Folding wing for Ercoupes?

[Montblack]

Re: Fix the high cost [Was:] High Cost of Sportplanes
"Any mass produced successful sport aircraft today ought to have
folding wings, whether it's trailered or if it goes in a community
hanger. There is a folding wing mod for the venerable Ercoupe (it's
STC'd or their equivalent in Canada, I'm not sure here) and five or six
of them will fit in the hangar footprint of a Skylane."


Some Ercoupes have (STC'd) folding wings?

http://www.roadabletimes.com/roadables-integ_bryan.html
(Saw this, for the first time, while hunting in Google)


Montblack

[NW_PILOT]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> Re: Fix the high cost [Was:] High Cost of Sportplanes
> "Any mass produced successful sport aircraft today ought to have
> folding wings, whether it's trailered or if it goes in a community
> hanger. There is a folding wing mod for the venerable Ercoupe (it's
> STC'd or their equivalent in Canada, I'm not sure here) and five or six
> of them will fit in the hangar footprint of a Skylane."
>
>
> Some Ercoupes have (STC'd) folding wings?
>
> http://www.roadabletimes.com/roadables-integ_bryan.html
> (Saw this, for the first time, while hunting in Google)
>
>
> Montblack

And!!!

Bryan died in the crash of his Roadable III in 1974. It is reported that the
cause of the crash was the failure of a wing to lock securely in the
extended position.

[Ernest Christley]

Montblack wrote:
> Re: Fix the high cost [Was:] High Cost of Sportplanes
> "Any mass produced successful sport aircraft today ought to have
> folding wings, whether it's trailered or if it goes in a community
> hanger. There is a folding wing mod for the venerable Ercoupe (it's
> STC'd or their equivalent in Canada, I'm not sure here) and five or six
> of them will fit in the hangar footprint of a Skylane."
>
>
> Some Ercoupes have (STC'd) folding wings?
>
> http://www.roadabletimes.com/roadables-integ_bryan.html
> (Saw this, for the first time, while hunting in Google)
>
>
> Montblack

I'm building a Dyke Delta. It has foldable wings. I can testify that
foldable wings will NOT contribute to an affordable airplane.

I spent MONTHS working on all the fittings and the exactness required is
astronomically even by aviation standards.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Bret Ludwig]

Ernest Christley wrote:
> Montblack wrote:
> > Re: Fix the high cost [Was:] High Cost of Sportplanes
> > "Any mass produced successful sport aircraft today ought to have
> > folding wings, whether it's trailered or if it goes in a community
> > hanger. There is a folding wing mod for the venerable Ercoupe (it's
> > STC'd or their equivalent in Canada, I'm not sure here) and five or six
> > of them will fit in the hangar footprint of a Skylane."
> >
> >
> > Some Ercoupes have (STC'd) folding wings?
> >
> > http://www.roadabletimes.com/roadables-integ_bryan.html
> > (Saw this, for the first time, while hunting in Google)
> >
> >
> > Montblack
>
> I'm building a Dyke Delta. It has foldable wings. I can testify that
> foldable wings will NOT contribute to an affordable airplane.


In a production design, it will. It will add build labor, weight, and
manufacturing time but it will cut hangarage costs dramatically. Figure
a given amount of floor space can hold three times the airplanes,
minimum, if the wings fold.

It will also make interchangeable wings-a long set and a short
set-much more feasible. You start with one, buy the other later: in a
rental situation you could buy just a couple of extra sets for a good
sized fleet.
>
> I spent MONTHS working on all the fittings and the exactness required is
> astronomically even by aviation standards.
>
> --
> This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
> instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
> mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
> decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Ernest Christley]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>I'm building a Dyke Delta. It has foldable wings. I can testify that
>>foldable wings will NOT contribute to an affordable airplane.
>
>
>
> In a production design, it will. It will add build labor, weight, and
> manufacturing time but it will cut hangarage costs dramatically. Figure
> a given amount of floor space can hold three times the airplanes,
> minimum, if the wings fold.
>

Build one. Then you can tell us how much money it will save in a
production aircraft.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[George Patterson]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> In a production design, it will. It will add build labor, weight, and
> manufacturing time but it will cut hangarage costs dramatically. Figure
> a given amount of floor space can hold three times the airplanes,
> minimum, if the wings fold.

Not in T-hangars, and they're the most common ones around here. I've seen
someone get two Champs in a single T-hangar by removing the wings of one of
them, but it wouldn't work with a plane the size of a 172.

> It will also make interchangeable wings-a long set and a short
> set-much more feasible.

I don't see how. You can pull a wing off a Cessna 152, 172, etc. by removing
three bolts. With a Maule, it's four. Can't get much simpler than that. Of
course, you still need to mess around with the aileron cables and flaps
linkages, but you'd have to do that with a folding design too.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Dave Stadt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote
>
> > I don't see how. You can pull a wing off a Cessna 152, 172, etc. by
> removing
> > three bolts. With a Maule, it's four. Can't get much simpler than that.
Of
> > course, you still need to mess around with the aileron cables and flaps
> > linkages, but you'd have to do that with a folding design too.
>
> Messing around with aileron and flap cables is not a given, with the right
> design features.
>
> I have read about some planes, (in the case I am thinking of, sailplanes)
> that have the linkages mate in such a way that no tools are even needed.
> Anyone know of what I am remembering?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Kitfox does it.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote

> I don't see how. You can pull a wing off a Cessna 152, 172, etc. by
removing
> three bolts. With a Maule, it's four. Can't get much simpler than that. Of
> course, you still need to mess around with the aileron cables and flaps
> linkages, but you'd have to do that with a folding design too.

Messing around with aileron and flap cables is not a given, with the right
design features.

I have read about some planes, (in the case I am thinking of, sailplanes)
that have the linkages mate in such a way that no tools are even needed.
Anyone know of what I am remembering?
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote
>
>> I don't see how. You can pull a wing off a Cessna 152, 172, etc. by
> removing
>> three bolts. With a Maule, it's four. Can't get much simpler than that. Of
>> course, you still need to mess around with the aileron cables and flaps
>> linkages, but you'd have to do that with a folding design too.
>
> Messing around with aileron and flap cables is not a given, with the right
> design features.
>
Flaps? flaps? Ercoupes ain't got no flaps.

[Andre]

A few years back I was looking into the Valkyre. They were going to use
carbon fibre wings with linkages between the wing and the body so that all
you had to do was slide the wing into position and lock it. Two min job per
wing.

Neat design, too bad they spent so much time trying to perfect the design
that they went out of business.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote
>
> > I don't see how. You can pull a wing off a Cessna 152, 172, etc. by
> removing
> > three bolts. With a Maule, it's four. Can't get much simpler than that.
Of
> > course, you still need to mess around with the aileron cables and flaps
> > linkages, but you'd have to do that with a folding design too.
>
> Messing around with aileron and flap cables is not a given, with the right
> design features.
>
> I have read about some planes, (in the case I am thinking of, sailplanes)
> that have the linkages mate in such a way that no tools are even needed.
> Anyone know of what I am remembering?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Bill Daniels]

Glider guys do this all the time with 50 foot (15meter) or larger wings -
sometimes just one man assembly in less than 10 minutes. The newest
sailplanes have automatic control hookups and are very easy to assemble.
They are so easy to assemble that most pilots leave their gliders in
trailers at the airport and assemble them each time they fly.

Bill Daniels

"Andre" > wrote in message
news:434670fc$1@newshark...
> A few years back I was looking into the Valkyre. They were going to use
> carbon fibre wings with linkages between the wing and the body so that all
> you had to do was slide the wing into position and lock it. Two min job
per
> wing.
>
> Neat design, too bad they spent so much time trying to perfect the design
> that they went out of business.
>
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Patterson" > wrote
> >
> > > I don't see how. You can pull a wing off a Cessna 152, 172, etc. by
> > removing
> > > three bolts. With a Maule, it's four. Can't get much simpler than
that.
> Of
> > > course, you still need to mess around with the aileron cables and
flaps
> > > linkages, but you'd have to do that with a folding design too.
> >
> > Messing around with aileron and flap cables is not a given, with the
right
> > design features.
> >
> > I have read about some planes, (in the case I am thinking of,
sailplanes)
> > that have the linkages mate in such a way that no tools are even needed.
> > Anyone know of what I am remembering?
> > --
> > Jim in NC
> >
>
>

[Rich S.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Messing around with aileron and flap cables is not a given, with the right
> design features.
>
> I have read about some planes, (in the case I am thinking of, sailplanes)
> that have the linkages mate in such a way that no tools are even needed.
> Anyone know of what I am remembering?
> --

The two aileron cables are connected to a "Swash plate" located at the wing
joint. Another matching swash plate is mounted in the wing with cables
continuing to the aileron bell crank.

When the wing is in place, the two swash plates are in contact. Which ever
way the inner plate moves, the outer plate must follow.

---------------||----------------
||
---------------||----------------

Rich S.

[Morgans]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote

> Flaps? flaps? Ercoupes ain't got no flaps.

<Chuckle> Perhaps I should look at the title of the thread, once in a
while. I forgot all of this folding wing stuff was in reference to
Ercoupes. I don't know why you would want to take a good certified plan,
and chop it up to make the wing fold. Not much to be gained, here.

The poster's intent was talking about a new sLSA design, I thought. I don't
know anymore. What day is it? I'm confused! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Rich S." > wrote

> The two aileron cables are connected to a "Swash plate" located at the
wing
> joint. Another matching swash plate is mounted in the wing with cables
> continuing to the aileron bell crank.
>
> When the wing is in place, the two swash plates are in contact. Which ever
> way the inner plate moves, the outer plate must follow.
>
> ---------------||----------------
> ||
> ---------------||----------------

I thought that is how it worked. I have never seen a setup like that, in
person; only read about them.
--
Jim in NC

[Phil]

I do remember the Dewey Bryan crash, recall that he was using an electric
motor with acme screw or a electric solenoid, believe he hit a switch in the
cockpit and retracted a shear pin, EAA recommended making it a requirement
to remove said pin from the outside only, Phil. Lohiser
"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> Re: Fix the high cost [Was:] High Cost of Sportplanes
> "Any mass produced successful sport aircraft today ought to have
> folding wings, whether it's trailered or if it goes in a community
> hanger. There is a folding wing mod for the venerable Ercoupe (it's
> STC'd or their equivalent in Canada, I'm not sure here) and five or six
> of them will fit in the hangar footprint of a Skylane."
>
>
> Some Ercoupes have (STC'd) folding wings?
>
> http://www.roadabletimes.com/roadables-integ_bryan.html
> (Saw this, for the first time, while hunting in Google)
>
>
> Montblack

[Bret Ludwig]

EVERY naval carrier aircraft except the A-4 Scooter has folding wings.
They hold up well in naval service, and add a small amount to the
weight of the aircraft.

As far as T-hangars go, obviously you wouldn't have T-hangars in the
first place if the wings folded. A lot of airplanes don't fit well in
T-hangars anyway.

Change; it's a wonderful thing.

[Newps]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> EVERY naval carrier aircraft except the A-4 Scooter has folding wings.
> They hold up well in naval service,

Of course they do. The Navy can throw unlimited resources at an
airplane for maintenence. Just look at what it takes to keep an F14 in
the air for an hour.

[Ernest Christley]

Morgans wrote:
> "Rich S." > wrote
>
>
>>The two aileron cables are connected to a "Swash plate" located at the
>
> wing
>
>>joint. Another matching swash plate is mounted in the wing with cables
>>continuing to the aileron bell crank.
>>
>>When the wing is in place, the two swash plates are in contact. Which ever
>>way the inner plate moves, the outer plate must follow.
>>
>>---------------||----------------
>> ||
>>---------------||----------------
>
>
> I thought that is how it worked. I have never seen a setup like that, in
> person; only read about them.

The Delta's elevons are split in half. The inner half controlled with a
horn. A pin (a 5/16 bolt) welded in the outer panel's trailing edge
slots into the inner panels trailing edge tube.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Bret Ludwig]

Newps wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> > EVERY naval carrier aircraft except the A-4 Scooter has folding wings.
> > They hold up well in naval service,
>
> Of course they do. The Navy can throw unlimited resources at an
> airplane for maintenence. Just look at what it takes to keep an F14 in
> the air for an hour.

The wing folding systems are not maintenance hogs and are not a
prevailing cause of crashes: in fact i don't think one has ever
happened.

A Crusader was accidentally launched with folding wings once: it was
actually able to recover.

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>> EVERY naval carrier aircraft except the A-4 Scooter has folding wings.
>> They hold up well in naval service,
>
>
> Of course they do. The Navy can throw unlimited resources at an
> airplane for maintenence. Just look at what it takes to keep an F14 in
> the air for an hour.

Certainly, the F-14 is an extremely complicated piece of equipment.
The problem with your example is the Navy doesn't spend a penny on the
F-14 for folding wing systems since the wings don't fold, they sweep.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Rich S.]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> A Crusader was accidentally launched with folding wings once: it was
> actually able to recover.

A fellow in our church group is a retired naval captain who flew A-7 Corsair
II's during Nam. His CAG took off one night on a "lights out" training
mission from a Naval Air Station runway. The Corsair II would barely climb,
so he aborted the mission and circled around for landing. He really had to
keep a lot of power on during the approach, but made a successful touchdown
and roll out.

Back on the ramp, he went through his shutdown checklist until he got to the
item "Fold Wings". The switch was in the folded position already. De-assing
the aircraft, he noticed that the wings were more than folded. They were
bent so the tips almost touched.

The wing lift had sprung both wings inward. The aircraft was beyond
practical repair and was scrapped.

Rich S.

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 01:52:31 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> > wrote:
>
> :Newps wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> :>
> :>> EVERY naval carrier aircraft except the A-4 Scooter has folding wings.
> :>> They hold up well in naval service,
> :>
> :>
> :> Of course they do. The Navy can throw unlimited resources at an
> :> airplane for maintenence. Just look at what it takes to keep an F14 in
> :> the air for an hour.
> :
> : Certainly, the F-14 is an extremely complicated piece of equipment.
> :The problem with your example is the Navy doesn't spend a penny on the
> :F-14 for folding wing systems since the wings don't fold, they sweep.
>
> And they almost always sweep symmetrically.

But they don't mop or do windows.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Bret Ludwig]

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

<<snip>>

The F-8 that launched with wings folded was not a writeoff-in fact the
wing on that airplane is a variable incidence affair that can be
removed and replaced. On the A-7, it is not, although I can't imagine
the fuselage structure being irreparably damaged-if the a/c was still
in production a new wing would probably have been ordered. Perhaps
someone more familiar with the structure of that airplane can comment.

[[email protected]]

There are folding-wing designs available; most of them I see tied
down at airports. I can't recall ever seeing a folded-wing airplane in
anyone's driveway.
To fly an airplane you keep at home, you need:
1. A place to put it. Lots of modern houses have tiny yards,
tiny garages or carports, and tiny driveways. No room between the
houses to get an airplane to the back yard. And there's the risk of
damage by kids or other yahoos. People in apartments or condos are out
of luck.
2. A vehicle capable of towing it, and maybe a trailer.
3. The time to drag it out, unfold the wings, fly, fold it back
up, tow it home. I used to own a boat, and the time to hook it up,
fuel it up, tow it to the launch, get it in the water, and then all the
reverse steps to get it home again, usually outweighed the time in the
water. Most of us are short of time. I have noticed that most people
have money or time, but never both.

I don't think folding wings are going to be a big seller of
airplanes. Most people who fly know the secret: do without other things
like big-screen TVs, expensive vacations, big houses, a new car every
year or two. Go to the airport and look at the cars in the parking lot.

Dan

[Bret Ludwig]

wrote:
> There are folding-wing designs available; most of them I see tied
> down at airports. I can't recall ever seeing a folded-wing airplane in
> anyone's driveway.
> To fly an airplane you keep at home, you need:
> 1. A place to put it. Lots of modern houses have tiny yards,
> tiny garages or carports, and tiny driveways. No room between the
> houses to get an airplane to the back yard. And there's the risk of
> damage by kids or other yahoos. People in apartments or condos are out
> of luck.
> 2. A vehicle capable of towing it, and maybe a trailer.
> 3. The time to drag it out, unfold the wings, fly, fold it back
> up, tow it home. I used to own a boat, and the time to hook it up,
> fuel it up, tow it to the launch, get it in the water, and then all the
> reverse steps to get it home again, usually outweighed the time in the
> water. Most of us are short of time. I have noticed that most people
> have money or time, but never both.
>
> I don't think folding wings are going to be a big seller of
> airplanes. Most people who fly know the secret: do without other things
> like big-screen TVs, expensive vacations, big houses, a new car every
> year or two. Go to the airport and look at the cars in the parking lot.

The real "big secret" is have the energy, intelligence, emotional
ruggedness and luck-there is always that element-to be really
successful in business, or inherit, marry or sue for big money. Most of
the airplane owners I know are businessmen or profssionals, and most of
them go broke and lose said airplane sooner or later.

But should airplane ownership be only for the wealthy? When I was a
kid there were a lot of factory workers who owned airplanes, teachers,
car mechanics, TV repairmen, you name it. No more.

I see the guys who are 'building' Lancairs and RVs aroumd here and
most of them DO have late model nice cars, home theaters and high-end
audio, Perazzi shotguns, swimming pools. I always ask them why they
just don't buy a warbird or aerobatic mount, or both, and a Bell 47
Soloy conversion to boot-usually it's because the homebuilt (sic) is
the currently trendy "project." 80% of the work is done by hired
guns-we have a lot of A&Ps on layoff around here glad to work for $20
an hour cash. In fact I paid for the tires on my car bucking rivets a
couple of Sunday afternoons this June. As far as I'm concerned anyone
with serious money is an idiot to fool with homebuilts-restore an
antique or warbird if you want to wrench, though few really do.


Anyway, the folding wings aren't primarily for roadability, but to
reduce hangarage costs.
>
> Dan

[Big John]

Bret

Beg to differ.

Spent a year on exchange with VF-23 (Big Banshee) tail hook Squadron.

We had a bird that one wing folded as pilot rotated for take off. Bird
rolled inverted and ground him off down to the sides of cockpit :o(.

All the normal operation and safeties failed. I'd have flown the bird.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````

On 7 Oct 2005 21:31:03 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>
>Newps wrote:
>> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>
>> > EVERY naval carrier aircraft except the A-4 Scooter has folding wings.
>> > They hold up well in naval service,
>>
>> Of course they do. The Navy can throw unlimited resources at an
>> airplane for maintenence. Just look at what it takes to keep an F14 in
>> the air for an hour.
>
> The wing folding systems are not maintenance hogs and are not a
>prevailing cause of crashes: in fact i don't think one has ever
>happened.
>
> A Crusader was accidentally launched with folding wings once: it was
>actually able to recover.

[Bret Ludwig]

Big John wrote:
> Bret
>
> Beg to differ.
>
> Spent a year on exchange with VF-23 (Big Banshee) tail hook Squadron.
>
> We had a bird that one wing folded as pilot rotated for take off. Bird
> rolled inverted and ground him off down to the sides of cockpit :o(.
>
> All the normal operation and safeties failed. I'd have flown the bird.

What did VF-23 fly then?

[Smitty Two]

In article om>,
"Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> As far as I'm concerned anyone
> with serious money is an idiot to fool with homebuilts

Uh, I hope I can disagree without being disagreeable. This is RAH, isn't
it? I'm probably the poorest guy around here, but if I had buckets of
money, I'd still be building - I'd just have a bigger workshop. My fifty
square feet is a little tight even for the emp.

If you view building solely as a means to an end, you'd be an idiot to
undertake it no matter what your financial picture. If you enjoy
building, you'd be an idiot not to build, no matter your financial
picture.

So I believe the decision to build *ought* to be made without regard for
one's wealth or lack thereof. It may well be true that some will
undertake it as an attempt to reduce the expense of ownership, but if
they don't enjoy the process, the damn plane will never be finished.

Even well fed cats love to hunt. Why? Because hunting and eating are two
different activities that nurture different parts of the soul. Likewise
with building and flying, says I.

[Bret Ludwig]

Smitty Two wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote:
>
> > As far as I'm concerned anyone
> > with serious money is an idiot to fool with homebuilts
>
> Uh, I hope I can disagree without being disagreeable. This is RAH, isn't
> it? I'm probably the poorest guy around here, but if I had buckets of
> money, I'd still be building - I'd just have a bigger workshop. My fifty
> square feet is a little tight even for the emp.
>
> If you view building solely as a means to an end, you'd be an idiot to
> undertake it no matter what your financial picture. If you enjoy
> building, you'd be an idiot not to build, no matter your financial
> picture.
>
> So I believe the decision to build *ought* to be made without regard for
> one's wealth or lack thereof. It may well be true that some will
> undertake it as an attempt to reduce the expense of ownership, but if
> they don't enjoy the process, the damn plane will never be finished.

If I had the money I might still build, but the basic homebuilt of
today is nothing I would build. In fact, I would probably restore a
fairly large antique airplane. Or take on non-aircraft projects-and buy
a T-38 off Chuck Thornton to fly. Let's face it, a homebuilt is a
serious compromise, because as a homebuilder you just can't do a lot of
things easily that a factory with tooling and workers that do difficult
tasks every day do.

Consider the Falco. Excellent airplane, poor homebuilt-unless perhaps
you are a master cabinetmaker or wood boatwright. The flip side are
aircraft like the traditional Pietenpols and Wittman
Tailwinds-excellent homebuilts, easily built from plans-but not
particularly desireable as airplanes in their own right.

The best question you can ask yourself about being an aircraft
homebuilder is, "What besides an airplane would I build myself?" A car?
A boat? A powerful radio transmitter? Model airplanes? Nothing?

A lot of times the answer is ,"Nothing". I suggest in those cases,
often as not, Experimental Amateur-Built is the perceived cheap
path-and it is, because it's become a dodge around type certification.

Type certification is good, or it's bad. Let's make up our minds and
act accordingly.

[Rich S.]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Consider the Falco. Excellent airplane, poor homebuilt-unless perhaps
> you are a master cabinetmaker or wood boatwright. The flip side are
> aircraft like the traditional Pietenpols and Wittman
> Tailwinds-excellent homebuilts, easily built from plans-but not
> particularly desireable as airplanes in their own right.
<snip similar stuff>

Trying to disagree politely, like Smitty, the above opinions are not facts.

One: The Falco is an excellent homebuilt. I can think of few aircraft that
fulfill the "education and recreation" aim of the Amateur-built Experimental
category. One does not select this project *because* he is a master of the
art. One selects it in order to learn the craft.

Two: Desirable is a personal preference, not shared with all. I can think of
few greater joys than flying at treetop height over the cornfields of
Minnesota in a Piet, goggles keeping the breeze from my eyes, pulling up
into a chandelle just for the coordination practice.

Rich S.

[[email protected]]

A local pilot at my former base of operations had a Kitfox with
extra-large tires. He
had a fixture built up to adapt the tail to the trailer hitch on his
pickup. He towed it
on the mains, as if it were a trailer. Rigging it for flight (or
reversing the procedure afterward) took very little time (10
minutes?). Anyway, his comings and goings were a common sight around
there. I suppose he kept it in his garage - and didn't live too far
away.

Were I in the market for a LSA, folding wings would be a minimum
requirement. I would
likely choose to keep it in an enclosed trailer. If I had no place to
store the trailer at home,
a storage yard costs only a fraction of the usual cost of a hangar (if
you can get one at
all - another airport I formerly flew out of had a 10-year waitlist).

David Johnson

[Montblack]

wrote)
> Were I in the market for a LSA, folding wings would be a minimum
> requirement. I would likely choose to keep it in an enclosed trailer. If I
> had no place to store the trailer at home, a storage yard costs only a
> fraction of the usual cost of a hangar (if you can get one at all -
> another airport I formerly flew out of had a 10-year waitlist).


By a seven year old car (minivan), sell it after four years. <Repeat>. *Now*
you can store the car in the driveway and keep the plane in the garage. In
our [townhouse] area you can't store trailers in your driveway. Mini-storage
runs well over $100/month (almost $150) for a 10x20 unit - plus the cost of
the trailer.

Folding wings is a good thing - anything to help keep the cost down. That
said, having had boats on trailers and at marinas ...the boats at the
marinas got used the most.


Montblack

[Bret Ludwig]

Rich S. wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Consider the Falco. Excellent airplane, poor homebuilt-unless perhaps
> > you are a master cabinetmaker or wood boatwright. The flip side are
> > aircraft like the traditional Pietenpols and Wittman
> > Tailwinds-excellent homebuilts, easily built from plans-but not
> > particularly desireable as airplanes in their own right.
> <snip similar stuff>
>
> Trying to disagree politely, like Smitty, the above opinions are not facts.
>
> One: The Falco is an excellent homebuilt. I can think of few aircraft that
> fulfill the "education and recreation" aim of the Amateur-built Experimental
> category. One does not select this project *because* he is a master of the
> art. One selects it in order to learn the craft.

The Falco is the canonical non-homebuilt, short of metal designs with
hydroformed compound curves or chem-milled skins. First, it is marketed
as a homebuilt by an individual who has AFAIK never built a Falco or
any other airplane. Second, it was designed to be built of wood because
at that time and place aircraft-caliber wood was cheaply available as
were the talents of skilled woodworkers. Aircraft grade wood is NOT
cheap (I know a little about it because I worked in the guitar
manufacturing business-we're the bad guys that made Sitka spruce a lot
more expensive) and if you need pro help it is unobtanium if you are
away from salt water (Midwesterners having zero interest in wood boats)
and precious if it is.

And what do you do with this skill set once you've acquired it at
ridiculous cost and effort by building a Falco? Unless you are an A&P
already or can get the ticket you aren't getting a job.(How could you
afford to build one on a GA mechanic's salary, anyway-silly question!)
You could build wood boats for your own amazement, although the skills
aren't a perfect match, you have learned skills and have tools. But if
you are wealthy enough to build a Falco in the first place and are not
a professional pilot, or a retired captain, you likely do not have the
flying skills because you were sawing and chiseling instead of shooting
approaches.

>
> Two: Desirable is a personal preference, not shared with all. I can think of
> few greater joys than flying at treetop height over the cornfields of
> Minnesota in a Piet, goggles keeping the breeze from my eyes, pulling up
> into a chandelle just for the coordination practice.
>

The Piet is a classic aircraft, but an awkward and really slow one.
The Cub is just as open-airy with the doors open and a _lot_ better
flying.

[Bret Ludwig]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2005 20:27:56 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
> wrote:
>
> :
> : The Falco is the canonical non-homebuilt, short of metal designs with
> :hydroformed compound curves or chem-milled skins. First, it is marketed
> :as a homebuilt by an individual who has AFAIK never built a Falco or
> :any other airplane. Second, it was designed to be built of wood because
> :at that time and place aircraft-caliber wood was cheaply available as
> :were the talents of skilled woodworkers.
>
> And it was designed as a certified airplane, to be factory built.
>

Yes, the real shame of it is that the Falco is indeed a type
certificated airplane that could be profitably built in several places
in the world and sold as a factory built airplane. Al Scott got a deal
to sell these as homebuilts, which means he's got everyone else locked
out of the business.

Al has never built an airplane, there is no evidence he is capable of
building an airplane, and the Falco is IMO a poor airplane for amateur
construction. It's very complicated and labor intensive, it retains
systems (like the electric gear) that weren't that great to begin with,
and of course it's intended for the obsolete museum piece certificated
powerplant. As far as I am concerned the ability to get away from
Lycoming junk is a key point of Experimental Amateur-Built-if
certification is good for engines, it's good for airframes too, seems
only common sense to me.

Would I buy a factory built wood Falco certified aerobatic category?
If Al Scott had no part in the deal, probably. It is a well designed
airplane. If it had one of the certificated non-LyCon, single lever
power control, preferably compression ignition power plants the appeal
would increase a lot.

In general, airplanes designed for home construction are unsuited for
production-the Maule, a short wing fabric Piper clone, would never have
been a popular project had B.D.Maule published plans, nor would (or
has) anyone built Dave Blanton's V-6 STOL from plans alone-and aircraft
cost effective and suited to production are non-starters as homebuilts.
(Just imagine building a Cherokee or a Skylane from scratch with 51% of
the actual fabrication done by actual amateurs.)

[Morgans]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote
>
> The Falco is the canonical non-homebuilt, short of metal designs with
> hydroformed compound curves or chem-milled skins. First, it is marketed
> as a homebuilt by an individual who has AFAIK never built a Falco or
> any other airplane.

You are under some misconceptions, when it comes to the Falco.

Although I don't have the sources in front of me, and it is too late to go
looking for them, I recall that the Falco was / is a certified aircraft in
Italy. In the second place, how can you say that this is still not
educational? If someone were to put out a complete (every part and system
included kit, missing assembly only) Cessna 152, and you were to assemble
it, would you come away not learning anything? I think not. You would
learn a ton.

> Second, it was designed to be built of wood because
> at that time and place aircraft-caliber wood was cheaply available as
> were the talents of skilled woodworkers. Aircraft grade wood is NOT
> cheap (I know a little about it because I worked in the guitar
> manufacturing business-we're the bad guys that made Sitka spruce a lot
> more expensive) and if you need pro help it is unobtanium if you are
> away from salt water (Midwesterners having zero interest in wood boats)
> and precious if it is.

It can also be built mainly from marine plywood. I know, because I talked,
at length, to a guy at OSH this year that built one that way.

> And what do you do with this skill set once you've acquired it at
> ridiculous cost and effort by building a Falco?

What, like cold molding plywood, assembling complex systems, flight testing?
Seems like a lot to be learned, to me. Might be handy in keeping it flying,
also. As to the ridiculous cost, it is a fraction of the cost, when built
from plans, rather than buying the kit.

> Unless you are an A&P
> already or can get the ticket you aren't getting a job.

So? People learn to play a guitar, without becoming a professional
musician. What is your point? The classification is for educational and
enjoyment, and for people who enjoy building things with their hands, it is
both of those.

> (How could you
> afford to build one on a GA mechanic's salary, anyway-silly question!)
> You could build wood boats for your own amazement, although the skills
> aren't a perfect match, you have learned skills and have tools. But if
> you are wealthy enough to build a Falco in the first place and are not
> a professional pilot, or a retired captain, you likely do not have the
> flying skills because you were sawing and chiseling instead of shooting
> approaches.

Irrelevant. Some people need to hone their skills, and some need to learn
them, but that is not part of the considerations involved. They might have
taken 20 years to build it, with plenty of flying to keep their skills sharp
while they were building it.
--
Jim in NC

[Darrel Toepfer]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> (Just imagine building a Cherokee or a Skylane from scratch with 51% of
> the actual fabrication done by actual amateurs.)

A Skylane has been scratch built, was covered in a mag last year I
believe...

[Big John]

Bret

Big Banshee

F2H3

Early twin engine MacDonald bird. Probably second generation Navy jet.

Had three interchangeable noses:

Radar
Gun
Photo

Work up was at Moffett . Sq was at Fallen for gunnery training. Ensign
came back to Moffett for week end (to see girl friend) and was on way
back to Fallen.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````

On 8 Oct 2005 22:37:35 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>
>Big John wrote:
>> Bret
>>
>> Beg to differ.
>>
>> Spent a year on exchange with VF-23 (Big Banshee) tail hook Squadron.
>>
>> We had a bird that one wing folded as pilot rotated for take off. Bird
>> rolled inverted and ground him off down to the sides of cockpit :o(.
>>
>> All the normal operation and safeties failed. I'd have flown the bird.
>
> What did VF-23 fly then?

[[email protected]]

Note that I said an enclosed trailer. With that you can keep the plane
anywhere
you can park the trailer. My 32' travel trailer costs $40/mo to keep in
a storage
yard. At the airport with the 10-year hangar waitlist there was an
active glider
group, some of whom kept their glider trailers in a storage yard on the
airport.
There was plenty of room for more trailers. I suspect many other
airports would
be similarly accomodating.

No doubt it is really convenient to be able to just jump in and go. In
that regard
a tiedown is even more convenient than a hangar. But you pay a price
for that
convenience.

David Johnson

[Richard Lamb]

Hey Earnest, (he said, changing the subject)
Do you have the plans for the Peanut Scale Dyke Delta?
I've wanted to build that one for years, but haven't found the plans
yet.

Richard

[Ernest Christley]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> Hey Earnest, (he said, changing the subject)
> Do you have the plans for the Peanut Scale Dyke Delta?
> I've wanted to build that one for years, but haven't found the plans
> yet.
>
> Richard
>

I've seen the plans on a model sight somewhere. But other than that,
all I have is the full size plans 8*)

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Bret Ludwig]

Big John wrote:
> Bret
>
> Big Banshee
>
> F2H3
>
> Early twin engine MacDonald bird. Probably second generation Navy jet.
>

OK, yes. Bridges of Toko Ri and all that. I actualy always thought it
would be a cool warbird (although a F4D-1 Skyray would be neater.) I
thought you meant "Big Banshees" was the squadron name.

Guy down the street from me owned a Hawker Hunter once-anything is
possible with money.

[Richard Lamb]

I took some pics of the white one at New Braunfels a couple of years
ago. Neat machine.

Studying those pics, I'm guessing there is a fairly healthy pitching
moment since the center of lift is WAY back behind the engine.

If anybody comes across the plans for it, would you mind letting
me know where to find it?

Building a small flying model would be most interesting lesson in
delta wing aerodynamics.

Richard