Which Model

[[email protected]]

Hi, I'm a new comer and I hope this question has not been asked too
many times before. :)

I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.

I'm looking into the flight quality, sturdiness and safety, building
and maintainance easiness, and factory and builder support. I
understand that they are all quite similar with the standard kits cost
just below $20k, and will probably cost a total of close to $50k when
ready to fly. Will take just over 1k hours for an average person.

The other bench mark airplane is a Cessna 150/152 which I have quite a
bit of time in. I really like the flight quality and overal quality. I
also flown a few hours on a J3. Kind of drafty and strange. It could
be that I just need to get used to it. Now the C150 will need almost
1400' at gross. But it has a somewhat higher gross. One question is
that could the C150 be made to take off in less than 1000'. In terms
of cost, you can get one nice Cessna 150/152 at almost half of the
cost of the homebuilts that I mentioned.

Sorry I did not ask specific questions. I'd appreciate it if someone
can take the subjects and give some enlightenment and actual
experience.

Jizhong

[Darrel Toepfer]

wrote:

> I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
> interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
> in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
> Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.
>
> The other bench mark airplane is a Cessna 150/152 which I have quite a
> bit of time in. I really like the flight quality and overal quality. I
> also flown a few hours on a J3. Kind of drafty and strange. It could
> be that I just need to get used to it. Now the C150 will need almost
> 1400' at gross. But it has a somewhat higher gross. One question is
> that could the C150 be made to take off in less than 1000'. In terms
> of cost, you can get one nice Cessna 150/152 at almost half of the
> cost of the homebuilts that I mentioned.

Here's a 160hp C152 Texas Taildragger:
http://www.asadeancomputing.com/tdc/photos/gal07/337%20Forms/337forms.html

1200 FPM Climb
155 MPH WOT @ 3K'
74" prop

Conversion was done by:
A C T AERIAL SERVICES DIVISION
6245 AERODRMOME WAY, COUNTY HANGER
AIRCRAFT CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC
GEORGETOWN, CA 95634

They have/had conversions to I0-360 (180hp)
http://www.asadeancomputing.com/tdc/photos/gal07/337%20Forms/26.jpg
What the new gross weight is, will require additional research...

This link references the ability to use floats:
http://www.asadeancomputing.com/tdc/photos/gal07/337%20Forms/23.jpg

Here's a link to other mods:
http://www.aeroprice.com/aerolibrary/cessnase_mods.htm

[dale]

Rans S7 without a doubt. Check out the factory. Yahoo has a S7 group. Lots
of guys with floats on.

[Del Rawlins]

In >
wrote:

> I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
> interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
> in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
> Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.

If you are willing and able to build from plans, look into Bob Barrows'
new design, the Bearhawk Patrol. This is a 2 seat tandem bush plane
similar in construction to his 4 seat Bearhawk design. The patrol has a
gross weight of 2000 pounds, and an empty weight around 1000 (IIRC) with
a Lycoming O-360. It will take engines from 115-200hp and is designed
for outstanding short field performance.

I've got no relationship with Bob other than that of a satisfied
customer (building the 4 seat Bearhawk). He can be reached at:

R & B Aircraft 2079 Breckinridge Mill Rd Fincastle, VA 24090
(540) 473-
3661

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

[Jari Kaija]

> I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
> interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
> in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
> Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.
>
> I'm looking into the flight quality, sturdiness and safety, building
> and maintainance easiness, and factory and builder support. I
> understand that they are all quite similar with the standard kits cost
> just below $20k, and will probably cost a total of close to $50k when
> ready to fly. Will take just over 1k hours for an average person.

Talking about CH701... you will rip the rest of your hairs off,
when trying to keep your drawings up to date :-)

-Jari Kaija
www.project-ch701.net

[Darrel Toepfer]

Jari Kaija wrote:

> Talking about CH701... you will rip the rest of your hairs off,
> when trying to keep your drawings up to date :-)
>
> -Jari Kaija
> www.project-ch701.net

Nice job on the website...

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 13:12:45 -0800, wrote:

>Hi, I'm a new comer and I hope this question has not been asked too
>many times before. :)
>
>I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
>interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
>in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
>Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.
>
>I'm looking into the flight quality, sturdiness and safety, building
>and maintainance easiness, and factory and builder support. I
>understand that they are all quite similar with the standard kits cost
>just below $20k, and will probably cost a total of close to $50k when
>ready to fly. Will take just over 1k hours for an average person.
>
>The other bench mark airplane is a Cessna 150/152 which I have quite a
>bit of time in. I really like the flight quality and overal quality. I
>also flown a few hours on a J3. Kind of drafty and strange. It could
>be that I just need to get used to it. Now the C150 will need almost
>1400' at gross. But it has a somewhat higher gross. One question is
>that could the C150 be made to take off in less than 1000'. In terms
>of cost, you can get one nice Cessna 150/152 at almost half of the
>cost of the homebuilts that I mentioned.
>
>Sorry I did not ask specific questions. I'd appreciate it if someone
>can take the subjects and give some enlightenment and actual
>experience.
>
>Jizhong

Here's a bush plane that is being constructed new.

http://www.interstateaircraft.com/page5.html

Corky Scott

[Shelly]

Best numbers you can find!

http://www.bushplanes.com/background.html

[Del Rawlins]

In > Shelly wrote:
> Best numbers you can find!
>
> http://www.bushplanes.com/background.html

In a 2 place, yes. But the 4 seat Bearhawk offers similar numbers and
the kit is less expensive than what I have seen quoted for the Mountain
Goat. I also haven't heard if they have delivered any kits yet.

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

[Del Rawlins]

In > Del Rawlins wrote:
> In > Shelly wrote:
>> Best numbers you can find!
>>
>> http://www.bushplanes.com/background.html
>
> In a 2 place, yes. But the 4 seat Bearhawk offers similar numbers and
> the kit is less expensive than what I have seen quoted for the
> Mountain Goat. I also haven't heard if they have delivered any kits
> yet.

Just to clarify that, I haven't heard if Mountain Goat is delivering
kits yet.

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

[[email protected]]

Darrel,

Thanks about the info and links. Very cool. I like your tall gear
feature with the larger prop. 150hp is nice for a 150/152. 180hp is
propbably too much. For now, do you have a still have a lot of right
rudder left with the bigger engine and larger prop? What is your
gross, 1700#? What's your T/O and Landing distance (over 50') at
gross?

Thanks,

Jizhong


On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 20:05:13 -0600, Darrel Toepfer
> wrote:

wrote:
>
> > I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
> > interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
> > in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
> > Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.
> >
>> The other bench mark airplane is a Cessna 150/152 which I have quite a
>> bit of time in. I really like the flight quality and overal quality. I
>> also flown a few hours on a J3. Kind of drafty and strange. It could
>> be that I just need to get used to it. Now the C150 will need almost
>> 1400' at gross. But it has a somewhat higher gross. One question is
>> that could the C150 be made to take off in less than 1000'. In terms
>> of cost, you can get one nice Cessna 150/152 at almost half of the
>> cost of the homebuilts that I mentioned.
>
>Here's a 160hp C152 Texas Taildragger:
>http://www.asadeancomputing.com/tdc/photos/gal07/337%20Forms/337forms.html
>
>1200 FPM Climb
>155 MPH WOT @ 3K'
>74" prop
>
>Conversion was done by:
>A C T AERIAL SERVICES DIVISION
>6245 AERODRMOME WAY, COUNTY HANGER
>AIRCRAFT CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC
>GEORGETOWN, CA 95634
>
>They have/had conversions to I0-360 (180hp)
>http://www.asadeancomputing.com/tdc/photos/gal07/337%20Forms/26.jpg
>What the new gross weight is, will require additional research...
>
>This link references the ability to use floats:
>http://www.asadeancomputing.com/tdc/photos/gal07/337%20Forms/23.jpg
>
>Here's a link to other mods:
>http://www.aeroprice.com/aerolibrary/cessnase_mods.htm

[[email protected]]

Dale,

It's nice to have a airplane up to the Supercub or even a C180/185.
But for a new comer, I'd like to stay with the less type like a 150HP
150/152 and the rest of those Kitfox class. I want to have something
that I can build with less than 1000hrs and less than $50k. And
definitely not plan built. :)

Jizhong
On 2 Apr 2004 05:39:57 GMT, Del Rawlins
> wrote:

>In >
>wrote:
>
>> I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
>> interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
>> in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
>> Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.
>
>If you are willing and able to build from plans, look into Bob Barrows'
>new design, the Bearhawk Patrol. This is a 2 seat tandem bush plane
>similar in construction to his 4 seat Bearhawk design. The patrol has a
>gross weight of 2000 pounds, and an empty weight around 1000 (IIRC) with
>a Lycoming O-360. It will take engines from 115-200hp and is designed
>for outstanding short field performance.
>
>I've got no relationship with Bob other than that of a satisfied
>customer (building the 4 seat Bearhawk). He can be reached at:
>
>R & B Aircraft 2079 Breckinridge Mill Rd Fincastle, VA 24090
>(540) 473-
>3661
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Del Rawlins-
>Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
>Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[[email protected]]

Jari,

Nice page. Your diary seems to end around the end of 2002. What's the
status now? How many hours do you think it'll eventually take you to
fly her.

Jizhong
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 06:13:04 GMT, "Jari Kaija" >
wrote:

>> I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
>> interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
>> in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
>> Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.
>>
>> I'm looking into the flight quality, sturdiness and safety, building
>> and maintainance easiness, and factory and builder support. I
>> understand that they are all quite similar with the standard kits cost
>> just below $20k, and will probably cost a total of close to $50k when
>> ready to fly. Will take just over 1k hours for an average person.
>
> Talking about CH701... you will rip the rest of your hairs off,
>when trying to keep your drawings up to date :-)
>
>-Jari Kaija
>www.project-ch701.net
>

[[email protected]]

Shelly,

Very cool plane, and so is the one posted by Corky. But this is not
what I'm after at this moment. I'm looking for a beginner type.
1000hrs less, $50 less, easy built, easy care and easy fly.

Jizhong
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:26:14 -0500, Shelly >
wrote:

>Best numbers you can find!
>
>http://www.bushplanes.com/background.html
>
>

[Darrel Toepfer]

wrote:

> Darrel,
>
> Thanks about the info and links. Very cool. I like your tall gear
> feature with the larger prop. 150hp is nice for a 150/152. 180hp is
> propbably too much. For now, do you have a still have a lot of right
> rudder left with the bigger engine and larger prop? What is your
> gross, 1700#? What's your T/O and Landing distance (over 50') at
> gross?

I found the links by doing a simple internet search...

Our C152 has 110hp and tricycle gear...

With its cupped wingtips, it can definitely get off the ground in under
1000'...

[Del Rawlins]

In >
wrote:

> Thanks about the info and links. Very cool. I like your tall gear
> feature with the larger prop. 150hp is nice for a 150/152.

Waste of an O-320.

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

[Del Rawlins]

In >
wrote:
> Dale,

Who's Dale?

> It's nice to have a airplane up to the Supercub or even a C180/185.
> But for a new comer, I'd like to stay with the less type like a 150HP
> 150/152 and the rest of those Kitfox class.

Well, the Patrol is designed to work well with smaller engines, not that
it matters if you want to build from a kit. If you are interested in a
certified plane, a 150/152 would be my absolute last choice in a 150hp
plane. They are cramped and don't have a lot of useful load with the
heavier engine. In a certified plane I would want a Citabria, which has
a more comfortable cockpit than the Cub which you didn't like, and is
faster at the cost of a small amount of STOL performance.

> I want to have something
> that I can build with less than 1000hrs and less than $50k. And
> definitely not plan built. :)

Understood. Be aware that you may spend more time that that even if you
build from a kit, since build times vary a LOT depending on experience.
I don't know what their prices are like these days, but consider the
Murphy Rebel.

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

[Darrel Toepfer]

wrote:

> Shelly,
>
> Very cool plane, and so is the one posted by Corky. But this is not
> what I'm after at this moment. I'm looking for a beginner type.
> 1000hrs less, $50 less, easy built, easy care and easy fly.

Try here:
http://www.greenlandings.com
The SkyRanger meets your specs and is quite affordable and has a quick
build time and has a decent cabin width...

[nauga]

Del Rawlins wrote...

> > Thanks about the info and links. Very cool. I like your tall gear
> > feature with the larger prop. 150hp is nice for a 150/152.
>
> Waste of an O-320.

I dunno, looong ago I found it kind of nice to be able to get
climb performance I didn't have to measure with a calendar.

Dave 'time in type' Hyde

[Del Rawlins]

In .net> nauga wrote:
> Del Rawlins wrote...
>
>> > Thanks about the info and links. Very cool. I like your tall gear
>> > feature with the larger prop. 150hp is nice for a 150/152.
>>
>> Waste of an O-320.
>
> I dunno, looong ago I found it kind of nice to be able to get
> climb performance I didn't have to measure with a calendar.
>
> Dave 'time in type' Hyde
>

True, but when you bought an expensive Lycoming engine you didn't put it
in a 150/152.

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

[Drew Dalgleish]

On 2 Apr 2004 21:51:50 GMT, Del Rawlins
> wrote:

>In >
>wrote:
>> Dale,
>
>Who's Dale?
>
>> It's nice to have a airplane up to the Supercub or even a C180/185.
>> But for a new comer, I'd like to stay with the less type like a 150HP
>> 150/152 and the rest of those Kitfox class.
>
>Well, the Patrol is designed to work well with smaller engines, not that
>it matters if you want to build from a kit. If you are interested in a
>certified plane, a 150/152 would be my absolute last choice in a 150hp
>plane. They are cramped and don't have a lot of useful load with the
>heavier engine. In a certified plane I would want a Citabria, which has
>a more comfortable cockpit than the Cub which you didn't like, and is
>faster at the cost of a small amount of STOL performance.
>
>> I want to have something
>> that I can build with less than 1000hrs and less than $50k. And
>> definitely not plan built. :)
>
>Understood. Be aware that you may spend more time that that even if you
>build from a kit, since build times vary a LOT depending on experience.
>I don't know what their prices are like these days, but consider the
>Murphy Rebel.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Del Rawlins-
>Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
>Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

It would be fairly easy to build a rebel for under50K but 1K build
time is pushing it for a first time builder.
Drew Dalgleish
Centralia ont
Murphy rebel C-FYHO

[nauga]

Del Rawlins wrote...

> True, but when you bought an expensive Lycoming engine you didn't put it
> in a 150/152.

I hear you. There's a 150/152 at my home field with a
stormscope and an autopilot.

Dave 'ISYN' Hyde

[[email protected]]

That looks pretty impressive. OTOH, the web page is not the most
informative. It did not say how long it will take. But it looks simple
enough. Not sure it can take the floats though.

Jizhong
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:56:59 -0600, Darrel Toepfer
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> Shelly,
>>
>> Very cool plane, and so is the one posted by Corky. But this is not
>> what I'm after at this moment. I'm looking for a beginner type.
>> 1000hrs less, $50 less, easy built, easy care and easy fly.
>
>Try here:
>http://www.greenlandings.com
>The SkyRanger meets your specs and is quite affordable and has a quick
>build time and has a decent cabin width...

[[email protected]]

On TAP, O-320 is advertised cheaper than O-235.

On 2 Apr 2004 21:38:41 GMT, Del Rawlins
> wrote:

>In >
>wrote:
>
>> Thanks about the info and links. Very cool. I like your tall gear
>> feature with the larger prop. 150hp is nice for a 150/152.
>
>Waste of an O-320.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Del Rawlins-
>Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
>Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Del Rawlins]

An O-235 is literally a waste of parts. If you have an airplane that
can be upgraded to an O-320 (like a 7ECA Citabria) it isn't really any
more expensive to do so than to overhaul the 235. Just don't bother
with a 150/152. 8^)

In >
wrote:
> On TAP, O-320 is advertised cheaper than O-235.
>
> On 2 Apr 2004 21:38:41 GMT, Del Rawlins
> > wrote:
>
>>In >
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks about the info and links. Very cool. I like your tall gear
>>> feature with the larger prop. 150hp is nice for a 150/152.
>>
>>Waste of an O-320.

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

[[email protected]]

OK, Del,

Let me give you a little bit more background of where I come from. I
fly a Skylane but I'm planning to move back to China either this year
or next. I need something to fly there. It seems that the rules are
quite loose for ultralight and homebuilts in China. I've alway liked a
bush plan.

I really like to fly 150/152 and it's much cheaper (half the cost).
You might be able to get a good project plane for under $10k and a mid
time o-320 for similar amount. (I'm talking about treating it as a
homebuilt in China.) But it's not a good bush plane. I'm wondering
why.How can we shrink the T/O distance shrink by a factor of two?
Compared with a Cub, I think the wing area is similar. I figure it
must be the gross or the lack of power. So if I get a 150hp at the
front, what will be the T/O at the gross of 1600#?

Jizhong
On 2 Apr 2004 21:51:50 GMT, Del Rawlins
> wrote:

>In >
>wrote:
>> Dale,
>
>Who's Dale?
>
>> It's nice to have a airplane up to the Supercub or even a C180/185.
>> But for a new comer, I'd like to stay with the less type like a 150HP
>> 150/152 and the rest of those Kitfox class.
>
>Well, the Patrol is designed to work well with smaller engines, not that
>it matters if you want to build from a kit. If you are interested in a
>certified plane, a 150/152 would be my absolute last choice in a 150hp
>plane. They are cramped and don't have a lot of useful load with the
>heavier engine. In a certified plane I would want a Citabria, which has
>a more comfortable cockpit than the Cub which you didn't like, and is
>faster at the cost of a small amount of STOL performance.
>
>> I want to have something
>> that I can build with less than 1000hrs and less than $50k. And
>> definitely not plan built. :)
>
>Understood. Be aware that you may spend more time that that even if you
>build from a kit, since build times vary a LOT depending on experience.
>I don't know what their prices are like these days, but consider the
>Murphy Rebel.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Del Rawlins-
>Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
>Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[[email protected]]

I might rip off all the gyros, the vac lines, radios, etc. Humm, maybe
I'll make it hand prop plane. It's not going to be trainer and I have
my handheld radio and GPS.

Jizhong

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 01:29:47 GMT, "nauga" > wrote:

>Del Rawlins wrote...
>
>> True, but when you bought an expensive Lycoming engine you didn't put it
>> in a 150/152.
>
>I hear you. There's a 150/152 at my home field with a
>stormscope and an autopilot.
>
>Dave 'ISYN' Hyde

>
>

[Del Rawlins]

In >
wrote:

> I really like to fly 150/152 and it's much cheaper (half the cost).
> You might be able to get a good project plane for under $10k and a mid
> time o-320 for similar amount.

Another thing to consider is that one reason 150s are often so cheap is
that they usually have a ton of hours on them and are suffering from
neglect. I have recently been working on a 150 belonging to a friend
who bought it last summer and used it to get his private license. This
was a basically safe, flying aircraft when we started digging into it
but I have been amazed at the number of problems we found and are having
to repair before he can fly it again. I guess what I am saying is go
this route if you want to, but don't expect it to necessarily be as
cheap as you hope.

> (I'm talking about treating it as a
> homebuilt in China.) But it's not a good bush plane. I'm wondering
> why.How can we shrink the T/O distance shrink by a factor of two?
> Compared with a Cub, I think the wing area is similar. I figure it
> must be the gross or the lack of power. So if I get a 150hp at the
> front, what will be the T/O at the gross of 1600#?

The 150 just isn't designed for the bush mission. As for the wing area,
the Cub has more at 178.5sq ft while the 150 only has 159.5. Combined
with the lower empty weight (even with a larger engine) of the Cub, this
gives it a lower wing loading and way better short field performance.
The stock gross weight of the cub is also higher at 1750 pounds, and can
be upgraded to 2000 pounds with a spar mod kit.

One aspect I think you would do well to ponder is that of repairability
in the field. I don't know what the parts situation is like in China,
but I suspect that getting parts for a Cessna isn't going to be all that
easy. The Cub, and many homebuilts for that matter, can be readily
repaired in the field using basic shop equipment. You can just about
roll a steel tube fuselage cage into a ball and still make it as good as
new with simple tools and an oxyacetylene welding torch. A dentist of
my acquaintance has wrecked the his cub over a half dozen times and is
still flying that same airplane (no, I don't fly with him). If you
prang the 150 over there good luck getting some of the fancy formed
aluminum parts to fix it. It may not be a bad idea to buy a spare
airframe to take with you for parts.

If it were me, I would strongly consider buying a kit for something like
the Zenith STOL 701 2 seater and an engine. That airplane is known for
a fast build time, good STOL performance, and simple flight
characteristics. You will lose some baggage capacity and top speed, but
you will have an airplane with ZERO operating time (think: no student
landings) on it which is repairable in the field with simple tools. You
know this is true because people build the same airplane from plans that
way.

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

[[email protected]]

I did a quick dirty linear analysis of a couple dosen similar
airplanes (Cessnas, Pipers, and Citabria). I found the T/O(over 50')
is roughtly equal to 120*WingLoad + 60*PowerLoad - 1000. WingLoad is
Weight/Area and PowerLoad is Weight/HP. So for a Cessna 150, if I'm
10% undergross, T/O will shrink by about 250' and 40% increase in
power will reduce another 250'. So that will just make it about 850'
with a full fuel useful load of me with one of my kids for a fishing
trip. :)

Is this very true that the T/F type is going to be about 1/4 lighter
than a similar all metal one in terms of empty weight?

The other question: how serious are the performance numbers for those
advertised homebuilts? I really believe the numbers for the certified
ones.

Jizhong

On 3 Apr 2004 18:48:20 GMT, Del Rawlins
> wrote:

>In >
>wrote:
>
>> I really like to fly 150/152 and it's much cheaper (half the cost).
>> You might be able to get a good project plane for under $10k and a mid
>> time o-320 for similar amount.
>
>Another thing to consider is that one reason 150s are often so cheap is
>that they usually have a ton of hours on them and are suffering from
>neglect. I have recently been working on a 150 belonging to a friend
>who bought it last summer and used it to get his private license. This
>was a basically safe, flying aircraft when we started digging into it
>but I have been amazed at the number of problems we found and are having
>to repair before he can fly it again. I guess what I am saying is go
>this route if you want to, but don't expect it to necessarily be as
>cheap as you hope.
>
>> (I'm talking about treating it as a
>> homebuilt in China.) But it's not a good bush plane. I'm wondering
>> why.How can we shrink the T/O distance shrink by a factor of two?
>> Compared with a Cub, I think the wing area is similar. I figure it
>> must be the gross or the lack of power. So if I get a 150hp at the
>> front, what will be the T/O at the gross of 1600#?
>
>The 150 just isn't designed for the bush mission. As for the wing area,
>the Cub has more at 178.5sq ft while the 150 only has 159.5. Combined
>with the lower empty weight (even with a larger engine) of the Cub, this
>gives it a lower wing loading and way better short field performance.
>The stock gross weight of the cub is also higher at 1750 pounds, and can
>be upgraded to 2000 pounds with a spar mod kit.
>
>One aspect I think you would do well to ponder is that of repairability
>in the field. I don't know what the parts situation is like in China,
>but I suspect that getting parts for a Cessna isn't going to be all that
>easy. The Cub, and many homebuilts for that matter, can be readily
>repaired in the field using basic shop equipment. You can just about
>roll a steel tube fuselage cage into a ball and still make it as good as
>new with simple tools and an oxyacetylene welding torch. A dentist of
>my acquaintance has wrecked the his cub over a half dozen times and is
>still flying that same airplane (no, I don't fly with him). If you
>prang the 150 over there good luck getting some of the fancy formed
>aluminum parts to fix it. It may not be a bad idea to buy a spare
>airframe to take with you for parts.
>
>If it were me, I would strongly consider buying a kit for something like
>the Zenith STOL 701 2 seater and an engine. That airplane is known for
>a fast build time, good STOL performance, and simple flight
>characteristics. You will lose some baggage capacity and top speed, but
>you will have an airplane with ZERO operating time (think: no student
>landings) on it which is repairable in the field with simple tools. You
>know this is true because people build the same airplane from plans that
>way.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Del Rawlins-
>Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
>Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Carl Ellis]

Check out the Taylorcraft.

A 100hp F-19 gets off the ground in about 350' and will climb at 1000' per
minute on a cool day. I've seen mine climb around 700 fpm at 70 degrees
with two of us on board. There are lots of them on floats. The 65 and 85
hp models perform very well too.

The factory is spinning up to make new birds: www.taylorcraft.com.

They will be available with engines from the O-235 to O-360.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:12:07 -0500, "Highfllyer" > wrote:

>I have been to China several times. I would encourage something that you
>could maintain easily in China. I would suggest you look for one of the
>Piper clones in a homebuilt. Look for pipe and rag construction. Find a
>WWII observer project with no engine. L2, L3, or L4. Maybe even L5.

I dunno, HF...you're recommending he try to ship a warbird from the US to
the PRC. I can think of all sorts of agencies that might have heartburn
over that one... :-)

Ron "Fox two" Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

That's right. I don't really want to smuggle millitary equipment. And
I'm nore sure those warbirds (a warbird is a warbird) are cheaper. I
thought they are quire desirable especially the ones in good
conditions.

Jizhong
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:34:58 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:12:07 -0500, "Highfllyer" > wrote:
>
>>I have been to China several times. I would encourage something that you
>>could maintain easily in China. I would suggest you look for one of the
>>Piper clones in a homebuilt. Look for pipe and rag construction. Find a
>>WWII observer project with no engine. L2, L3, or L4. Maybe even L5.
>
>I dunno, HF...you're recommending he try to ship a warbird from the US to
>the PRC. I can think of all sorts of agencies that might have heartburn
>over that one... :-)
>
>Ron "Fox two" Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

Yes,

I actually looked up the Taylorcraft as they are very close to a cub.
It looks like it's relatively easy to get a 65hp project. I might
consider that. Thanks.

Jizhong
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:52:16 -0500, Carl Ellis
> wrote:

>Check out the Taylorcraft.
>
>A 100hp F-19 gets off the ground in about 350' and will climb at 1000' per
>minute on a cool day. I've seen mine climb around 700 fpm at 70 degrees
>with two of us on board. There are lots of them on floats. The 65 and 85
>hp models perform very well too.
>
>The factory is spinning up to make new birds: www.taylorcraft.com.
>
>They will be available with engines from the O-235 to O-360.

[[email protected]]

What's the pro and con between a metal and fabric model.

Metal: more ruggered but difficult to repair, qieter(?),heavy
Fabric: easy to repair, noisier(?), light

more...

Jizhong

[[email protected]]

Can a BC12D take an o-200 or o-235 easily?

Jizhong
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:52:16 -0500, Carl Ellis
> wrote:

>Check out the Taylorcraft.
>
>A 100hp F-19 gets off the ground in about 350' and will climb at 1000' per
>minute on a cool day. I've seen mine climb around 700 fpm at 70 degrees
>with two of us on board. There are lots of them on floats. The 65 and 85
>hp models perform very well too.
>
>The factory is spinning up to make new birds: www.taylorcraft.com.
>
>They will be available with engines from the O-235 to O-360.

[Big John]

jczhonghe

Think Dwayne (?) Cole flew a clipped wing T-craft in air shows for
years and walked away in one piece and died in his bed with his boots
on :o).

You might check and see what he got approved as mods to this bird and
if they would apply to one you bought (not clipped wing for acro)?

Maybe someone can point you where to go to check that bird out and how
it was modified.

You mentioned noise. Any A/C of that era will be noisy and you will
need some type of ear protection (or loose your hearing like I have
from aircraft noise)
..
Fly safe and be lucky.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 23:25:53 -0700, wrote:

>Can a BC12D take an o-200 or o-235 easily?
>
>Jizhong
>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:52:16 -0500, Carl Ellis
> wrote:
>
>>Check out the Taylorcraft.
>>
>>A 100hp F-19 gets off the ground in about 350' and will climb at 1000' per
>>minute on a cool day. I've seen mine climb around 700 fpm at 70 degrees
>>with two of us on board. There are lots of them on floats. The 65 and 85
>>hp models perform very well too.
>>
>>The factory is spinning up to make new birds: www.taylorcraft.com.
>>
>>They will be available with engines from the O-235 to O-360.