Re: Cri-Cri aircraft

[Philippe]

Vassilii Khachaturov wrote:


> last year at Oshkosh 2003 I have seen a tiny Cri-Cri twin which I really
> loved. It is the smallest twin ever built, and it has good aerobatic
> performance.

just see this one:
http://www.argo.co.id/asac/cricri.htm

by
--
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

[Philippe]

Correction: the weight is 070kg


--
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

[David Johnson]

Here is a link to another CriCri website:

http://home.comcast.net/~cricri-plane/

I recall seeing that better engines have been found for this
plane, but don't have any more detailed info.

David Johnson

[BllFs6]

>>> http://www.argo.co.id/asac/cricri.htm
>>>
>>
>> Cute but it guzzles 20gph.
>Only a toy...

Yeah, because it uses TINYYYYY veryyyy inefficient JETTT engines.....at low
speeds which make a jet even MORE inefficient (ie HP output = speed times
thrust level, low speed = crappy HP even with decent thrust)

If you used more normal Internal combustion engines, its fuel consumption would
probably a tenth of that or less!

I was intriqued by the Cri Cri and did alot of reading up on it awhile ago....

And it certainly appears that it USED to be a problem to get the RIGHT
size/weight/hp engines that it was designed for....and given how optimized the
design is......anything less than just right would have major impacts....

Now maybe that isnt as bad a problem in these "modern" times....

Or maybe someone should design a Cri Cri 2.0, using the same design philosophy
and goals, but around an appropriate engine that is currently popular/abundant
and is likely to remain around for awhile....

Oh, a tidbit about those tiny jet engines. They are lubricated by aviation
grade jet oil mixed with the fuel.....And the oil is so expensive and the mix
level is so high, that when you burn your fuel, you'd spend for example a 100
for your fuel and 50 dollars or so for your oil! So the fact those little guys
are real fuel guzzlers is about 1.5 times as worse as it seems at first
glance.....not to mention a TBO that could be/probably is amazing low.....

Take care

Blll

[Kyler Laird]

Philippe > writes:

>To day, he fly a glider....

He *could* combine the two...
http://www.alisport.com/video/Jet_Glider.wmv

--kyler

[Capt.Doug]

>"Vaughn" wrote in message >Cute; but I kind of lost my enthusiasm for the
>concept after one pranged at
> Oshkosh one year in front of the entire airshow crowd. It ended up nearly
at
> the crowd line following an apparent engine failure on takeoff, and was
>quickly bustled into its covered trailer out of sight.

That accident was caused by improper handling of assymetric thrust. A pilot
with only a single-engine rating could fly a multi-engine plane if the plane
was registered as an experimental. This accident was a supreme act of
condescension for the laws of aerodynamics, not a betrayal by the design.
Any pilot that is proficient in multi-engine operations could have avoided
that accident.

There were some other accidents attributed to the North American builders
replacing roller bearings with plain bearings in the aileron attach points.
The plain bearings wore out quickly and control surface flutter quickly
ensued. I don't find fault with the design because of modifications made
after the design was released.

D.

[Cy Galley]

I know the pilot of that accident and he purposely put it on the ground in
front of the crowd rather than stagger around and possibly get over the
crowd and hit someone. He has ALL the ratings and is ex-military, a very
capable pilot.


"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"Vaughn" wrote in message >Cute; but I kind of lost my enthusiasm for the
> >concept after one pranged at
> > Oshkosh one year in front of the entire airshow crowd. It ended up
nearly
> at
> > the crowd line following an apparent engine failure on takeoff, and was
> >quickly bustled into its covered trailer out of sight.
>
> That accident was caused by improper handling of assymetric thrust. A
pilot
> with only a single-engine rating could fly a multi-engine plane if the
plane
> was registered as an experimental. This accident was a supreme act of
> condescension for the laws of aerodynamics, not a betrayal by the design.
> Any pilot that is proficient in multi-engine operations could have avoided
> that accident.
>
> There were some other accidents attributed to the North American builders
> replacing roller bearings with plain bearings in the aileron attach
points.
> The plain bearings wore out quickly and control surface flutter quickly
> ensued. I don't find fault with the design because of modifications made
> after the design was released.
>
> D.
>
>

[Capt.Doug]

>"Cy Galley" wrote in message
> I know the pilot of that accident and he purposely put it on the ground in
> front of the crowd rather than stagger around and possibly get over the
> crowd and hit someone. He has ALL the ratings and is ex-military, a very
> capable pilot.

Is the design uncontrollable on one engine? Why did he prang it?

D.

[Jay]

From what I've been able to dig up it was flyable on one engine but
was no longer a high performace plane in that state. The article I
read said it could manage a slow climb and sustain 85MPH (not
necessarily at the same time).

I'm really impressed with this design. It carries a payload equal to
its own weight. How many aircraft can do that?

It seems like you get something magic (and dangerous) when you put a 2
stroke engine on a low drag aiframe. Of course you've got that second
model airplane engine as a backup on the cri-cri.

I wish all these guys that produce a design and then give up on it
would officially put it in the public domain.

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message >...
> >"Cy Galley" wrote in message
> > I know the pilot of that accident and he purposely put it on the ground in
> > front of the crowd rather than stagger around and possibly get over the
> > crowd and hit someone. He has ALL the ratings and is ex-military, a very
> > capable pilot.
>
> Is the design uncontrollable on one engine? Why did he prang it?
>
> D.

[Philippe]

Jay wrote:



> I'm really impressed with this design. It carries a payload equal to
> its own weight. How many aircraft can do that?

I know the D140 named Abeille (bee) or Mousquetaire
it's a big D112 with O360
550kg empty 1210lbs
1100kg full 2420lbs
another french desing (Delemontez)

Better, you have from Michel Colomban too, the MC100, all aluminium alloy
empty: 202 kg 445lbs
full: 450kg 990lbs
The carbon version is 240kg empty

By
--
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

[Cy Galley]

Most twins have a minimum single engine speed. The CriCri is no exception.
If your engine quits on take-off before that speed you have very few
options. Red took the option of putting it back on the ground.
--
Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot


"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"Cy Galley" wrote in message
> > I know the pilot of that accident and he purposely put it on the ground
in
> > front of the crowd rather than stagger around and possibly get over the
> > crowd and hit someone. He has ALL the ratings and is ex-military, a very
> > capable pilot.
>
> Is the design uncontrollable on one engine? Why did he prang it?
>
> D.
>
>

[Mark Smith]

Philippe wrote:
>
> Jay wrote:
>
> > I'm really impressed with this design. It carries a payload equal to
> > its own weight. How many aircraft can do that?
>
> I know the D140 named Abeille (bee) or Mousquetaire
> it's a big D112 with O360
> 550kg empty 1210lbs
> 1100kg full 2420lbs
> another french desing (Delemontez)
>
> Better, you have from Michel Colomban too, the MC100, all aluminium alloy
> empty: 202 kg 445lbs
> full: 450kg 990lbs
> The carbon version is 240kg empty

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or almost any quicksilver type with a single surface wing,

I've seen them carry almost twice the empty weight,,,,,,,,,

--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351

[Rob Schneider]

This is probably a really dumb question, but I am curious.

Does piloting the Cri-Cri require a multi-engine rating?

Rob

[Cy Galley]

I believe that any private pilot or better can fly a twin solo. But it could
be just an OWT


"Rob Schneider" > wrote in message
m...
> This is probably a really dumb question, but I am curious.
>
> Does piloting the Cri-Cri require a multi-engine rating?
>
> Rob

[Jay]

Someone said earlier in this thread that a single engine rated pilot
can fly a multiengine experimental. I'd also like to know if that is
true.

As far as Vmc for the Cri-Cri, the longer the moment arm from the CG
to that dead engine the worse a problem it is. With those 2 engines
close turning 30" propellers out front, it wouldn't be too bad as
compared to your typical light twin with engines in nacells on the
wings.



(Rob Schneider) wrote in message >...
> This is probably a really dumb question, but I am curious.
>
> Does piloting the Cri-Cri require a multi-engine rating?
>
> Rob

[Barnyard BOb -]

>This is probably a really dumb question, but I am curious.
>
>Does piloting the Cri-Cri require a multi-engine rating?
>
>Rob
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Not dumb at all, Rob.

Unless the aircraft operating limitations state othertwise...

<<< NO >>>

Ditto for EXPERIMENTALl seaplanes, helicopters, etcetera.

Caveat:
Legal is one thing...
Competency and good sense is quite another.



Barnyard BOb -

[Barnyard BOb -]

On 18 Aug 2004 07:20:17 -0700, (Rob
Schneider) wrote:

>This is probably a really dumb question, but I am curious.
>
>Does piloting the Cri-Cri require a multi-engine rating?
>
>Rob
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Not dumb at all, Rob.

Unless the aircraft operating limitations state otherwise...

<<< NO RATING REQUIRED >>>

Ditto for EXPERIMENTAL seaplanes, helicopters, etcetera.

Caveat:
Legal is one thing...
Competency and good sense is quite another.



Barnyard BOb -

[Vassilii Khachaturov]

> just see this one:
> http://www.argo.co.id/asac/cricri.htm

Thanks! I actually had mentioned the jet conversion in the original
wikipedia article, but I was incorrect with the speed there (folks
@OSH said it was doubled,
not up 1.5 times from the prop-driven version). Also, thanks to your
link I was now able to mention the pilot name and the registration of
the jet-converted Cri-cri.

[Jay]

Thats a great example of the trade off of payload vs. speed. What
about any aircraft with a 100kt+ cruise that meet the 2-1 gross-empty
ratio?

Mark Smith > wrote in message >...

> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or almost any quicksilver type with a single surface wing,
>
> I've seen them carry almost twice the empty weight,,,,,,,,,

[Del Rawlins]

On 27 Aug 2004 12:45:23 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

>Thats a great example of the trade off of payload vs. speed. What
>about any aircraft with a 100kt+ cruise that meet the 2-1 gross-empty
>ratio?

Barrows Bearhawk.


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

[news.free.fr]

"Jay" > a écrit dans le message de
om...
> Thats a great example of the trade off of payload vs. speed. What
> about any aircraft with a 100kt+ cruise that meet the 2-1 gross-empty
> ratio?

An what about the Ban-Bi and MCR 150kt cruise and 2/1 empty ratio ?
Have a look at http://www.ban-bi.com/

We're just completing an MCR4S four seater and are expecting 140 kt cruise
and just 2/1 gross empty ratio on a 100/115 hp Rotax 914.

Regards,

Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France

[Morgans]

"news.free.fr" > wrote > An what about the Ban-Bi and
MCR 150kt cruise and 2/1 empty ratio ?
> Have a look at http://www.ban-bi.com/
>
> We're just completing an MCR4S four seater and are expecting 140 kt cruise
> and just 2/1 gross empty ratio on a 100/115 hp Rotax 914.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gilles Thesee

How many of these are flying? What is it's rate of climb and ceiling at
gross?

Anyone else think that sounds like a lot to expect out of 115 HP ?
--
Jim in NC

[GillesT]

> > We're just completing an MCR4S four seater and are expecting 140 kt
cruise
> > and just 2/1 gross empty ratio on a 100/115 hp Rotax 914.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gilles Thesee
>
> How many of these are flying? >

At the moment about 20 four seaters are flying, powered by Rotaxes 912S or
914. One is flying with a Jabiru 3300.

What is it's rate of climb and ceiling at
> gross?

It depends on the power unit. With the 100 hp continuous 914, the prototype
achieves 700/800 ft/min at maximum takeoff weight. Since the engine is
turbocharged the rate of climb stays rather constant up to critical
altitude.
The normally aspirated 80 hp Rotax 912 MCR01 two seaters routinely climb up
to 17000 ft over the Mont Blanc.
Our empty weight is expected to be around 375 kg for 750 kg max gross
weight.

> Anyone else think that sounds like a lot to expect out of 115 HP ?

Indeed Piper and Cessna pilots SHOULD find that quit a lot ! But the MCRs
are very light and aerodynamically clean.
See http://www.ban-bi.com/

Anyone interested in pictures of our project ?
Regards,

Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France

>

[Darrel Toepfer]

GillesT wrote:

> the MCRs are very light and aerodynamically clean.
> See http://www.ban-bi.com/
>
> Anyone interested in pictures of our project ?
> Regards,

Sure and the price too...

[Bart D. Hull]

Gilles,

I'd love to see pics of your project.
I used to fly a Dimona Katana with a 912 and it was awesome. Relatively
fast (135 KTS), good climb
(700FPM) and very nice view! Only problem is this airplane gets passed
around among FBO's around
here and I'm tired of paying to check out in it over and over again.

Thanks
Bart
P.S. You can see pics of my project below!

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Remove -nospam to reply via email.




GillesT wrote:

>(SNIP)
>Indeed Piper and Cessna pilots SHOULD find that quit a lot ! But the MCRs
>are very light and aerodynamically clean.
>See http://www.ban-bi.com/
>
>Anyone interested in pictures of our project ?
>Regards,
>
>Gilles Thesee
>Grenoble, France
>
>
>
>
>
>
>