Flying the small block Chevy

[Bret Ludwig]

Is there an existing design (besides the Mustang and Spitfire scale
replicas) that would nicely take an iron block SBC with a belt redrive?
I figure that would be very popular with builders with hot rod
backgrounds, especially a two seater like a little T-6/Vibrator/Provost
trainer. True a smaller engine would make for a more economical design
using a smaller engine but fuel is still relatively cheap, compared to
everything else in an aircraft.

[Drew Dalgleish]

On 2 Nov 2005 19:16:10 -0800, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

> Is there an existing design (besides the Mustang and Spitfire scale
>replicas) that would nicely take an iron block SBC with a belt redrive?
>I figure that would be very popular with builders with hot rod
>backgrounds, especially a two seater like a little T-6/Vibrator/Provost
>trainer. True a smaller engine would make for a more economical design
>using a smaller engine but fuel is still relatively cheap, compared to
>everything else in an aircraft.
>
The republic seabee does very well. You'll have to register it in
Canada in the owner maintenance category though.

[Larry]

I believe the composite "Velocity"/Canard design does quite well with a
Chevy block. Lots of work setting everything up ie. cooling etc.

larry

[stol]

My Zenith 801 flies nicely with a V-8 in it,,,altho it is an aluminum
block Ford and about the same weight as a full dressed 0-360 Lyc..

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com



Larry wrote:
> I believe the composite "Velocity"/Canard design does quite well with a
> Chevy block. Lots of work setting everything up ie. cooling etc.
>
> larry

[[email protected]]

There was a guy in the EAA group I used to belong to who put one in a
Grumman American Yankee. The install looked complete and ready to use -
but he never flew it that I am aware of. Then he moved out of town, so
I have no idea if it was a success or not (I later moved myself).

David Johnson

[Drew Dalgleish]

On 3 Nov 2005 18:22:26 -0800, wrote:
There's at least a couple murphy mooses (meece?) under construction
using them as well. I don't know of any that are flying yet though.

[Bret Ludwig]

I really don't want an amphib (I know a Spencer Air Car or two had
them) or a big Helio-alike cabin plane. I'd personally really like
something with two seats and the flying qualities, if not the speed, of
a T-6-i.e. a Vultee Vibrator class airplane. Something with the T-6's
virtues and vices- you learn to fly well and fast in a Texan, it has
the mother of all stall breaks-but not round engine operating costs. I
figure a BT-13 has 450 hp (??) and fixed gear, a slightly smaller two
seater with Cherokee Six like wing and power loading would haul an
admittedly overweight 250 hp cruise, 300 T/O hp engine and two old fat
guys around nicely.

[Charles K. Scott]

On 4 Nov 2005 12:53:16 -0800, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

> I really don't want an amphib (I know a Spencer Air Car or two had
>them) or a big Helio-alike cabin plane. I'd personally really like
>something with two seats and the flying qualities, if not the speed, of
>a T-6-i.e. a Vultee Vibrator class airplane. Something with the T-6's
>virtues and vices- you learn to fly well and fast in a Texan, it has
>the mother of all stall breaks-but not round engine operating costs. I
>figure a BT-13 has 450 hp (??) and fixed gear, a slightly smaller two
>seater with Cherokee Six like wing and power loading would haul an
>admittedly overweight 250 hp cruise, 300 T/O hp engine and two old fat
>guys around nicely.

Don't know where you are getting your information Bret, but the BT13
was not well liked by pilots and civilians alike. Pilots didn't like
it because it stalled suddenly and precipitiously and displayed in
general, nasty slow speed habits. It killed it's fair share of cadets
in it's day and continues to kill them now. Civilians did not like it
because the prop made such a racket that windows rattled and dishes
fell off shelves whenever it flew by.

If that's what you want, buy one.

Corky Scott

[Bret Ludwig]

Charles K. Scott wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2005 12:53:16 -0800, "Bret Ludwig" >
> wrote:
<<snip>>

> Don't know where you are getting your information Bret, but the BT13
> was not well liked by pilots and civilians alike. Pilots didn't like
> it because it stalled suddenly and precipitiously and displayed in
> general, nasty slow speed habits. It killed it's fair share of cadets
> in it's day and continues to kill them now. Civilians did not like it
> because the prop made such a racket that windows rattled and dishes
> fell off shelves whenever it flew by.

The BT-13 is no longer in military training service anywhere and so I
doubt it kills cadets any longer. It probably does kill the odd warbird
owner or two, especially in "bull markets" when incompetents get big
credit lines and buy themselves a toy they can't handle.

The characteristics I want to emulate are those of the T-6, which is
also considered a fearsome beast by the untrained. However, numerous
instructor pilots and military aviators have commented, both in the
literature and in personal discussions I have had with them, that they
felt old school aviators trained in T-6s and tip tank afflicted T-33s
were at advantage over those coming from the relatively viceless Tweet
and Talon.

The idea should be, "if you can fly this airplane properly then when
you get the money a warbird will be a straightforward transition".
However I am not talking about a primary trainer, because it's about
impossible to improve on the venerable Cub (or similar machines like
the Champ/Scout/Citabria) for the role, and because I don't believe
homebuilding is for people without having these basics down before
starting.

I don't advocate making an airplane squirrely on purpose, nor making
it so loud and shaky it causes problems with the citizenry underneath:
but let's face it, you buy a warbird so people will think you have a
pair and pay attention to you. The essential driving mechanism behind
all collectibles markets is WGBD: I just want to provide a way to do it
without destroying a real piece of history, and without getting you
killed unless you really, really need to be filtered out of the gene
pool.

[Charles K. Scott]

On 7 Nov 2005 11:56:22 -0800, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

> The BT-13 is no longer in military training service anywhere and so I
>doubt it kills cadets any longer. It probably does kill the odd warbird
>owner or two, especially in "bull markets" when incompetents get big
>credit lines and buy themselves a toy they can't handle.

I think if you check my comment, you'll see I did not say that it was
still killing cadets. But it is still killing pilots still flying it.
One died just this summer not ten miles from where I'm typing this.

Sudden loss of power on takeoff from a private grass strip bordering
the Connecticut river. The pilot turned out over the river and was
probably attempting to make it back to the field with the engine
sputtering and not producing power. The airplane hit in a corn field
short of the runway, nose down. The airplane burned and both
occupants were killed. The pilot was supposedly a very experienced
warbird pilot who was a member of a BT13 association, from what I
gathered from the news. The passenger I think was his son.

Would he have made it in any other airplane? Don't know. All I'm
saying is the slow speed handling qualities are known to be
treacherous.

My preference is to fly for fun without having to be unduly concerned
about what happens when I get slow. Each to their own, you certainly
don't have to listen to me. I wish you well.

Corky Scott

[L.D.]

Charles K. Scott wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2005 11:56:22 -0800, "Bret Ludwig" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>The BT-13 is no longer in military training service anywhere and so I
>>doubt it kills cadets any longer. It probably does kill the odd warbird
>>owner or two, especially in "bull markets" when incompetents get big
>>credit lines and buy themselves a toy they can't handle.
>
>
> I think if you check my comment, you'll see I did not say that it was
> still killing cadets. But it is still killing pilots still flying it.
> One died just this summer not ten miles from where I'm typing this.
>
> Sudden loss of power on takeoff from a private grass strip bordering
> the Connecticut river. The pilot turned out over the river and was
> probably attempting to make it back to the field with the engine
> sputtering and not producing power. The airplane hit in a corn field
> short of the runway, nose down. The airplane burned and both
> occupants were killed. The pilot was supposedly a very experienced
> warbird pilot who was a member of a BT13 association, from what I
> gathered from the news. The passenger I think was his son.
>
> Would he have made it in any other airplane? Don't know. All I'm
> saying is the slow speed handling qualities are known to be
> treacherous.
>
> My preference is to fly for fun without having to be unduly concerned
> about what happens when I get slow. Each to their own, you certainly
> don't have to listen to me. I wish you well.
>
> Corky Scott


Slow?????? What is slow?????? 40 years ago I got solo ticket and
bought me a Tri Pacer. People told me you can't fly that thing slow, it
falls like a rock. Well it never fell. True, I couldn't fly it as slow
as the Taylorcraft I soloed in. I started my commercial and getting high
performance in a Mooney. Humm, you know that Tri Pacer could fly slow,
when compared----. Well I am always concerned about what happens when
you get slow, that is too slow, er ah too slow for the airplane I'm
flying and I don't need an airspeed indicator to know that. What I'm
trying to say is that BT-13 didn't kill that pilot but that pilot killed
the BT-13. If they got it too slow it certainly wasn't the airplanes
fault. There was NO reason for them to hit in a corn field with the nose
down unless he had a control system malfunction. Sounds like the control
problem was the pilot.
L.D.

[Bret Ludwig]

L.D. wrote:
<<snip>>
>
>
> Slow?????? What is slow?????? 40 years ago I got solo ticket and
> bought me a Tri Pacer. People told me you can't fly that thing slow, it
> falls like a rock. Well it never fell. True, I couldn't fly it as slow
> as the Taylorcraft I soloed in. I started my commercial and getting high
> performance in a Mooney. Humm, you know that Tri Pacer could fly slow,
> when compared----. Well I am always concerned about what happens when
> you get slow, that is too slow, er ah too slow for the airplane I'm
> flying and I don't need an airspeed indicator to know that. What I'm
> trying to say is that BT-13 didn't kill that pilot but that pilot killed
> the BT-13. If they got it too slow it certainly wasn't the airplanes
> fault. There was NO reason for them to hit in a corn field with the nose
> down unless he had a control system malfunction. Sounds like the control
> problem was the pilot.


I think what he meant was the BT-13 has a sudden and unpredictable
stall break, which is probably true. I have flown (back seat) a T-6 and
while the break is sudden, it's also predictable. The bottom line is if
you are going to fly a warbird, you fly a T-6 first, and well, then the
fighters are a matter of systems and quirks. The average person who
should be flying at all, can be trained to fly a T-6-most military
cadet pupils had no special aptitude, for every Yeager or Hoover there
were thousands with average or slightly below aptitude and if they paid
attention, and didn't let fear or other baggage get in their way, they
graduated.

[Charles K. Scott]

On 10 Nov 2005 12:19:22 -0800, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>The average person who
>should be flying at all, can be trained to fly a T-6-most military
>cadet pupils had no special aptitude, for every Yeager or Hoover there
>were thousands with average or slightly below aptitude and if they paid
>attention, and didn't let fear or other baggage get in their way, they
>graduated.

True, kinda. But for every cadet who graduated, there were two or
three who entered flight training but washed out for one reason or
another and were placed in bombardier school or became navigators.
Then there were those lost through crashes for one reason or another.

Some of those guys, who survived the war as bombardiers and
navigators, went on to become civilian pilots. During the war the
military was in a rush and it didn't really matter that they washed
out so many because there were dozens lining up behind those culled
from pilots school eager to take over.

During the last full year of war, training was scaled back
dramatically because there were so many pilots already trained.

Yeager, according to his biography, got very airsick during many of
his training flights. He must have really wanted to earn his wings to
continue through that.

Corky Scott

[Bret Ludwig]

Charles K. Scott wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2005 12:19:22 -0800, "Bret Ludwig" >
> wrote:
>
> >The average person who
> >should be flying at all, can be trained to fly a T-6-most military
> >cadet pupils had no special aptitude, for every Yeager or Hoover there
> >were thousands with average or slightly below aptitude and if they paid
> >attention, and didn't let fear or other baggage get in their way, they
> >graduated.
>
> True, kinda. But for every cadet who graduated, there were two or
> three who entered flight training but washed out for one reason or
> another and were placed in bombardier school or became navigators.
> Then there were those lost through crashes for one reason or another.
>
> Some of those guys, who survived the war as bombardiers and
> navigators, went on to become civilian pilots. During the war the
> military was in a rush and it didn't really matter that they washed
> out so many because there were dozens lining up behind those culled
> from pilots school eager to take over.
>
> During the last full year of war, training was scaled back
> dramatically because there were so many pilots already trained.
>
> Yeager, according to his biography, got very airsick during many of
> his training flights. He must have really wanted to earn his wings to
> continue through that.

I think he did. I only puked once in my life in an airplane and it was
in the back of a V-tail Bonanza, sashaying as usual like a drag queen
in a Gay Pride parade in mild turbulence.

The Bonanzaphiles are people that so often have never rode in the back
of them. I used to see these dorks on Harry St. at their Bonanza
Bordello.

Q. What's the last thing that goes through the mind of an
(obstetrician, TV preacher, tax lawyer, insert favorite Bonanza owner
here)?

A. The accessory section of a TSIO Continental, of course.