Flying on the Cheap - Wood

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 08:09:50 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" wrote:


Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0500, Jim Carriere
wrote:
snip.

Getting an inkling on why Cessna is going to certify its new LSA in *normal*
category, not SLSA? :-)

The fact is that Cessna would be better off just to make the airplane
everyone wants-a 150 hp 150 Aerobat with gear hardpoints for tricycle
or conventional gear (or floats)...

Sorry, don't see it. Few people want conventional gear today; no reason to go
through all the work to certify taildragger versions.

Doubt the market is there for a 150 aerobat, either....there were 5,303 Cessna
150s of 1970 model year or later in the January 2006 FAA aircraft registration
database, and only 257 were Aerobats. That's only ~5% of the fleet...sure
doesn't look like the Aerobat was that popular.

They did everything they could not to sell them. I had family that
were Cessna dealers then.

Can you point to any published statistics that show market demand for low-power
(and even 150 HP is "low power") aerobatic taildraggers?

When the FAA is forced to make GA train pilots, they will need to
require aerobatic training, and the demand will be on. You cannot
really train pilots without requiring spins and a certain amount of
full-inverted aerobatics: the military knows this which is why the
bomber-tanker-transport guys had to have specially beefed bizjets
built.

On 12 Aug 2006 17:35:18 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" wrote:


Doubt the market is there for a 150 aerobat, either....there were 5,303 Cessna
150s of 1970 model year or later in the January 2006 FAA aircraft registration
database, and only 257 were Aerobats. That's only ~5% of the fleet...sure
doesn't look like the Aerobat was that popular.

They did everything they could not to sell them. I had family that
were Cessna dealers then.

If there had been a market for them, they would have sold. Maybe Cessna didn't
run many ads for them, but the magazines back then were publicizing the
aircraft. People knew it was available, and with its checkerboard paint, it was
pretty visible. If the factory received orders, they would have built more.

Can you point to any published statistics that show market demand for low-power
(and even 150 HP is "low power") aerobatic taildraggers?

When the FAA is forced to make GA train pilots, they will need to
require aerobatic training, and the demand will be on.

I agree with this, except for one word: Change "When" to "If." And it ain't
gonna happen. In fact, the FAA is going the OTHER way...takes just 20 hours to
get a Sport Pilot license, and none of that is aerobatic time.

The planes don't exist, and, especially, the *instructors* don't exist. Who's
going to give the instruction? Heck, who's going to teach the instructors?

When you look at the accident reports, there's no question that additional
*training* would reduce the accident rates. But specifically *aerobatic*
training? Not hardly. When you look through the probable causes, folks are
crashing because they lose control on landing and takeoff...not because of
inadvertent entry to unusual attitudes. They'd benefit more from 10 hours of
additional instruction in landing in gusty/crosswind conditions more than they'd
benefit from spin instruction.

I did a search on "spin" in the Probable Causes for non-training Cessna 172 and
210 accidents in the years 2002, 2003, and 2004 (about 420 accidents). Only got
two hits. On the first, the NTSB says "During takeoff, the airplane entered an
extremely steep climb, stalled, and impacted the terrain in a nose low, left
wing low attitude." In other words, not enough altitude for recovery.

The only other hit referred to a spinning bearing, not a spinning aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:01:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On 12 Aug 2006 17:35:18 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" wrote:


Doubt the market is there for a 150 aerobat, either....there were 5,303 Cessna
150s of 1970 model year or later in the January 2006 FAA aircraft registration
database, and only 257 were Aerobats. That's only ~5% of the fleet...sure
doesn't look like the Aerobat was that popular.

They did everything they could not to sell them. I had family that
were Cessna dealers then.

If there had been a market for them, they would have sold. Maybe Cessna didn't
run many ads for them, but the magazines back then were publicizing the
aircraft. People knew it was available, and with its checkerboard paint, it was
pretty visible. If the factory received orders, they would have built more.

Can you point to any published statistics that show market demand for low-power
(and even 150 HP is "low power") aerobatic taildraggers?

When the FAA is forced to make GA train pilots, they will need to
require aerobatic training, and the demand will be on.

I agree with this, except for one word: Change "When" to "If." And it ain't
gonna happen. In fact, the FAA is going the OTHER way...takes just 20 hours to
get a Sport Pilot license, and none of that is aerobatic time.

The planes don't exist, and, especially, the *instructors* don't exist. Who's
going to give the instruction? Heck, who's going to teach the instructors?

When you look at the accident reports, there's no question that additional
*training* would reduce the accident rates. But specifically *aerobatic*
training? Not hardly. When you look through the probable causes, folks are
crashing because they lose control on landing and takeoff...not because of
inadvertent entry to unusual attitudes. They'd benefit more from 10 hours of

Oh, I don't know about that. Trying to imitate a lawn dart is an
unusual attitude as far as I'm concerned. Maybe i've had instructors
that were more demanding then most, but the last time I did departure
stall recovery and stall recovery from slow flight for an instructor
they wanted to see *zero* altitude loss and it is possible even with a
departure stall in a 150 or 172, but not without a lot of practice.

additional instruction in landing in gusty/crosswind conditions more than they'd
benefit from spin instruction.

I did a search on "spin" in the Probable Causes for non-training Cessna 172 and
210 accidents in the years 2002, 2003, and 2004 (about 420 accidents). Only got
two hits. On the first, the NTSB says "During takeoff, the airplane entered an
extremely steep climb, stalled, and impacted the terrain in a nose low, left
wing low attitude." In other words, not enough altitude for recovery.

A steep pull up on take off is more than just a departure stall. :-))
In a 172 a departure stall entered just because they got too slow is
still revoverable even at very low altitude as long as the plane isn't
overloaded. It takes recognizing the onset of the stall, and
releasing the back pressure, but not pushing the nose down as so many
students and pilots do.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
The only other hit referred to a spinning bearing, not a spinning aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 12 Aug 2006 17:30:49 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


wrote:




Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
and unsafe to me.

The Curtiss OX-5 was the "proven" aircraft engine at one time. if
everyone thought like you it still would be. Designing an airframe
around a Lyc today is more chronologically retarded than if Burt Rutan
had used an OX-5 or OXX-6 in the first VariEze. (Do the math: I'm
right. The OX-5 was a 1915 engine and the VariEze flew in 1975 or so.
The OXX-6 came along in 1921 or so and the Milwaukee Tank aircooled
conversion around then. This is 2006, although that probably has
escaped the attention of the Lycophiles.)


If safety is the ONLY
criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

You ever see now much fuel these things burn? Admittedly, slowly
shoving the torque to 100% in a Glas air III or Aircomp is a real
rush, but they make the 300 HP Lycosarus positively look like an
economy engine.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.

Two beefy guys can easily lift a PT-6, at least the small series. A
PT-6A-27 weighs 149 kg according to one Web site on Google.


I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
every
homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.

What does that tell you? MANY homebuilts are marginal airplanes? That
much is true.


...

I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
gear drive could fix that.

Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?

You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.


--

FF

P.S. What's a 'JDM pull'?

Japanese Domestic Market. They scrap cars prematurely to artificially
fluff their new car markets.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Bret Ludwig wrote:
wrote:




Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
and unsafe to me.

The Curtiss OX-5 was the "proven" aircraft engine at one time. if
everyone thought like you it still would be.

No, because I do not think everyone should restrict themselves to
tried and true engines. Rather, I think that homebuilders who are
only interested in building and flying an airplane, and not interested
in R&D should.

Designing an airframe
around a Lyc today is more chronologically retarded than if Burt Rutan
had used an OX-5 or OXX-6 in the first VariEze. ..

Which is why one calls that a 'straw man' argument.


If safety is the ONLY
criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.

Two beefy guys can easily lift a PT-6, at least the small series. A
PT-6A-27 weighs 149 kg according to one Web site on Google.

Like I said, too heavy. Also way too much power I'll warrant.

If safety were the only consideration, the homebuilder wouldn't
be building an airplane.



I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
every homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.

What does that tell you? MANY homebuilts are marginal airplanes? That
much is true.

I'll agree that many are. (Volksplanes come to mind.) OTOH consider
the FAI records set by planes powered by VW and or Rotax engines,
or consider planes like the Corby Starlet and the Sadler Vampyre.



...

I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
gear drive could fix that.

Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?

You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.

If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
roll control.

OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
than engines, most do not.

Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'
airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.

--

FF

wrote:



You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.

If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
roll control.

OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
than engines, most do not.

Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'
airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.


If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

Bret Ludwig wrote:
wrote:



You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.

If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
roll control.

OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
than engines, most do not.

Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'
airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.


If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.

--

FF

If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.

--

FF


Thought the kits are no longer available, you can get a lot of performance
for the dollar by purchasing one of the Schreder sailplane designs!
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N990/N990.html

Wayne Paul wrote:

If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.


Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote:

We call them sailplanes.
Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.

Not if you use:

bungee,
ground launch/car,
ground launch/winch,
horse, or
self launch,

all of which I've seen at one time or another :-)

I HOPE you shot video of the horse launch!

Self launch includes such things as rolling down a steep
hill into a headwind where the topography permits. See
the BUG and GOAT for details.

--

FF