slowest top speed?

[Dan Bond]

I'm doing research on the speed distribution of homebuilts. It's easy
to find published data on the fast airplanes, but I'm having a hard
time finding anything on the slowest. Anyone have a suggestion?

[Montblack]

("Dan Bond" wrote)
> I'm doing research on the speed distribution of homebuilts. It's easy
> to find published data on the fast airplanes, but I'm having a hard
> time finding anything on the slowest. Anyone have a suggestion?


For a slow 'high-end' speed example, a PPC (Powered Parachute) will max out
in the 26 mph range.

http://www.powerchutes.com/intro.asp


Montblack

[pittss1c]

Dan Bond wrote:
> I'm doing research on the speed distribution of homebuilts. It's easy
> to find published data on the fast airplanes, but I'm having a hard
> time finding anything on the slowest. Anyone have a suggestion?
>
Depends on your definition of homebuilts.
Some of the MacCready human powered craft were 10 to 11 MPH.


Mike

[Harry K]

pittss1c wrote:
> Dan Bond wrote:
> > I'm doing research on the speed distribution of homebuilts. It's easy
> > to find published data on the fast airplanes, but I'm having a hard
> > time finding anything on the slowest. Anyone have a suggestion?
> >
> Depends on your definition of homebuilts.
> Some of the MacCready human powered craft were 10 to 11 MPH.
>
>
> Mike

Of couse if you define it as ground speed there is no trick at all in
getting negative ground speed, just fly into a head wind strong enough.
I vaguely recall seeing a report somewhere, somewhen where someone
actually landed backwards.

Harry K

[Scott]

Corben Junior Ace with an A-65...75 MPH cruise, Vne of 126...couldn't
hit that going straight down with both wings ripped off ;)

Scott


Dan Bond wrote:

> I'm doing research on the speed distribution of homebuilts. It's easy
> to find published data on the fast airplanes, but I'm having a hard
> time finding anything on the slowest. Anyone have a suggestion?
>

[Robert Bonomi]

In article . com>,
Harry K > wrote:
>
>pittss1c wrote:
>> Dan Bond wrote:
>> > I'm doing research on the speed distribution of homebuilts. It's easy
>> > to find published data on the fast airplanes, but I'm having a hard
>> > time finding anything on the slowest. Anyone have a suggestion?
>> >
>> Depends on your definition of homebuilts.
>> Some of the MacCready human powered craft were 10 to 11 MPH.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>Of couse if you define it as ground speed there is no trick at all in
>getting negative ground speed, just fly into a head wind strong enough.
> I vaguely recall seeing a report somewhere, somewhen where someone
>actually landed backwards.

My father -- many years ago -- saw somebody in a Piper Cub (*NOT* a Super
Cub, the one with the little engine) flying into headwinds that were
approximately the _cruise_ speed of said craft.

The guy was on final coming in, when the winds kicked up and _stayed_ up.
There he is, a few hundred feet off the end of the runway, and pretty much
'parked' in mid air. Some 20+ minutes later, he's managed to get to the
runway, and gets down to 0 AGL, but the problem is "then what?" Start to
throttle down, and she starts rolling backwards.

As the story is told, the pilot, went back 'airborne', fought his way
over to the hanger area, and made a 'vertical' landing in the lee of
one of the hangers.

[CB]

I've heard tell of a similar situation with WWII-era cadets flying
Stearmans in high winds. So the story goes, the wind kicked up while
the flight was out. When they came back, the aircraft couldn't get
down and stay down. Crews were sent out to grab the handles on the
wingtips and aft fuselage, haul them down, and walk them back to the
flightline.

[[email protected]]

On 10 Aug 2005 09:26:33 -0700, "CB" > wrote:

>I've heard tell of a similar situation with WWII-era cadets flying
>Stearmans in high winds. So the story goes, the wind kicked up while
>the flight was out. When they came back, the aircraft couldn't get
>down and stay down. Crews were sent out to grab the handles on the
>wingtips and aft fuselage, haul them down, and walk them back to the
>flightline.

It wasn't just one situation, the handhold were there in the bottom
wings of the Stearman's specifically for the ground crews to hang onto
to bring in the pilots in their airplanes in order to prevent them
from tipping over in the wind when they turned crosswind while
taxiing.

Many of the fields, or at least the one my father had his primary
flight training, was just a big field. You flew overhead, noted the
windsock direction and landed into the wind. If the wind was light,
you taxied in paying proper attention to use of ailerons and elevator
to keep the wings level and not nose over.

When the wind was higher, ground crew were stationed out at the field
and they'd run up once the airplane was stopped and hang on to the
wings using the handholds cut into the wingtips.

Other airplanes had them too. I took apart a Waco UPF-7 wings which
also had handholds built into it's wingtips. The wingtip around the
handhold was filled in with solid Balsa.

Corky Scott

[PittsS1C]

I am not referring to ground speed... 10-11 is airspeed. (which is why I
found it relevant)

Mike


"Harry K" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> pittss1c wrote:
>> Dan Bond wrote:
>> > I'm doing research on the speed distribution of homebuilts. It's easy
>> > to find published data on the fast airplanes, but I'm having a hard
>> > time finding anything on the slowest. Anyone have a suggestion?
>> >
>> Depends on your definition of homebuilts.
>> Some of the MacCready human powered craft were 10 to 11 MPH.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> Of couse if you define it as ground speed there is no trick at all in
> getting negative ground speed, just fly into a head wind strong enough.
> I vaguely recall seeing a report somewhere, somewhen where someone
> actually landed backwards.
>
> Harry K
>

[Richard Lamb]

The extremely low speeds (10 to 11 mph) were absolutely necessary, as
MacCready figured out.

Since drag increases as a square of airspeed, the lowest possible
speeds were
necessary in order to fly at all - on the 1/4 sustained horsepower
available from
human muscles.

I thought his flyers were brilliant in both design and exicution.


Richard

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2005 09:26:33 -0700, "CB" > wrote:
>
> > ... Crews were sent out to grab the handles on the
> >wingtips and aft fuselage, haul them down, and walk them back to the
> >flightline.
>
> ...
>
> When the wind was higher, ground crew were stationed out at the field
> and they'd run up once the airplane was stopped and hang on to the
> wings using the handholds cut into the wingtips.
>
> Other airplanes had them too. I took apart a Waco UPF-7 wings which
> also had handholds built into it's wingtips. The wingtip around the
> handhold was filled in with solid Balsa.
>

Here's why you don't install those handgrips in the forward
part of the fuselage:

http://www.priceless420.com/Pr081005run.jpg

--

FF