:
Please don't take this as a slam, but what an annoying webpage.

Why annoying? could you elaborate?

On
my
browser
(IE
5.5)
all
the
text
is
displayed
vertically
like
this.

It
does
make
it
hard
to
follow
the
point
the
page
author
is
trying
to
make.

I
turned
my
monitor
ninety
degrees,
but
it
didn't
help
:
-
)
.

Ron
Wanttaja

In homebuilts, I'd look at the Glassair Super 2S, the Express, the
Velocity and (if you can find one at that price) the Swearengen SX300



The Express would be an outstanding choice for an IFR platform. The Velocity
would be OK too. The SX300 and Glassair would not be on my list. The KIS
(Pulsar) Super Cruiser is also a good choice with just below 200 mph cruise
(more possible with right engine prop combination). The Lancair ES would be at
the high end price wise but would be one of the best.


Bob Reed
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A real nice SX300 can be had for $200,000 or so. Dunno about
it as a choice IFR platform, but I know two owners that I can ask
if anyone has that kind of serious money for shaving 20 minutes
off a daily drive to work.


Barnyard BOb

BD 4 is not tube and fabric? Must be thinking of the Tailwind..Oh well.

Cheers
Qaz
"Scott VanderVeen" wrote in message
news:j_oOa.1355$Ph3.739@sccrnsc04...
Also, you might take a look a BD-4 if you can find one. It is tube and
fabric and there are not many copies, I understand that it was a fine
plane
that was done in by the BD-5 fiasco.


Tube and fabric BD-4? Must be a rare one.

By the time you get a wx brief, drive to airport, pre-flight,
un-chock/tiedown, run-up, take off/climb, cruise at 150-170kts, descent,
then make an approach, land, taxi, shut down, tiedown/chock, drive to
where
you are going. - You might save 0 - 45 minutes. Over the 3:15 drive.

Don't bother justifying it, just do it and smile or drive and wish.

Scott V.

Jim

Have you considered a Mooney? 150 plus (probably 170 plus solo). Wing
leveler to help in IFR. Standard bird that can be repaired by any A &
E. Not bad MPG. In your price range. 4 seat if you need them. Can be
certified IFR. Good residual resale value.

Sold mine (Mark 20C) to a computer type in Seattle. He ran my engine
out and put a zero time engine in and ran it out and sold with about
500 hours on the third 2000 TBO engine to a software type who lived
north of San Fran and commuted to San Jose to work.

Look before you buy G

Big John
Point of the sword



On 6 Jul 2003 19:09:17 -0700, (Jim Harper) wrote:

Hello! I originally posted this on rec aviation owning, and think that
I should come to this august group for thoughts:

The original post was:

Hi. I already have some thoughts on this, and am not a total innocent
in these matters. I am just sort of curious about how this group of
posters would think on my problem.

I work in Montgomery, Alabama. I would like to move to Duluth, GA. The
airport there (LZU) is 15 miles from where I want to live. My job is
around 3 miles from the airport (MGM) in Montgomery. The two airports
are 158nm apart.

I am a 1000 hour private pilot (selg) with a fresh IFR rating. Much of
my time is in gliders, but I am current in high performance.

Figure a budget of around $100K to buy an airplane. I don't need 4
seats, so right now I am toying with the idea of one of the homebuilt
very fast 2 seaters...200mph would make the commute faster. I can
afford the insurance, and understand that I would be burning a fair
amount of fuel...I can afford that too.

Would you consider it? What airplane would YOU choose?

Thanks for your imput. No, I am not a troll...this is a real
question.

After thoughts and a few responses, I have evolved my position to
something that looks like this (there were several comments on what
would I do if I couldn't fly the commute…addressed here.

Thanks, Dale...and to those who previously posted and added info. Let
us continue the discussion. Regarding flexibility and
reliability...the trip isn't so outlandish that I couldn't drive from
LZU to MGM in the morning. I'm the Chief (:-) ) and if I'm a half-hour
late or so, no sweat. Coming back to LZU (afternoon Tstorms)...well, I
could keep my apartment in Montgomery, or sleep in my office...and as
far as that goes, I can afford a motel, should that be the best
choice. I have a week off every 5 weeks, and that should help me deal
with scheduled maintenance...and if there is unscheduled...well, see
my weather plans...motel, office...maybe keep my current Apt for a
while.

As far as equipment, how about I throw out this one: Van's
homebuilt...RV series. There are 4 for sale that are IFR certified on
TOP right now, top price is around $84K...down to $50K or so. That is
a pretty honest 180-200MPH airplane, would be an interesting IFR
platform...but they are reputed to be stable and have well balanced
controls. This is, of course, an aluminum airplane. By the way, to my
best understanding, getting the FSDO to change an experimental
aircraft's certification from VFR only to IFR and VFR requires,
essentially, the correct equipment AND convincing information that any
other example has received the certification, so the fact that there
are 4 implies that any COULD be modified as necessary.

My mission will be me...or me and my lady, with minimal baggage,
flying either the commute or other longer-legged vacation trips (see 1
week in 5 off). I already own a homebuilt glider (HP-16 (also
aluminum)) and am delighted with it. I'm in a glider club with several
A&P friends and a AI as well, so I have resources available, and am
experienced with the care and feeding of a homebuilt. I have extensive
experience with taildraggers, so I don't need the -a version
(tricycle), and anyway, a brief perusal of the NTSB data base shows
more landing accidents with the tri-geared version than the
conventional.

So, what do y'all think? Assuming you want to comment. I am looking
forward to your thoughts! Thanks!

Jim

Yes, I do think landing a gyro is easier / safer than landing a fixed wing.
That's how the whole idea for it originated.
I continue to read the crash reports for all aircraft on the faa website.
A gyro is lifted off the ground by a wing, one that spins (rotorblade). Because
it spins upwards of 200 rpm, wind gusts do little to it's stability in flight.
Gyroplanes can be slowed in flight to 20 mph, ground speed (or less if put into the wind)
The stored inertia in the rotor can be used to advantage, for doing a
'jump take off'.


AL Mills wrote:

So, do you think landing a gyro is easier / safer than landing a fixed wing?
What about the stored energy or inertia in the rotor system??