View Full Version : Wing Derringer (1/1)
Dale  Martin
February 11th 08, 05:19 AM
Ron Monroe
February 14th 08, 03:25 AM
This one brings back memories. I was in college at the time, Northrop 
Institute of Technology, in Inglewood, CA.  We had a class field trip to the 
Wing Aircraft Co., in nearby Torrance, and we saw two or three in the 
building. One was being converted to a test aircraft for a COIN venture. 
(COunter INsurgency). I believe it was going to be a display at Paris. They 
had already lost one in Florida, I think, during spin testing. They also 
gave the argument of why it was only a 2-seater.They said, studies were made 
that most 4+ place aircraft were only flown with 2 people, so why waste 
metal on a biggere aircraft? I think that philosophy killed them.
The other aircraft that was flying at the time, that I was impressed with, 
was the Windecker Eagle. It just happened to be designed by a dentist who 
went to my school for engineering. I think it was the first all composite 
aircraft built. Unfortunately, that meant it was the first to try and go 
through FAA certification. I guess that ate up a lot of financing. A very 
nice looking single engine aircraft, though. Even the USAF bought one to 
check out.
Ron
"Dale Martin" > wrote in message 
...
>
>
>
Orval Fairbairn[_2_]
February 14th 08, 04:21 AM
In article >,
 "Ron Monroe" > wrote:
> This one brings back memories. I was in college at the time, Northrop 
> Institute of Technology, in Inglewood, CA.  We had a class field trip to the 
> Wing Aircraft Co., in nearby Torrance, and we saw two or three in the 
> building. One was being converted to a test aircraft for a COIN venture. 
> (COunter INsurgency). I believe it was going to be a display at Paris. They 
> had already lost one in Florida, I think, during spin testing. They also 
> gave the argument of why it was only a 2-seater.They said, studies were made 
> that most 4+ place aircraft were only flown with 2 people, so why waste 
> metal on a biggere aircraft? I think that philosophy killed them.
That design philosophy was part of the problem. The rest was that they 
used an etch on the aluminum as part of the bonding process. 
Unfortunately, they did not sufficiently passivate the etch, so it 
continued to etch the aluminum after bonding. The result was a lot of 
airframes suitable only as planters.
-- 
Remove _'s  from email address to talk to me.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.