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

-----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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.