Your fancy schmancy dream machine

(Corrie) wrote:

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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


? Law of Unintended Consequences ?


Pilots that have lost their medicals may be flying
something beside ultra-lights and sail[planes.


Barnyard BOb --

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

(Corrie) wrote:

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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

? Law of Unintended Consequences ?

Pilots that have lost their medicals may be flying
something beside ultra-lights and sail[planes.

Barnyard BOb --

Ain't gonna help a blessed bit for my Tailwind.

"Rich S." wrote in message ...

(Kotter) "Alright, Sweathogs, who's first?"
(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.

Hey hey hey - I thought you were on MY side! ;-)

And aren't you supposed to be in Wisconsin right now?

"Corrie" wrote in message
om...
"Rich S." wrote in message
...

(Kotter) "Alright, Sweathogs, who's first?"
(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.

Hey hey hey - I thought you were on MY side! ;-)

And aren't you supposed to be in Wisconsin right now?

Not me, Man. All I kin afford is car gas and I ain't goin' over the Rockies
wif dat.

We blew our wad on vacations last year.

Rich S.

On 30 Jul 2003 09:33 AM, Corrie posted the following:
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.

I can't help you much with the bedrooms issue, but at some point you are
going to have to explain to your wife that the garage (henceforth to be
known as the "shop") is for building the airplane, and not for storage
of automobiles and/or overflow of household items. You might as well
start prepping her for the idea, rather than hitting her with it all at
once. My own "shop" is not terribly huge, but it works fine for my
purposes since the ground transportation sleeps outside. I don't know
where you live, but it works for me here in Anchorage, so quitcher
bitchin and start building.

Though on second thought, I am reminded of a friend of mine, who grew up
sleeping on the couch in his parents' living room since his dad wasn't
willing to give up the gun room....

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Richard Lamb wrote:



Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

(Corrie) wrote:

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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

? Law of Unintended Consequences ?

Pilots that have lost their medicals may be flying
something beside ultra-lights and sail[planes.

Barnyard BOb --

Ain't gonna help a blessed bit for my Tailwind.
=====================================

Ain't 'zactly going to save me for my RV-3, either.
BUT, it sure's gonna' beat a cane or a 'walker'.


Barnyard BOb - crystal balling the future

On 30 Jul 2003 02:11 PM, Ernest Christley posted the following:
Corrie wrote:
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.

Corrie, don't do that. You'll never get a plane by planning ahead.
There are probably 10,000 pieces of an airplane that you can build
while sitting around in the evening looking at TV.

That is true. The guy who founded the Bearhawk email list built most of
his wing ribs while living in an apartment. Sure it is not ideal, but
all he really needed was tin snips, a drill, a circle cutter, and a few
other minor items. For whatever it is you want to build, there have to
be a lot of similar tasks which can be done at times when you aren't
able to work on the other projects.

One thing that I did during the time when I was between shops and my
tools/parts were in storage, was draw patterns in a CAD program, so that
when I was able to start again I could just slap paper to metal with
spray adhesive, and start cutting.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Corrie wrote ...

I'd love to. But ... I have some "home-building" projects
queued up ahead of the "homebuilt" project.

Me too. Floor beams & joists, plumbing, septic, 2 & 1/2 baths, all
wiring, new kitchen, 3.5 tons of ceramic tile, roof, dual heating &
AC, attic insulation, french doors, brick work.... The plus side of
it is that I find a great many new tools and materials are
indispensible for plane building. Ooops, I mean homebuilding.

"Can't put on new roof without a big air compressor."
"Gotta have a big router to duplicate interior trim."
"Yes honey, that's a LOT of sandpaper, but it's cheaper that way."
"Yes, I need a LONG workbench, it's faster to finish 2 doors at once."
"Of course we need a disc/belt sander."
"Spraying gives a better finish"
"That aluminum? I used it to line up the walls. It's straighter than
wood & I'll find another use for it."
"The angle grinder? For cutting off nails & rebar."
"A random orbit sander is a must to refinsih those cabinets."
"My old drill bits were shot."
"You need good bolts or we'll end up redoing it in 4 years."
"You need a high quality paint mask with this varnish."
"You need MEK to clean it before you seal it & 5 gallon pails are much
cheaper."

The possibilities are endless, but you have to be careful. I'm open
to suggestions. Strobe lights to keep kids from falling in the hole
for the septic tank might not fly.

Daniel

(Corrie) wrote in message . com...
Problem is, there's already a category for inline twin. Cessna beat
you to the punch. (Actually, Dornier beat Cessna, but the FAA didn't
type-certify the Do-335.) I wish you well in convincing the Feds that
an inline twin should be type-certified as a single.

I guess we'd have to pull the 337 and its variants into that same
"like a single" catagory unless you want to impose some restriction
such as not requiring engine 1/2 fuel management to make it simpler
for the guy with already too much to keep track of.

If your car brake system didn't have 2 parallel and independant
circuits you'd have more regular service required, but since its a
cross coupled redundant system, you can get away with all sorts of
abuse and neglect and still hardely ever have a total brake failure.
Its the same idea here with the in-line twin, since you have a fail
soft condition, you can afford to spend less money inspecting and
reinspecting your known working system.

The way in which the system is arranged has everything to do with its
composit reliability.

The comparison to Christmas lights oversimplifies things. We're
talking engines, not light bulbs. Lots of moving parts, hoses,
clamps, wires, etc. Two engines means twice the number of things that
can go kablooey, no matter where they are on the airplane.

I was making an over the top analogy to illustrate my point. What did
ya think of the car brake system analogy though? Brakes are pretty
important in a car, only dual redundant, and everybody ignores them
until they make noise or the car "pulls to the right" (Like when one
hydraulic circuit fails).

By the "string of lights" argument, the B-36 Peacemaker should have
been easier to maintain than a Fly Baby. Six recip engines, four jets
- LOTS of redundancy there! And yes, you could lose several engines
and still complete the mission. (While the public catch-phrase was,
"six turning and four burning", the crews were more familiar with,
"two burning, two turning, two smoking, and two joking.")

Thats a funny saying. Are the 2 joking part of the crew?

Thats overboard redundancy, and they didn't have 2 engines big enough
to do the job. 2 is kind of the magic number in that buisness. I've
seen 4 in my work on the Spirit. 3 dissimilar systems voting in
flight controls for commercial jets. The mission that needs to be
completed in our case is making it back to a real runway to get a
repair.

Redundancy has a price - the airplane spent 90 hours in maintenance
for each hour of flight.

Ya, I guess there is a real price required to haul tons of bombs
thousands of miles. Good thing thats nothing like what we're trying
to do here.

Redundant, fail-safe (or gracefully degrading) systems increase
confidence, yes. But it's a BAD idea to encourage complacency.
"Neglect not thy maintenance, lest the ground rise up and smite thee."

Its also a bad idea to discourage people from participating in sport
aviation because its dangerious or too costly. How many people can
afford to fly as much as they'd like to? Instead, many fly just
enough hours to keep current.

Yes, the laws of physics mean that for a given weight and stall speed,
there's a limit to the top speed. I expect you could build a
lightweight 40-to-400kt. variable-geometry wing out of carbon fiber,
but who could afford it?

So what you're saying is that its not practical with the state of the
art to build a 40-to400kt plane with the other sport limitations, so
why the law then?

But I suspect there's another reason for the speed limitation, though
I hesitate to bring it up. 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.

That would seem to be an admirable goal if it can be done relatively
safely. (Relative to driving a car to the airport)

A low-performance pilot in a high-performance
airplane is an accident looking for a crash site. The speed limit may
simply be an attempt to save lives.

Its a misguided attempt that restricts innovation. A plane that can
fly 150kts in a straight line but still land at 40kts isn't all that
much more dangerous. You might argue that having a wider speed
evelope is actually safer for the pilot.

Dave:
Today has been a rare and wonderful one here on RAH.

This post of yours and so many others are
worthy of the Barnyard Seal of Approval
that I hardly know where to begin. g

OTOH...
Could be I've finally filtered out the worst
case lame-o's that cause blood to boil.


Barnyard BOb -- stranger than fiction

Hey Bob...here's a post for you to filter.

Go **** yourself. g

BWB