Hello,
I am an aeronautical engineer in Western Australia, currently working creating repairs for the PC9 aircraft (RAAF trainer). Previous to this I had about five years designing repairs and modifications for general aviation aircraft (CAR 35 if you're an Australian; no I didn't get my delegation). What motivated me to be an aero engineer was a desire to design aircraft.

So I am looking to design homebuilt aircraft sometime in the future, perhaps as a business, and I would like your opinions for marketing purposes. If you are interested in having a homebuilt aircraft designed for you, or you have already built an aircraft, you can help me by filling out the survey below (9 questions).

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MPB6DNG

Cheers,
Tim

On May 27, 7:54*am, chd > wrote:

> ...What motivated me to be an aero engineer was a desire to
> design aircraft...

In my own direct experience, I've found a relatively weak correlation
between engineering credentials and actual design ability. It's there,
but it's not as strong as you'd expect or want.

If you want a career as any sort of aircraft designer outside of the
established industry, you end up having to bootstrap yourself somehow.
You will have trouble getting gigs, especially paying gigs, until you
can demonstrate your ability in a very tangible way such as with a
prototype that shows how you approach and conquer the various
challenges. But how do you finance that first project with no paying
customer? It's a chicken-and-egg thing that calls for an act of faith
and some out-of-pocket investment.

Thanks, and good luck!

Bob K.

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
...
On May 27, 7:54 am, chd > wrote:

> ...What motivated me to be an aero engineer was a desire to
> design aircraft...

In my own direct experience, I've found a relatively weak correlation
between engineering credentials and actual design ability. It's there,
but it's not as strong as you'd expect or want.

If you want a career as any sort of aircraft designer outside of the
established industry, you end up having to bootstrap yourself somehow.
You will have trouble getting gigs, especially paying gigs, until you
can demonstrate your ability in a very tangible way such as with a
prototype that shows how you approach and conquer the various
challenges. But how do you finance that first project with no paying
customer? It's a chicken-and-egg thing that calls for an act of faith
and some out-of-pocket investment.

Thanks, and good luck!

Bob K.
--------------new message begins--------------------

I strongly suspect that you, Bob, have hit the single greatest reason that
airplanes, and a lot of other things, are designed the way they are.

A mass produced product, especially one that requires government
certification to be sold, requires a tremendous investment to reach the
market; and then may be a failure if the market research was not accurate.
And accurate market research is extremely difficult for any new product--and
much worse for a product to be introduced at a future time.

Even so, there have been a number of examples of innovation such as the
Mooney Cadet (which was to be an improved trainer based on the Ercoupe) and
the BD2 (which was an effort to produce a $2000 airplane--about $20,000 in
today's money) which became the American Yankee. IIRC, both quickly gained
a reputation for treachery--although the Yankee was subsequently redeveloped
into the Cheetah and Tiger which had a measure of success under the Gruman
banner. And then there were the Beech Skipper and Piper Tomahawk, both of
which were designed to meet a set of design and performance criteria
suggested by the FAA after interviews with a large number of respected
flight instructors. The more successfull of the two was the Tomahawk, which
IMHO seemed to meet the stated criteria more accurately. However, the
Tomahawk did not tolerate fools gladly (which IIRC was part of the original
criteria) and quickly gained a reputation similar to that of the Yankee.

So that brings me to the Amateur-Built (Plans and Kit) market, which really
makes the most sense in a very traditional way. Typically one man, the
entrepreneur if the design is eventually marketed, designs and builds an
airplane that meets (or appears to meet) his particular criteria of
erformance and efficiency--and then he offers the plans and/or kit to other
builders of like mind. Remember that the design is still in the
"esperimental" stage of development and that, in most cases, will never
reach the stage of having a Type Design and Type Certificate. Presuming
that the design really did meet the objectives and that no major problems
appear later, and also presuming that the subsequent builders are truly of
like mind and that they have or attain sufficient skill to build dilligently
in accordance with the plans; then the design is a success and with a bit of
luck the business of selling plans and/or kits might be a success as well.

Peter

�Remember that the design is still in the
> "esperimental" stage of development and that, in most cases, will never
> reach the stage of having a Type Design and Type Certificate. �Presuming
> that the design really did meet the objectives and that no major problems
> appear later, and also presuming that the subsequent builders are truly of
> like mind and that they have or attain sufficient skill to build dilligently
> in accordance with the plans; then the design is a success and with a bit of
> luck the business of selling plans and/or kits might be a success as well..
>
> Peter

I chose what I believe is the best of both worlds by going with a
Jodel design. Efficient and economical on low H.P.,no apparent vices,
and most of the designs are former production aircraft with years of
goverment oversight to weed out any problems.
John G.

Peter Dohm wrote:
> /snip/
>
> A mass produced product, especially one that requires government
> certification to be sold, requires a tremendous investment to reach the
> market; and then may be a failure if the market research was not accurate.
> And accurate market research is extremely difficult for any new product--and
> much worse for a product to be introduced at a future time. /snip/
> Peter
>
>
>
This reminds me of chatting to an old boy about this year's Luscombe
fold up, couple days back when we were sitting in the shade at a recent
flyin.

I mentioned that the most financially successful part of this local
attempt (ultimately successful) to certificate a Luscombe revival, was
the wind-up auction sale, at which (for example) a bunch of aero engines
sold for more than the Lycoming wholesale price...and like that...

His insight: "Why would anybody want to spend millions to certify
an Ugly Cessna 172 fly-alike, when the pretty Cessna 172 is available?"
He continued, "The 1949 Luscombe was ugly, and the new design was just
as ugly."

I guess that's your marketing point...

Brian W

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>> /snip/
>>
>> A mass produced product, especially one that requires government
>> certification to be sold, requires a tremendous investment to reach the
>> market; and then may be a failure if the market research was not
>> accurate. And accurate market research is extremely difficult for any new
>> product--and much worse for a product to be introduced at a future time.
>> /snip/
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
> This reminds me of chatting to an old boy about this year's Luscombe fold
> up, couple days back when we were sitting in the shade at a recent flyin.
>
> I mentioned that the most financially successful part of this local
> attempt (ultimately successful) to certificate a Luscombe revival, was
> the wind-up auction sale, at which (for example) a bunch of aero engines
> sold for more than the Lycoming wholesale price...and like that...
>
> His insight: "Why would anybody want to spend millions to certify
> an Ugly Cessna 172 fly-alike, when the pretty Cessna 172 is available?"
> He continued, "The 1949 Luscombe was ugly, and the new design was just as
> ugly."
>
> I guess that's your marketing point...
>
> Brian W

I wasn't thinking specifically of the Luscomb, but it's an outstanding
example!

For even more cynicism about your proposal see about 50 threads here
(sorry - you will have to find them yourself)

www.eng-tips.com

cmyr wrote:

>
> I chose what I believe is the best of both worlds by going with a
> Jodel design. Efficient and economical on low H.P.,no apparent vices,
> and most of the designs are former production aircraft with years of
> goverment oversight to weed out any problems.
> John G.

Good move! I have flown various Jodel flavors and can confirm that
they fly well. They are well liked and without vice.
Though how that trademark cranked wing does it, I'm not sure...

Brian W

brian whatcott wrote:
> cmyr wrote:
>
>>
>> I chose what I believe is the best of both worlds by going with a
>> Jodel design. Efficient and economical on low H.P.,no apparent vices,
>> and most of the designs are former production aircraft with years of
>> goverment oversight to weed out any problems.
>> John G.
>
> Good move! I have flown various Jodel flavors and can confirm that
> they fly well. They are well liked and without vice.
> Though how that trademark cranked wing does it, I'm not sure...
>
> Brian W


Low wing load, moderate power loading, and a lot of leading edge.
No secrets there.

Actually, I envy you that one, Brian.
I've never had the pleasure.
I've heard they are really sweet.


--

Richard Lamb

"cavelamb" > wrote in message
...
> brian whatcott wrote:
>> cmyr wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I chose what I believe is the best of both worlds by going with a
>>> Jodel design. Efficient and economical on low H.P.,no apparent vices,
>>> and most of the designs are former production aircraft with years of
>>> goverment oversight to weed out any problems.
>>> John G.
>>
>> Good move! I have flown various Jodel flavors and can confirm that they
>> fly well. They are well liked and without vice.
>> Though how that trademark cranked wing does it, I'm not sure...
>>
>> Brian W
>
>
> Low wing load, moderate power loading, and a lot of leading edge.
> No secrets there.
>
> Actually, I envy you that one, Brian.
> I've never had the pleasure.
> I've heard they are really sweet.
>
>
> --
>
> Richard Lamb
>
>
I, too, have always heard that they were well known for extremely docile
handling; and my very limited experience with models as a kid suggests that
the docile handling is a common trait of that geometry.

You could certainly do much worse, and I did once think of building a D9. I
might even consider one of their designs again--but the obvious problem is
that scratch building in wood is a lot of work and not a lot cheaper that a
prepunched metal kit from Vans!

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
> ...
>> brian whatcott wrote:
>>> cmyr wrote:
>>>
>>>> I chose what I believe is the best of both worlds by going with a
>>>> Jodel design. Efficient and economical on low H.P.,no apparent vices,
>>>> and most of the designs are former production aircraft with years of
>>>> goverment oversight to weed out any problems.
>>>> John G.
>>> Good move! I have flown various Jodel flavors and can confirm that they
>>> fly well. They are well liked and without vice.
>>> Though how that trademark cranked wing does it, I'm not sure...
>>>
>>> Brian W
>>
>> Low wing load, moderate power loading, and a lot of leading edge.
>> No secrets there.
>>
>> Actually, I envy you that one, Brian.
>> I've never had the pleasure.
>> I've heard they are really sweet.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Richard Lamb
>>
>>
> I, too, have always heard that they were well known for extremely docile
> handling; and my very limited experience with models as a kid suggests that
> the docile handling is a common trait of that geometry.
>
> You could certainly do much worse, and I did once think of building a D9. I
> might even consider one of their designs again--but the obvious problem is
> that scratch building in wood is a lot of work and not a lot cheaper that a
> prepunched metal kit from Vans!
>
> Peter
>
>

For me the concern is the wooden structure. I know that spruce is not a
durable wood - it qualifies because it is among the highest strength to
weight materials. I continually marvel that an aluminum structure can be
left outside year after year and still hold up. I don't think you could
expect that performance of wood.

Brian W

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:57:57 -0500, brian whatcott
> wrote:

>Peter Dohm wrote:
>> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> brian whatcott wrote:
>>>> cmyr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I chose what I believe is the best of both worlds by going with a
>>>>> Jodel design. Efficient and economical on low H.P.,no apparent vices,
>>>>> and most of the designs are former production aircraft with years of
>>>>> goverment oversight to weed out any problems.
>>>>> John G.
>>>> Good move! I have flown various Jodel flavors and can confirm that they
>>>> fly well. They are well liked and without vice.
>>>> Though how that trademark cranked wing does it, I'm not sure...
>>>>
>>>> Brian W
>>>
>>> Low wing load, moderate power loading, and a lot of leading edge.
>>> No secrets there.
>>>
>>> Actually, I envy you that one, Brian.
>>> I've never had the pleasure.
>>> I've heard they are really sweet.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Richard Lamb
>>>
>>>
>> I, too, have always heard that they were well known for extremely docile
>> handling; and my very limited experience with models as a kid suggests that
>> the docile handling is a common trait of that geometry.
>>
>> You could certainly do much worse, and I did once think of building a D9. I
>> might even consider one of their designs again--but the obvious problem is
>> that scratch building in wood is a lot of work and not a lot cheaper that a
>> prepunched metal kit from Vans!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>
>For me the concern is the wooden structure. I know that spruce is not a
>durable wood - it qualifies because it is among the highest strength to
>weight materials. I continually marvel that an aluminum structure can be
>left outside year after year and still hold up. I don't think you could
>expect that performance of wood.
>
>Brian W

you cant expect that performance in any material unless the surfaces
are passivated or coated to diminish any hydroscopic effect.

most of us have invented the hangar.

Stealth Pilot

On Jun 1, 8:43 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> I, too, have always heard that they were well known for extremely docile
> handling; and my very limited experience with models as a kid suggests that
> the docile handling is a common trait of that geometry.



I have a Jodel D-11 and don't consider it particularly
docile, certainly not like a Cub or Champ. It stalls at 40 mph but
long before you get that slow it will start a dangerous sink. Short
wings will do that. 1.3 Vso approaches are too slow. The gear, placed
as per plans, makes the tail really light and easy to nose the
airplane over. My mains are a bit further ahead but it's still light
in the tail and much twitchier in the rollout than many other light
taildraggers.

If you're using Falconar's plans, be aware that the airplane
might come out tail heavy. The original French plans called for
mahogany ply, no fabric on the fuselage or stab, and a tailskid. With
birch ply and fabric and a tailwheel, you'll be out the aft limit
unless you lengthen the engine mount or use a heavier engine. His
F11/12 spring gear is far heavier than the oleos, I think, and I wish
I had the oleos. More work but much more useful load in the end. Empty
weight numbers on the plans are way off.

I don't know why anyone would want flaps on this airplane. It
glides like a brick as it is, and if you want to drop faster just slip
it. It will scare the daylights out of you the first time. No other
airplane I've ever flown slips as aggressively. This one has the all-
flying rudder; the F-series fin and stab might not have such
authority. Flaps and their mechanism would just add more weight and
build time.

Keep that wood dry. If rot gets into the spar, the airplane
would be a writeoff. Building the spar is a major part of the whole
project. Get it straight and get those ribs glued on in perfect
alignment. If they're off, they're off permanently. There's no
adjustment once the glue sets. You need a really long shop, as the 27-
foot spar is all one assembly.

There are no tiedowns provided for. Mine has hand-holes in the
wingtips for maneuvering it on the ground and for tiedowns but they're
too far out and place stress on the tips in a strong wind. Better to
make up some aluminum bands to go around the spar and stick out
through the wing's bottom fabric three or four feet outboard of the
gear attachments.

Dan

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 18:25:56 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Jun 1, 8:43 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
>> I, too, have always heard that they were well known for extremely docile
>> handling; and my very limited experience with models as a kid suggests that
>> the docile handling is a common trait of that geometry.
>
>
>
> I have a Jodel D-11 and don't consider it particularly
>docile, certainly not like a Cub or Champ. It stalls at 40 mph but
>long before you get that slow it will start a dangerous sink. Short
>wings will do that. 1.3 Vso approaches are too slow. The gear, placed
>as per plans, makes the tail really light and easy to nose the
>airplane over. My mains are a bit further ahead but it's still light
>in the tail and much twitchier in the rollout than many other light
>taildraggers.
>

I am slated to test fly a D11, later this year I think.
thanks for the heads up.
Stealth Pilot

> wrote in message
...
> On Jun 1, 8:43 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
>> I, too, have always heard that they were well known for extremely docile
>> handling; and my very limited experience with models as a kid suggests
>> that
>> the docile handling is a common trait of that geometry.
>
>
>
> I have a Jodel D-11 and don't consider it particularly
> docile, certainly not like a Cub or Champ. It stalls at 40 mph but
> long before you get that slow it will start a dangerous sink. Short
> wings will do that. 1.3 Vso approaches are too slow. The gear, placed
> as per plans, makes the tail really light and easy to nose the
> airplane over. My mains are a bit further ahead but it's still light
> in the tail and much twitchier in the rollout than many other light
> taildraggers.
>
> If you're using Falconar's plans, be aware that the airplane
> might come out tail heavy. The original French plans called for
> mahogany ply, no fabric on the fuselage or stab, and a tailskid. With
> birch ply and fabric and a tailwheel, you'll be out the aft limit
> unless you lengthen the engine mount or use a heavier engine. His
> F11/12 spring gear is far heavier than the oleos, I think, and I wish
> I had the oleos. More work but much more useful load in the end. Empty
> weight numbers on the plans are way off.
>
> I don't know why anyone would want flaps on this airplane. It
> glides like a brick as it is, and if you want to drop faster just slip
> it. It will scare the daylights out of you the first time. No other
> airplane I've ever flown slips as aggressively. This one has the all-
> flying rudder; the F-series fin and stab might not have such
> authority. Flaps and their mechanism would just add more weight and
> build time.
>
> Keep that wood dry. If rot gets into the spar, the airplane
> would be a writeoff. Building the spar is a major part of the whole
> project. Get it straight and get those ribs glued on in perfect
> alignment. If they're off, they're off permanently. There's no
> adjustment once the glue sets. You need a really long shop, as the 27-
> foot spar is all one assembly.
>
> There are no tiedowns provided for. Mine has hand-holes in the
> wingtips for maneuvering it on the ground and for tiedowns but they're
> too far out and place stress on the tips in a strong wind. Better to
> make up some aluminum bands to go around the spar and stick out
> through the wing's bottom fabric three or four feet outboard of the
> gear attachments.
>
> Dan

Well, I certainly stand enlightened on more than a few items, and that tie
down location does sound like a poor choice.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the low speed performance that you
described--and feel that I have to ask about the glide ratio at the best
glide speed. Part of my reason for asking is that I personally liked the
Piper Tomahawk, despite its sordid reputation, and it had a good gilde ratio
at its best glide speed--but the version with four stall strips also had a
fast sink. I recall the characteristic, but not the flap postition involved
(possibly due to old timer's disease) and I never got to fly a Tomahawk with
two strips or with no strips--but IIRC, the manual implied that the high
sink might have been replaced with a dramatic stall, at a much lower speed,
on the version with no stall strips. My best recollection is that there was
a 6 knot difference in the stall speed without the strips--but the manual is
inaccessible if I still have it.

OTOH, the balance problems are "interesting" because, although I have yet to
build my own project, I have seen a few interesting issues crop up in kits
as well as plans built aircraft. The most glaring problem that I can recall
was a two seat tandem kit that resembled a high wing ultralight in
appearance, but was always intended to be a very simple registered airplane.
I'll alow the type and manufacturer to remain nameless, but the factory
welded fusalage had been jigged incorrectly when it was welded with the
result that the wind was too far forward and the aircraft was tail heavy--so
that forward pressure was required on the stick as there was no provision
for trim. The good news was that the design CG position was shown in the
plans relative to the wing--and just happened to be the same place as the
wing strut attachment points with provision for balancing points to be
easily attached. That last part really qualifies as an outstanding design
feature--especially in the homebuild arena--and we were easily able to
properly balance the airplane with about 15 pounds of balast added to the
nose. After that, it flew perfectly hands off. (I know that a purist would
criticise the estra weight, and I basically agree, but it made a lot more
sense to the owner/pilot than cutting and rewelding the factory welded
fusalage.) The point of this long winded dissertation is simply that you
never know until you do a full weight and balance, both with and without
people and fuel, and any amateur-built aircraft may very well require
adjustment.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Jun 1, 8:43 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>
>>> I, too, have always heard that they were well known for extremely docile
>>> handling; and my very limited experience with models as a kid suggests
>>> that
>>> the docile handling is a common trait of that geometry.
>>
>>
>> I have a Jodel D-11 and don't consider it particularly
>> docile, certainly not like a Cub or Champ. It stalls at 40 mph but
>> long before you get that slow it will start a dangerous sink. Short
>> wings will do that. 1.3 Vso approaches are too slow. The gear, placed
>> as per plans, makes the tail really light and easy to nose the
>> airplane over. My mains are a bit further ahead but it's still light
>> in the tail and much twitchier in the rollout than many other light
>> taildraggers.
>>
>> If you're using Falconar's plans, be aware that the airplane
>> might come out tail heavy. The original French plans called for
>> mahogany ply, no fabric on the fuselage or stab, and a tailskid. With
>> birch ply and fabric and a tailwheel, you'll be out the aft limit
>> unless you lengthen the engine mount or use a heavier engine. His
>> F11/12 spring gear is far heavier than the oleos, I think, and I wish
>> I had the oleos. More work but much more useful load in the end. Empty
>> weight numbers on the plans are way off.
>>
>> I don't know why anyone would want flaps on this airplane. It
>> glides like a brick as it is, and if you want to drop faster just slip
>> it. It will scare the daylights out of you the first time. No other
>> airplane I've ever flown slips as aggressively. This one has the all-
>> flying rudder; the F-series fin and stab might not have such
>> authority. Flaps and their mechanism would just add more weight and
>> build time.
>>
>> Keep that wood dry. If rot gets into the spar, the airplane
>> would be a writeoff. Building the spar is a major part of the whole
>> project. Get it straight and get those ribs glued on in perfect
>> alignment. If they're off, they're off permanently. There's no
>> adjustment once the glue sets. You need a really long shop, as the 27-
>> foot spar is all one assembly.
>>
>> There are no tiedowns provided for. Mine has hand-holes in the
>> wingtips for maneuvering it on the ground and for tiedowns but they're
>> too far out and place stress on the tips in a strong wind. Better to
>> make up some aluminum bands to go around the spar and stick out
>> through the wing's bottom fabric three or four feet outboard of the
>> gear attachments.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Well, I certainly stand enlightened on more than a few items, and that tie
> down location does sound like a poor choice.
>
> Personally, I have mixed feelings about the low speed performance that you
> described--and feel that I have to ask about the glide ratio at the best
> glide speed. Part of my reason for asking is that I personally liked the
> Piper Tomahawk, despite its sordid reputation, and it had a good gilde ratio
> at its best glide speed--but the version with four stall strips also had a
> fast sink. I recall the characteristic, but not the flap postition involved
> (possibly due to old timer's disease) and I never got to fly a Tomahawk with
> two strips or with no strips--but IIRC, the manual implied that the high
> sink might have been replaced with a dramatic stall, at a much lower speed,
> on the version with no stall strips. My best recollection is that there was
> a 6 knot difference in the stall speed without the strips--but the manual is
> inaccessible if I still have it.
>
> OTOH, the balance problems are "interesting" because, although I have yet to
> build my own project, I have seen a few interesting issues crop up in kits
> as well as plans built aircraft. The most glaring problem that I can recall
> was a two seat tandem kit that resembled a high wing ultralight in
> appearance, but was always intended to be a very simple registered airplane.
> I'll alow the type and manufacturer to remain nameless, but the factory
> welded fusalage had been jigged incorrectly when it was welded with the
> result that the wind was too far forward and the aircraft was tail heavy--so
> that forward pressure was required on the stick as there was no provision
> for trim. The good news was that the design CG position was shown in the
> plans relative to the wing--and just happened to be the same place as the
> wing strut attachment points with provision for balancing points to be
> easily attached. That last part really qualifies as an outstanding design
> feature--especially in the homebuild arena--and we were easily able to
> properly balance the airplane with about 15 pounds of balast added to the
> nose. After that, it flew perfectly hands off. (I know that a purist would
> criticise the estra weight, and I basically agree, but it made a lot more
> sense to the owner/pilot than cutting and rewelding the factory welded
> fusalage.) The point of this long winded dissertation is simply that you
> never know until you do a full weight and balance, both with and without
> people and fuel, and any amateur-built aircraft may very well require
> adjustment.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>


If the purists give you static about it, just name it
Static Stability Augmentation System, and paint it bright red!

Seriously, why would anyone complain about properly balancing
an airplane??? It's rather important!



--

Richard Lamb

"cavelamb" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
-----------------snipped-----------------
>>
>> OTOH, the balance problems are "interesting" because, although I have yet
>> to build my own project, I have seen a few interesting issues crop up in
>> kits as well as plans built aircraft. The most glaring problem that I
>> can recall was a two seat tandem kit that resembled a high wing
>> ultralight in appearance, but was always intended to be a very simple
>> registered airplane. I'll alow the type and manufacturer to remain
>> nameless, but the factory welded fusalage had been jigged incorrectly
>> when it was welded with the result that the wind was too far forward and
>> the aircraft was tail heavy--so that forward pressure was required on the
>> stick as there was no provision for trim. The good news was that the
>> design CG position was shown in the plans relative to the wing--and just
>> happened to be the same place as the wing strut attachment points with
>> provision for balancing points to be easily attached. That last part
>> really qualifies as an outstanding design feature--especially in the
>> homebuild arena--and we were easily able to properly balance the airplane
>> with about 15 pounds of balast added to the nose. After that, it flew
>> perfectly hands off. (I know that a purist would criticise the estra
>> weight, and I basically agree, but it made a lot more sense to the
>> owner/pilot than cutting and rewelding the factory welded fusalage.) The
>> point of this long winded dissertation is simply that you never know
>> until you do a full weight and balance, both with and without people and
>> fuel, and any amateur-built aircraft may very well require adjustment.
>>
>> Peter
>
> If the purists give you static about it, just name it
> Static Stability Augmentation System, and paint it bright red!
>
> Seriously, why would anyone complain about properly balancing
> an airplane??? It's rather important!
>
>
> Richard Lamb
>
I agree, and it all was several years ago; but I will definitely use your
nomenclature: Static Stabiliby Augmentation System.

That's really outstanding!

Peter

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 23:27:43 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>
>"cavelamb" > wrote in message
...
>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>-----------------snipped-----------------
>>>
>>> OTOH, the balance problems are "interesting" because, although I have yet
>>> to build my own project, I have seen a few interesting issues crop up in
>>> kits as well as plans built aircraft. The most glaring problem that I

>> Richard Lamb
>>
>I agree, and it all was several years ago; but I will definitely use your
>nomenclature: Static Stabiliby Augmentation System.
>
>That's really outstanding!
>
>Peter
>
>
>

The Auster J1B isnt a kit aeroplane. down in the tail there is a
location where the fuselage tubes form a "V" shape.
on each side of this V shape is some 1/8" steel riveted in position to
make a box.
in the standard aircraft there is a 10lb triangular lead weight bolted
in front of this "V".
if you put a metal prop on the aircraft instead of a wooden prop there
is a couple of pounds of lead in a triangular wedge to go in the box.
if you add the exhaust muffler on to the straight stacks there is
another triangular lead piece to go in the box.
all told I think there can be 21lbs of lead in the tail.

in flight you notice nothing if the CG is in the right place.

I wouldnt feel embarassed about some lead ballast to get the cg
correct. the aircraft will be a lethal trap if you dont get the cg
right. your passengers wont even see the lead so why worry about it.
of course if you make a second aircraft the way is open for some
tweaking to remove the need.
Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 23:27:43 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"cavelamb" > wrote in message
...
>>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>-----------------snipped-----------------
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, the balance problems are "interesting" because, although I have
>>>> yet
>>>> to build my own project, I have seen a few interesting issues crop up
>>>> in
>>>> kits as well as plans built aircraft. The most glaring problem that I
>
>>> Richard Lamb
>>>
>>I agree, and it all was several years ago; but I will definitely use your
>>nomenclature: Static Stabiliby Augmentation System.
>>
>>That's really outstanding!
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>
>
> The Auster J1B isnt a kit aeroplane. down in the tail there is a
> location where the fuselage tubes form a "V" shape.
> on each side of this V shape is some 1/8" steel riveted in position to
> make a box.
> in the standard aircraft there is a 10lb triangular lead weight bolted
> in front of this "V".
> if you put a metal prop on the aircraft instead of a wooden prop there
> is a couple of pounds of lead in a triangular wedge to go in the box.
> if you add the exhaust muffler on to the straight stacks there is
> another triangular lead piece to go in the box.
> all told I think there can be 21lbs of lead in the tail.
>
> in flight you notice nothing if the CG is in the right place.
>
> I wouldnt feel embarassed about some lead ballast to get the cg
> correct. the aircraft will be a lethal trap if you dont get the cg
> right. your passengers wont even see the lead so why worry about it.
> of course if you make a second aircraft the way is open for some
> tweaking to remove the need.
> Stealth Pilot

The truth is: I agree!

It's just that I have run into so many people over the years, who seem to
place so much enphasis on weight that they seem willing to add a pound of
drag to save two pounds of weight, and frequently have seemed willing to
make some other questionable trades in other areas as well, that I just felt
compelled to make a comment about it--even if a few minutes more thought
might have provided a little better phrasing.

Peter

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:56:32 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:


>> The Auster J1B isnt a kit aeroplane. down in the tail there is a
>> location where the fuselage tubes form a "V" shape.
>> on each side of this V shape is some 1/8" steel riveted in position to
>> make a box.
>> in the standard aircraft there is a 10lb triangular lead weight bolted
>> in front of this "V".
>> if you put a metal prop on the aircraft instead of a wooden prop there
>> is a couple of pounds of lead in a triangular wedge to go in the box.
>> if you add the exhaust muffler on to the straight stacks there is
>> another triangular lead piece to go in the box.
>> all told I think there can be 21lbs of lead in the tail.
>>
>> in flight you notice nothing if the CG is in the right place.
>>
>> I wouldnt feel embarassed about some lead ballast to get the cg
>> correct. the aircraft will be a lethal trap if you dont get the cg
>> right. your passengers wont even see the lead so why worry about it.
>> of course if you make a second aircraft the way is open for some
>> tweaking to remove the need.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>The truth is: I agree!
>
>It's just that I have run into so many people over the years, who seem to
>place so much enphasis on weight that they seem willing to add a pound of
>drag to save two pounds of weight, and frequently have seemed willing to
>make some other questionable trades in other areas as well, that I just felt
>compelled to make a comment about it--even if a few minutes more thought
>might have provided a little better phrasing.
>
>Peter
>
>
I had a fellow pilot complete a rebuild of his aircraft after the 3rd
crash destroying it.
you think you'd write him off at 82 after the third prang :-)

"how'd the rebuild go mitch?"
"3 lb lighter overall than last time" he said with some excitement.

Mitch earned my undying respect that day.
the accidents are just part of an active flying pasttime in an
unforgiving environment but to have the focus on weight control at age
82 when the temptations must have been to 'make it a bit stronger'
showed me that he is focussed on what matters.

doesnt pay to become jaundiced in life. some people surprise you when
you least expect it. :-)

Stealth Pilot

On Jun 7, 8:58*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 23:27:43 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"cavelamb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Peter Dohm wrote:
> >-----------------snipped-----------------
>
> >>> OTOH, the balance problems are "interesting" because, although I have yet
> >>> to build my own project, I have seen a few interesting issues crop up in
> >>> kits as well as plans built aircraft. *The most glaring problem that I
> >> Richard Lamb
>
> >I agree, and it all was several years ago; but I will definitely use your
> >nomenclature: *Static Stabiliby Augmentation System.
>
> >That's really outstanding!
>
> >Peter
>
> The Auster J1B isnt a kit aeroplane. down in the tail there is a
> location where the fuselage tubes form a "V" shape.
> on each side of this V shape is some 1/8" steel riveted in position to
> make a box.
> in the standard aircraft there is a 10lb triangular lead weight bolted
> in front of this "V".
> if you put a metal prop on the aircraft instead of a wooden prop there
> is a couple of pounds of lead in a triangular wedge to go in the box.
> if you add the exhaust muffler on to the straight stacks there is
> another triangular lead piece to go in the box.
> all told I think there can be 21lbs of lead in the tail.
>
> in flight you notice nothing if the CG is in the right place.
>
> I wouldnt feel embarassed about some lead ballast to get the cg
> correct. the aircraft will be a lethal trap if you dont get the cg
> right. your passengers wont even see the lead so why worry about it.
> of course if you make a second aircraft the way is open for some
> tweaking to remove the need.
> Stealth Pilot

That Auster would have been better served with a moveable
battery rather than more lead weights. Some small helicopters have a
moveable battery to balance the machine when the passenger is there or
absent.

Dan

wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:58 am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 23:27:43 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>> -----------------snipped-----------------
>>>>> OTOH, the balance problems are "interesting" because, although I have yet
>>>>> to build my own project, I have seen a few interesting issues crop up in
>>>>> kits as well as plans built aircraft. The most glaring problem that I
>>>> Richard Lamb
>>> I agree, and it all was several years ago; but I will definitely use your
>>> nomenclature: Static Stabiliby Augmentation System.
>>> That's really outstanding!
>>> Peter
>> The Auster J1B isnt a kit aeroplane. down in the tail there is a
>> location where the fuselage tubes form a "V" shape.
>> on each side of this V shape is some 1/8" steel riveted in position to
>> make a box.
>> in the standard aircraft there is a 10lb triangular lead weight bolted
>> in front of this "V".
>> if you put a metal prop on the aircraft instead of a wooden prop there
>> is a couple of pounds of lead in a triangular wedge to go in the box.
>> if you add the exhaust muffler on to the straight stacks there is
>> another triangular lead piece to go in the box.
>> all told I think there can be 21lbs of lead in the tail.
>>
>> in flight you notice nothing if the CG is in the right place.
>>
>> I wouldnt feel embarassed about some lead ballast to get the cg
>> correct. the aircraft will be a lethal trap if you dont get the cg
>> right. your passengers wont even see the lead so why worry about it.
>> of course if you make a second aircraft the way is open for some
>> tweaking to remove the need.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
> That Auster would have been better served with a moveable
> battery rather than more lead weights. Some small helicopters have a
> moveable battery to balance the machine when the passenger is there or
> absent.
>
> Dan


What battery?


--

Richard Lamb

On Jun 10, 9:50 pm, cavelamb > wrote:

> What battery?


Did the J1B not have a starter?

Dan

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:33:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Jun 10, 9:50 pm, cavelamb > wrote:
>
>> What battery?
>
>
> Did the J1B not have a starter?
>
>Dan

the armstrong starter does not need battery power. ...just the
occasional sherbert in the evening.

just in case there is a doubt, yes, the J1B not have a starter.
Gypsy Major series 10 mark 1 is the neddy.

Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote:
/snip/
>> Did the J1B not have a starter?
>>
>> Dan
>
> the armstrong starter does not need battery power. ...just the
> occasional sherbert in the evening.
>
> just in case there is a doubt, yes, the J1B not have a starter.
> Gypsy Major series 10 mark 1 is the neddy.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Doesn't that apply to the J5N too?
I flew both, but it was quite a while ago...

Brian W

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:33:38 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 10, 9:50 pm, cavelamb > wrote:
>>
>>> What battery?
>>
>>
>> Did the J1B not have a starter?
>>
>>Dan
>
> the armstrong starter does not need battery power. ...just the
> occasional sherbert in the evening.
>
> just in case there is a doubt, yes, the J1B not have a starter.
> Gypsy Major series 10 mark 1 is the neddy.
>
> Stealth Pilot

I have no experience with any of the Gypsy engines; but it seems like I
heard that some used a "shotgun" type impulse starter--at least in the
military trainer versions.

Just curious.

Peter

On Jun 13, 7:22*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:33:38 -0700 (PDT),
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Jun 10, 9:50 pm, cavelamb > wrote:
>
> >>> What battery?
>
> >> *Did the J1B not have a starter?
>
> >>Dan
>
> > the armstrong starter does not need battery power. ...just the
> > occasional sherbert in the evening.
>
> > just in case there is a doubt, yes, the J1B not have a starter.
> > Gypsy Major series 10 mark 1 is the neddy.
>
> > Stealth Pilot
>
> I have no experience with any of the Gypsy engines; but it seems like I
> heard that some used a "shotgun" type impulse starter--at least in the
> military trainer versions.
>
> Just curious.
>
> Peter

I had an Auster AOP VI, and it had a starter. Engine was Gipsy Major
7, IIRC.

Dan