1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?

[Montblack]

I sometimes cut-n-paste crash victim's names into Google.groups.rec.aviation
to see if that person has ever posted here. Too ghoulish?

One person's name, about 6 years ago, came up. IIRC, his family was in the
plane.

With the spate of recent crashes it got me wondering, again: People here at
rec.aviation know some of these victims - but have WE lost any of our (r.a.h
& r.a.p) posters in crashes, in the last 8-10 years?


Montblack
I've been around since 1998 - starting in r.a.s.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
..
<..>
> With the spate of recent crashes
<...>

Has there really been a spate of recent crashes, or has it been a spate of
people posting details of recent crashes?

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Skylune]

by "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> Feb 2, 2006 at
04:44 PM


..>
> With the spate of recent crashes
<...>

Has there really been a spate of recent crashes, or has it been a spate
of

people posting details of recent crashes?<<

Why do you pose this as an "or" question? Both can be true (and are).

[JJS]

"Montblack" > wrote in message ...
>I sometimes cut-n-paste crash victim's names into Google.groups.rec.aviation
> to see if that person has ever posted here. Too ghoulish?
>
> One person's name, about 6 years ago, came up. IIRC, his family was in the
> plane.
>
> With the spate of recent crashes it got me wondering, again: People here at
> rec.aviation know some of these victims - but have WE lost any of our (r.a.h
> & r.a.p) posters in crashes, in the last 8-10 years?
>
>
> Montblack
> I've been around since 1998 - starting in r.a.s.
Wasn't there a gentleman who not too long ago died in the crash of his SQ2000 canard that posted on R.A.H. My memory
fails me but it seems he had installed an Franklin engine? and was having overheating issues. I don't believe he had
much time at all on it.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jerry Springer]

Montblack wrote:
> I sometimes cut-n-paste crash victim's names into
> Google.groups.rec.aviation
> to see if that person has ever posted here. Too ghoulish?
>
> One person's name, about 6 years ago, came up. IIRC, his family was in the
> plane.
>
> With the spate of recent crashes it got me wondering, again: People here at
> rec.aviation know some of these victims - but have WE lost any of our
> (r.a.h
> & r.a.p) posters in crashes, in the last 8-10 years?
>
>
> Montblack
> I've been around since 1998 - starting in r.a.s.


Two people that used to post in RAH died in the infamous Mini 500.

[Morgans]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote
>
> Two people that used to post in RAH died in the infamous Mini 500.

Gil, and ????
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Lamb]

Jerry Springer wrote:

> Montblack wrote:
>
>> I sometimes cut-n-paste crash victim's names into
>> Google.groups.rec.aviation
>> to see if that person has ever posted here. Too ghoulish?
>>
>> One person's name, about 6 years ago, came up. IIRC, his family was in
>> the
>> plane.
>>
>> With the spate of recent crashes it got me wondering, again: People
>> here at
>> rec.aviation know some of these victims - but have WE lost any of our
>> (r.a.h
>> & r.a.p) posters in crashes, in the last 8-10 years?
>>
>>
>> Montblack
>> I've been around since 1998 - starting in r.a.s.
>
>
>
> Two people that used to post in RAH died in the infamous Mini 500.

I know (knew) a few lurkers (who read but don't post) that we lost in the
last few years.

It's a sad side of this business.

Richard

[Stealth Pilot]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:11:18 GMT, Richard Lamb
> wrote:

>Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>> Montblack wrote:
>>
>>> I sometimes cut-n-paste crash victim's names into
>>> Google.groups.rec.aviation
>>> to see if that person has ever posted here. Too ghoulish?
>>>
>>> One person's name, about 6 years ago, came up. IIRC, his family was in
>>> the
>>> plane.
>>>
>>> With the spate of recent crashes it got me wondering, again: People
>>> here at
>>> rec.aviation know some of these victims - but have WE lost any of our
>>> (r.a.h
>>> & r.a.p) posters in crashes, in the last 8-10 years?
>>>
>>>
>>> Montblack
>>> I've been around since 1998 - starting in r.a.s.
>>
>>
>>
>> Two people that used to post in RAH died in the infamous Mini 500.
>
>I know (knew) a few lurkers (who read but don't post) that we lost in the
>last few years.
>
>It's a sad side of this business.
>
>Richard

you know the saddest part of it all.
they vanish anonymously in the dark of night.
most times we wonder about the lack of recent activity and think they
have moved jobs. comes as a real shock to find that someone ceased
existence and we never even knew it.

I have enjoyed all the posters on RAH and aus.aviation that I read and
discuss with and have for over a decade. sometimes an update as to who
has died would be appreciated. ...although we dont want it to become
rec.aviation.funerals

....and I bloody well dont want my entry appearing!
Stealth Pilot

[Dave S]

JJS wrote:

>>Montblack
>>I've been around since 1998 - starting in r.a.s.
>
> Wasn't there a gentleman who not too long ago died in the crash of his SQ2000 canard that posted on R.A.H. My memory
> fails me but it seems he had installed an Franklin engine? and was having overheating issues. I don't believe he had
> much time at all on it.
>

The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine that had
what the rotary community believes was an intermittent fuel supply
program and was in flight test at the time. The aircraft had made one
dead-stick due to what the community assumed was a vapor lock. This was
a fairly low altitude turn back and landing on-field but off-runway.
After some re-work on the fuel system he went up again, and on one of
the subsequent flights weeks later lost power very low, and tried to
make another low turn back to the runway. He ended up in trees.

The rotary powered aircraft community participated in both the NTSB
investigation and afterwards several purchased the airframe from the
widow and did additional information gathering. Nothing definitive was
determined from a cause standpoint, but one of the fuel injectors (which
was used, not new) was found to be faulty from a flow standpoint.

Dave S





>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jerry Springer]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote
>
>>
>> Two people that used to post in RAH died in the infamous Mini 500.
>
>
> Gil, and ????

Your probably right Jim I was thinking of Allen Barklage, he may not
have posted in RAH. Maybe someone else remembers if he did or not.

[kd5sak]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> JJS wrote:
> The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine that had what
> the rotary community believes was an intermittent fuel supply program and
> was in flight test at the time. The aircraft had made one dead-stick due
> to what the community assumed was a vapor lock. This was a fairly low
> altitude turn back and landing on-field but off-runway. After some re-work
> on the fuel system he went up again, and on one of the subsequent flights
> weeks later lost power very low, and tried to make another low turn back
> to the runway. He ended up in trees.

Same tactic killed Wiley Post and Will Rogers. Don't fly myself, but in a
lifetime of reading
I've seen several references to crashes occuring from pilots trying to turn
back to a runway
when they had a reasonably flat bit of terrain in front of them. It's been
said that Post knew better, but had the family fortune tied up in the plane
he and Will were traveling in and just let that drive his decision making.
What do some of you actual pilots think?

Harold
KD5SAK

[Morgans]

>>
>> Gil, and ????
>
> Your probably right Jim I was thinking of Allen Barklage, he may not have
> posted in RAH. Maybe someone else remembers if he did or not.

Just to let you know, I was not being combative, but I could not think of
any others. As far as Allen goes, I don't remember him posting here, unless
he was using an alias.

Bad business, that mini 500 bit. Strange, that nobody can remember any
rec.aviation deaths, then the mini comes up. Yet, it is said that it was
not the craft's fault. I still don't buy it.
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Lamb]

kd5sak wrote:

> Same tactic killed Wiley Post and Will Rogers. Don't fly myself, but in a
> lifetime of reading
> I've seen several references to crashes occuring from pilots trying to turn
> back to a runway
> when they had a reasonably flat bit of terrain in front of them. It's been
> said that Post knew better, but had the family fortune tied up in the plane
> he and Will were traveling in and just let that drive his decision making.
> What do some of you actual pilots think?
>
> Harold
> KD5SAK
>


It's hard to put any iron clad rules on it before hand as the situation
you are dealing with could be quite different each time.

I've never had one quit completely on me.
But I did have a C-85 sag rather dramatically on takeoff to the south
from Crystal River in Florida.

I had been idling too long and the plugs loaded up on me.
(Leo had trouble starting the T-Cart and I went to help him.)

I "burned them off" by running up a bit until the mags checked ok,
but at about 300 feet the thing went sour again.
I just got in a hurry to catch up with my lead.
Foolish lizard.

Hotel about 1/2 mile straight ahead(!), Interstate with bumper to
bumper traffic to the right, and a 4000 foot paved runway directly
below (cross ways). I mean directly straight down...

Damn it but that hotel suddenly looked real big!

I turned left for the cross wind runway, crabbing away from it in order
not to be blown further north, with the idea that if it did quit I'd
rather "land" someplace on the airport that in a parking lot.

The engine cleared in a dozen or so (very extremely way too long!) seconds
and I decided to abort the abort and head on home.

But I think the upholstery pattern is still imprinted on that pair of
jeans...

Thinking back on it (way after the fact), I probably should have turned
a little further north and let the wind blow me across the runway to set
up for a right base. I don't think I'd have made the runway if the engine
had quit from where I was. It would required a real tight turn from base
to final - down wind.

But I may have been a _little_ distracted and didn't think of it in time.

Sonny sez, "The problem with aviation is that you can't make the same mistake
_once_". He has a point, you know.

Richard

[kd5sak]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>> kd5sak wrote:
>> I've seen several references to crashes occuring from pilots trying to
>> turn back to a runway when they had a reasonably flat bit of terrain in
>> front of them. It's been said that Post knew better, but had the family
>> fortune tied up in the plane he and Will were traveling in and just let
>> that drive his decision making. What do some of you actual pilots think?
>>
>> Harold
>> KD5SAK
>
>
> It's hard to put any iron clad rules on it before hand as the situation
> you are dealing with could be quite different each time.
>
> I've never had one quit completely on me.
> But I did have a C-85 sag rather dramatically on takeoff to the south
> from Crystal River in Florida.
>
> I had been idling too long and the plugs loaded up on me.
> (Leo had trouble starting the T-Cart and I went to help him.)
>
> I "burned them off" by running up a bit until the mags checked ok,
> but at about 300 feet the thing went sour again.
> I just got in a hurry to catch up with my lead.
> Foolish lizard.
>
> Hotel about 1/2 mile straight ahead(!), Interstate with bumper to
> bumper traffic to the right, and a 4000 foot paved runway directly
> below (cross ways). I mean directly straight down...
>
> Damn it but that hotel suddenly looked real big!
>
> I turned left for the cross wind runway, crabbing away from it in order
> not to be blown further north, with the idea that if it did quit I'd
> rather "land" someplace on the airport that in a parking lot.
>
> The engine cleared in a dozen or so (very extremely way too long!) seconds
> and I decided to abort the abort and head on home.
>
> But I think the upholstery pattern is still imprinted on that pair of
> jeans...
>
> Thinking back on it (way after the fact), I probably should have turned
> a little further north and let the wind blow me across the runway to set
> up for a right base. I don't think I'd have made the runway if the engine
> had quit from where I was. It would required a real tight turn from base
> to final - down wind.
>
> But I may have been a _little_ distracted and didn't think of it in time.
>
> Sonny sez, "The problem with aviation is that you can't make the same
> mistake
> _once_". He has a point, you know.
>
> Richard

Thanks for the reply, after reading about it so often over the years I've
often
wondered what actual pilots might think. Nearest thing I've had happen was
motorcycling.
Cornered a long curve much too fast and drifted off the road and shoulder
until I wound up paralleling a 4 strand barbed wire fence about two feet
away at speed. Don't know how fast but had slowed some by then. Stayed out
of it and finally crossed back onto the road but kept thinking, "self, you
should have layed it down".I think it's almost always better to be lucky
than smart when critical decisions are necessary..

Harold
KD5SAK

[Vaughn]

"kd5sak" > wrote in message
. ..
> Thanks for the reply, after reading about it so often over the years I've
> often
> wondered what actual pilots might think. Nearest thing I've had happen was
> motorcycling.

Actually, the 180 degree unpowered return from takeoff is a pretty constant
and well-known killer of pilots. The statics say it is much better to crash
straight ahead under control than to stall-spin-crash. Gliders are a bit of a
different story. I am a glider CFI and we actually teach 180 degree returns
from 400 feet.


> Cornered a long curve much too fast and drifted off the road and shoulder
> until I wound up paralleling a 4 strand barbed wire fence about two feet away
> at speed. Don't know how fast but had slowed some by then. Stayed out of it
> and finally crossed back onto the road but kept thinking, "self, you should
> have layed it down".I think it's almost always better to be lucky than smart
> when critical decisions are necessary..

I will never forget shortly after I traded my Honda 305 for an Earles-fork
BMW. I went tearing down the road following my friends. When we came to the
Interstate, they all gracefully took the 45 degree turn onto the on-ramp while I
(using the techniques learned from the sprightly little Honda) only managed
about 22 degrees...

Vaughn WB4UHB

[Al]

I was tempted once, but the temptation went away with the
altitude...quickly.

I lost an engine on a C210 at about 300 ft, on departure. The thing quit
like someone had pulled the throttle, which turned out to be very close to
reality. In the shock of the moment, I thought about trying a turn, but
decided to plant it off the end of my departure runway(I was 3000' down a
4000' runway), instead. The clearway at the end was level and had no large
trees. I had already cleaned up the departure flaps, was climbing at 80kts,
and the gear doors were just closing when the thing quit. I immediately
selected the gear back down, and was flat amazed at the sink rate that
developed, no power, windmilling, with the gear in transit. At about 20',
still over the runway, I had to hold it off using flaps, to wait for the
gear to finish extending. The main gear came over center in the saddles,
just as I ran out of elevator, we touched down on the mains, and had to hold
the nose gear off long enough for it to extend. I slid onto the numbers at
the far end with the gear pump still running to close the doors, and got it
stopped. The engine lit off, and we taxied back to the tiedown, and
deplaned.
It turns out that this aircraft had recently come out of 100hr., and for
some reason they had the Airquipt(sp?) hose that runs from the air cleaner
to the turbo-charger off. When the mechanic put it back on, he didn't know
what to do with the ends of the metal wire that winds around the inside of
the hose. He bent each wire end into a little "U" shape, and hooked them
together in the middle of the hose. (They should have been placed under the
hose clamp at each end) A couple of hours later, with vibration, the glue
holding the wire failed, and hooked in the middle the wire collapsed like a
slinky, allowing the hose to collapse, shutting off all air to the turbo.
What really amazed me was how fast the altitude and airspeed went away.
When the thing first quit, I would have sworn I could not get down to my
departure runway before going off the end. I was wrong. Wrong by over a
thousand feet.

Al CFIAMI


"kd5sak" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> JJS wrote:
>> The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine that had
>> what the rotary community believes was an intermittent fuel supply
>> program and was in flight test at the time. The aircraft had made one
>> dead-stick due to what the community assumed was a vapor lock. This was a
>> fairly low altitude turn back and landing on-field but off-runway. After
>> some re-work on the fuel system he went up again, and on one of the
>> subsequent flights weeks later lost power very low, and tried to make
>> another low turn back to the runway. He ended up in trees.
>
> Same tactic killed Wiley Post and Will Rogers. Don't fly myself, but in a
> lifetime of reading
> I've seen several references to crashes occuring from pilots trying to
> turn back to a runway
> when they had a reasonably flat bit of terrain in front of them. It's been
> said that Post knew better, but had the family fortune tied up in the
> plane he and Will were traveling in and just let that drive his decision
> making. What do some of you actual pilots think?
>
> Harold
> KD5SAK
>

[kd5sak]

"Al" > wrote in message
...
>I was tempted once, but the temptation went away with the
>altitude...quickly.
>
> What really amazed me was how fast the altitude and airspeed went away.
> When the thing first quit, I would have sworn I could not get down to my
> departure runway before going off the end. I was wrong. Wrong by over a
> thousand feet.
>
> Al CFIAMI
>

I'm beginning to be glad the wife would'nt let me buy a kitplane when I
first retired
10 years ago. You guys have some real interesting stories to tell. Hmmm,
someone should start an aviation close calls recounting group.

Harold
KD5SAK

[Peter Dohm]

"Al" > wrote in message
...
> I was tempted once, but the temptation went away with the
> altitude...quickly.
>
> I lost an engine on a C210 at about 300 ft, on departure. The thing
quit
> like someone had pulled the throttle, which turned out to be very close to
> reality. In the shock of the moment, I thought about trying a turn, but
> decided to plant it off the end of my departure runway(I was 3000' down a
> 4000' runway), instead. The clearway at the end was level and had no large
> trees. I had already cleaned up the departure flaps, was climbing at
80kts,
> and the gear doors were just closing when the thing quit. I immediately
> selected the gear back down, and was flat amazed at the sink rate that
> developed, no power, windmilling, with the gear in transit. At about 20',
> still over the runway, I had to hold it off using flaps, to wait for the
> gear to finish extending. The main gear came over center in the saddles,
> just as I ran out of elevator, we touched down on the mains, and had to
hold
> the nose gear off long enough for it to extend. I slid onto the numbers at
> the far end with the gear pump still running to close the doors, and got
it
> stopped. The engine lit off, and we taxied back to the tiedown, and
> deplaned.
> It turns out that this aircraft had recently come out of 100hr., and
for
> some reason they had the Airquipt(sp?) hose that runs from the air cleaner
> to the turbo-charger off. When the mechanic put it back on, he didn't know
> what to do with the ends of the metal wire that winds around the inside of
> the hose. He bent each wire end into a little "U" shape, and hooked them
> together in the middle of the hose. (They should have been placed under
the
> hose clamp at each end) A couple of hours later, with vibration, the glue
> holding the wire failed, and hooked in the middle the wire collapsed like
a
> slinky, allowing the hose to collapse, shutting off all air to the turbo.
> What really amazed me was how fast the altitude and airspeed went
away.
> When the thing first quit, I would have sworn I could not get down to my
> departure runway before going off the end. I was wrong. Wrong by over a
> thousand feet.
>
> Al CFIAMI
>
>
I never tried it "for real", but had the experience on one "simulation"
about 25 years ago.

I was a student pilot in a Cessna 150M, with an instructor. And, I suppose
that I had always been visibly nervous regarding the "what if the engine
quits" scenario.

In any case, we took off into a head wind of around 12 knots (on the ground)
from a 3000 foot paved runway on a little "training only" airport. The
instructor said to climb until I believed that I could make it back to land
on the reciprocal, then pull the power and try it. I really doubt that such
a demonstration was approved, much less encouraged, even then; and it may
have been my first attempt at a down wind landing as well!

In any event, we climbed to a little more than 350 feet before I pulled the
power to idle; and promptly began my turn back tothe runway. As I
mentioned, I had heard all of those horror stories about how it was suicidal
to attempt a turn greater than 90 degrees; and this required a turn or at
least 225 degrees, a short straight glide, and then about 45 degrees back
the other way--all before the final glide, flap extension, and flare. I did
not simulate the customary 4 seconds of disbelief, nor did I simulate a
reasonable period of indicision regarding what to do next--to turn or not to
turn was never the question--I just applied the carburetor heat, pushed the
nose over, and cranked it into the turn ... and the limitations of my chosen
procedure only gradually became apparent.

Now, I should mention that I am not really a fan of high winged aircraft. I
admit that they have their practical side--lighter structure for a given
strength, ease of undercarriage inspection, and the wing is well clear of
most of the "stuff" on an narrow and unimproved runway. Still, as I said, I
am not a fan. A wing is really a think that one should sit upon; it is not
a thing that one should attempt to look through.

So, I continued around the turn, still at a safe altitude and with the
engine idling smoothly, and the runway eventually came into view. And I
continued around, still at a safe, and saw that I was really not far from
the runway at all. Therefore, I continued the turn to about the 270 degree
point before making a roll reversal--and finally getting the flaps down. By
then, I was just about over the runway and diving with full flaps. It then
became intuitively obvious, to even the most casual observer, that I was
much too high.

As to the outcome? We flew away without lnading.

One of these days I still plan to get back to flying, and to make the
transition from former student to current pilot. Until then, there are
memories of a time when flying was more innocent, a little crazier, and a
lot more fun!

Peter

[Richard Lamb]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> I did
> not simulate the customary 4 seconds of disbelief, nor did I simulate a
> reasonable period of indicision regarding what to do next--
>
> Peter
>

Very astute observation, Peter.

[Richard Riley]

The informal group also found that he was significantly aft CG.

[Jean-Paul Roy]

There are only about 5% of peoples in the parade (flying and builders
pilots).

Another 15% standing by the runway and watching the parade ( sometime
commenting and/or criticizing).

And the rest (80%) don't even know there is a parade.

Jean-Paul

"kd5sak" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Al" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I was tempted once, but the temptation went away with the
> >altitude...quickly.
> >
> > What really amazed me was how fast the altitude and airspeed went
away.
> > When the thing first quit, I would have sworn I could not get down to my
> > departure runway before going off the end. I was wrong. Wrong by over a
> > thousand feet.
> >
> > Al CFIAMI
> >
>
> I'm beginning to be glad the wife would'nt let me buy a kitplane when I
> first retired
> 10 years ago. You guys have some real interesting stories to tell. Hmmm,
> someone should start an aviation close calls recounting group.
>
> Harold
> KD5SAK
>
>

[JJS]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
snip
> I will never forget shortly after I traded my Honda 305 for an Earles-fork BMW. I went tearing down the road
> following my friends. When we came to the Interstate, they all gracefully took the 45 degree turn onto the on-ramp
> while I (using the techniques learned from the sprightly little Honda) only managed about 22 degrees...
>
> Vaughn WB4UHB

A Honda 305 Dream? Wow! That brings back memories.... from an ex Honda 350 pilot. When I was about 14 or 15 I
thought these were huge, powerful bikes.

Joe Schneider
8437R



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[JJS]

"Dave S" > wrote in message nk.net...

> The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine that had what the rotary community believes was an
> intermittent fuel supply program and was in flight test at the time. The aircraft had made one dead-stick due to
> what the community assumed was a vapor lock. This was a fairly low altitude turn back and landing on-field but
> off-runway. After some re-work on the fuel system he went up again, and on one of the subsequent flights weeks
> later lost power very low, and tried to make another low turn back to the runway. He ended up in trees.
>
> The rotary powered aircraft community participated in both the NTSB investigation and afterwards several purchased
> the airframe from the widow and did additional information gathering. Nothing definitive was determined from a
> cause standpoint, but one of the fuel injectors (which was used, not new) was found to be faulty from a flow
> standpoint.
>
> Dave S

It makes me feel bad that I can't recall his name. I tried a Google search of the newsgroup archives and didn't find
it.

Joe Schneider
8437R



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[kd5sak]

"Jean-Paul Roy" > wrote in message
. ..
> There are only about 5% of peoples in the parade (flying and builders
> pilots).
>
> Another 15% standing by the runway and watching the parade ( sometime
> commenting and/or criticizing).
>
> And the rest (80%) don't even know there is a parade.
>
> Jean-Paul
>

I imagine the oblivious 80% don't even realize there IS anything
happening outside of Hollywood and Hip-Hop. Sad, really.

Harold
KD5SAK

[Jerry Springer]

kd5sak wrote:
> "Al" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I was tempted once, but the temptation went away with the
>>altitude...quickly.
>>
>> What really amazed me was how fast the altitude and airspeed went away.
>>When the thing first quit, I would have sworn I could not get down to my
>>departure runway before going off the end. I was wrong. Wrong by over a
>>thousand feet.
>>
>>Al CFIAMI
>>
>
>
> I'm beginning to be glad the wife would'nt let me buy a kitplane when I
> first retired
> 10 years ago. You guys have some real interesting stories to tell. Hmmm,
> someone should start an aviation close calls recounting group.
>
> Harold
> KD5SAK
>
>
A good share of these stories are about factory built certified
aircraft. Most kitbuilt aircraft now days are very safe.

Jerry

[kd5sak]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
. ..
> kd5sak wrote:
>> "Al" > wrote in message
>> ...
> A good share of these stories are about factory built certified aircraft.
> Most kitbuilt aircraft now days are very safe.
>
> Jerry


I'm sure they are all safe, unless something breaks or the pilot makes a
mistake.
I've always maintained my autos, tractors, and motorcyles well and never had
a serious
mechanical malfunction. Regarding the likelihood of a personal mistake,
though, now that
gives me pause for thought. The phrase "occasional lapse in judgement", if
looked up in the Encyclopedia, might just have my picture beside it.
Example- Once I tried to climb a curb with a fairly large SP-370 Suzuki, at
a little too fast and at slightly too great an angle.
I didn't previously realize that one COULD barrel roll a motorcycle.(G)
Fortunately, the earth
upon which I landed was relatively soft, only my ego was bruised.

Harold
KD5SAK

[Dan Luke]

"Jerry Springer" wrote:

> A good share of these stories are about factory built certified
> aircraft. Most kitbuilt aircraft now days are very safe.

What do you mean--in hard numbers--by "very safe," and what evidence do
you have to back up your assertion?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[john smith]

> A good share of these stories are about factory built certified
> aircraft. Most kitbuilt aircraft now days are very safe.

The majority of problems with homebuilts occur within the FAA designated
testing phase and are fuel system related (getting the fuel from the
tank to the engine).

[john smith]

In article >,
"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> In any event, we climbed to a little more than 350 feet before I pulled the
> power to idle; and promptly began my turn back tothe runway.

Idle thrust is still quite a bit of applied power.
Instead of pulling the throttle (air), pull the mixture (gas).
This will give you a windmilling prop with all the associated drag.
When you are ready to restore power, push the mixture back in.
Try it and see how your results change.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:09:18 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>> A good share of these stories are about factory built certified
>> aircraft. Most kitbuilt aircraft now days are very safe.
>
>The majority of problems with homebuilts occur within the FAA designated
>testing phase and are fuel system related (getting the fuel from the
>tank to the engine).

During the 1998-2000 period (inclusive), for those accidents attributed to
mechanical failure, 9% were due to engine mechanical failure, and 6% due to the
fuel system.

For the engine mechanical failure, about 6% were engine internals, and the
remainder were engine-system such as the magnetos, oil lines, etc.

For the fuel-related accidents, 2.2% were firewall-forward, and the rest were in
the fuel delivery system.

21% of homebuilt accidents occurred in the first 40 hours of operation. About
6% of homebuilt accidents occur on the first flight.

Statistically, there is an 0.8% chance that a first flight will end in an
accident.

Ron Wanttaja

[Morgans]

> 6% of homebuilt accidents occur on the first flight.
>
> Statistically, there is an 0.8% chance that a first flight will end in an
> accident.

I think I'm just going to skip my homebuilt's first flight, and start on the
second flight. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Flyingmonk]

>>> 6% of homebuilt accidents occur on the first flight.
>
>> Statistically, there is an 0.8% chance that a first flight will end in an
>> accident.
>
>I think I'm just going to skip my homebuilt's first flight, and start on the
>second flight. ;-)

Great idea Jim, why didn't they think of that? LOL.

The Monk

[John Ammeter]

My "first flight" WAS my second flight...

I was "taxi testing" my RV-6 when I became airborne for about a hundred
yards or so. Since I was not authorized to commit flight per the FAA
obviously I had not flown.... right??

John

Flyingmonk wrote:
>>>>6% of homebuilt accidents occur on the first flight.
>>
>>>Statistically, there is an 0.8% chance that a first flight will end in an
>>>accident.
>>
>>I think I'm just going to skip my homebuilt's first flight, and start on the
>>second flight. ;-)
>
>
> Great idea Jim, why didn't they think of that? LOL.
>
> The Monk
>

[Tater Schuld]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
> My "first flight" WAS my second flight...
>
> I was "taxi testing" my RV-6 when I became airborne for about a hundred
> yards or so. Since I was not authorized to commit flight per the FAA
> obviously I had not flown.... right??
>
> John

that makes me wonder, how does one report such a flight? technically you
broke the rules, and if no one saw you do it, it must not have happened.

but I like being an honest guy and would report myself anyway. what's the
penalty?

[Morgans]

> that makes me wonder, how does one report such a flight? technically you
> broke the rules, and if no one saw you do it, it must not have happened.
>
> but I like being an honest guy and would report myself anyway. what's the
> penalty?


Take a telephone pole, and cut it of, so it is sticking out of the ground,
about a foot and a half.

Now, sit on it. Rotate side to side, and round and round, until your butt
cheeks touch the ground.

That is about like the penalty would be like.

You obviously have not been around the FAA, very much. You don't tell them
anything they don't ask. Period.
--
Jim in NC

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

Morgans wrote:
>
>
>> that makes me wonder, how does one report such a flight? technically
>> you broke the rules, and if no one saw you do it, it must not have
>> happened.
>>
>> but I like being an honest guy and would report myself anyway. what's
>> the penalty?
>
>
>
> Take a telephone pole, and cut it of, so it is sticking out of the
> ground, about a foot and a half.
>
> Now, sit on it. Rotate side to side, and round and round, until your
> butt cheeks touch the ground.
>
> That is about like the penalty would be like.
>
> You obviously have not been around the FAA, very much. You don't tell
> them anything they don't ask. Period.

And answer the question as they ask it. If they ask if you have a
watch the answer is yes or no. You don't look at your watch and tell
them what time it is.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jerry Springer]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>
>> A good share of these stories are about factory built certified
>> aircraft. Most kitbuilt aircraft now days are very safe.
>>
>> Jerry
>
>
>
> Only if they don't fly, Jerry...
>
> And there are a lot of homebuilts that hardly ever leave the ground.
>
> Richard

Not sure what you mean they are safe only if they do not fly? Are you
speaking of all aircraft in general or are you speaking only of
experimental aircraft? If you read the "2004 Nall" report you will find
that homebuilt aircraft have about the same rate of accidents as
factory built aircraft do. Ron W posted some statistic that relate to
first flight accidents, most of which are caused by fuel problems. This
risk can be eliminated by proper fuel flow testing before the first
flight IMO.

To the Cessna 172 driver that asked for proof that homebuilt aircraft
were safe please post you information saying they are not as safe as
any other aircraft flying. I find that is mostly the uniformed that
that have a preconceived notion that an aircraft built at home must not
be as safe as factory built aircraft. Most homebuilders are very
particulier and realize that it is their butts and their families and
friends that will be flying in these creations.

Jerry(flying my RV-6 over 16 years)Springer

[Montblack]

("Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" wrote)
> And answer the question as they ask it. If they ask if you have a watch
> the answer is yes or no. You don't look at your watch and tell them what
> time it is.


I've been accused of telling people how to BUILD a watch, when all they
really wanted was the time. <g>


Montblack

[Richard Lamb]

Jerry Springer wrote:
> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>> Jerry Springer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> A good share of these stories are about factory built certified
>>> aircraft. Most kitbuilt aircraft now days are very safe.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Only if they don't fly, Jerry...
>>
>> And there are a lot of homebuilts that hardly ever leave the ground.
>>
>> Richard
>
>
> Not sure what you mean they are safe only if they do not fly? Are you
> speaking of all aircraft in general or are you speaking only of
> experimental aircraft? If you read the "2004 Nall" report you will find
> that homebuilt aircraft have about the same rate of accidents as
> factory built aircraft do. Ron W posted some statistic that relate to
> first flight accidents, most of which are caused by fuel problems. This
> risk can be eliminated by proper fuel flow testing before the first
> flight IMO.
>
> To the Cessna 172 driver that asked for proof that homebuilt aircraft
> were safe please post you information saying they are not as safe as
> any other aircraft flying. I find that is mostly the uniformed that
> that have a preconceived notion that an aircraft built at home must not
> be as safe as factory built aircraft. Most homebuilders are very
> particulier and realize that it is their butts and their families and
> friends that will be flying in these creations.
>
> Jerry(flying my RV-6 over 16 years)Springer

Easy Jerry, Didn't mean to offend (or frighten) anyone.

Yes, among the RV gang, most of them DO fly - some a lot.
But there are others who simply don't.
And there are a significant fraction that almost NEVER fly.

Now, according to Ron's statistics...
Factory test flights don't seem to have the same kind of numbers.

But, of course, YMMV...

Richard

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

Montblack wrote:
> ("Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" wrote)
>
>> And answer the question as they ask it. If they ask if you have a
>> watch the answer is yes or no. You don't look at your watch and tell
>> them what time it is.
>
>
>
> I've been accused of telling people how to BUILD a watch, when all they
> really wanted was the time. <g>
>
>
> Montblack

Tell a man the time and you help him once, tell him to buy a watch
and he bothers you no more.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jerry Springer]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>> Richard Lamb wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Springer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> A good share of these stories are about factory built certified
>>>> aircraft. Most kitbuilt aircraft now days are very safe.
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Only if they don't fly, Jerry...
>>>
>>> And there are a lot of homebuilts that hardly ever leave the ground.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you mean they are safe only if they do not fly? Are you
>> speaking of all aircraft in general or are you speaking only of
>> experimental aircraft? If you read the "2004 Nall" report you will
>> find that homebuilt aircraft have about the same rate of accidents as
>> factory built aircraft do. Ron W posted some statistic that relate to
>> first flight accidents, most of which are caused by fuel problems. This
>> risk can be eliminated by proper fuel flow testing before the first
>> flight IMO.
>>
>> To the Cessna 172 driver that asked for proof that homebuilt aircraft
>> were safe please post you information saying they are not as safe as
>> any other aircraft flying. I find that is mostly the uniformed that
>> that have a preconceived notion that an aircraft built at home must not
>> be as safe as factory built aircraft. Most homebuilders are very
>> particulier and realize that it is their butts and their families and
>> friends that will be flying in these creations.
>>
>> Jerry(flying my RV-6 over 16 years)Springer
>
>
> Easy Jerry, Didn't mean to offend (or frighten) anyone.
>
> Yes, among the RV gang, most of them DO fly - some a lot.
> But there are others who simply don't.
> And there are a significant fraction that almost NEVER fly.
>
> Now, according to Ron's statistics...
> Factory test flights don't seem to have the same kind of numbers.
>
> But, of course, YMMV...
>
> Richard

Richard, I did not take offense nor was I frightened. :-) Having
attended FIRC every two years for 30 years I see the numbers and they
are not much different than those of factory built aircraft. I was
trying to figure out if you thought homebuilts were more dangerous than
any other type of aircraft? I got the impression that the original
poster was glad that he had not bought a kitbuilt airplane because they
were more dangerous. Anyone that is interested in some interesting
statistics can dnload the Nall report from the AOPA web site:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/

All of us that fly I believe understand that there is a certain amount
of risk involved.

Jerry

[Peter Dohm]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
> > In any event, we climbed to a little more than 350 feet before I pulled
the
> > power to idle; and promptly began my turn back tothe runway.
>
> Idle thrust is still quite a bit of applied power.
> Instead of pulling the throttle (air), pull the mixture (gas).
> This will give you a windmilling prop with all the associated drag.
> When you are ready to restore power, push the mixture back in.
> Try it and see how your results change.

To split hairs, idle power on a recip is really much less applied drag.

However your point is well taken. And the difference would be radically
more pronounced with a constant speed prop--as on a Turbo 210!

It would still be nice to have a safe way to realistically simulate engine
failures. As it is, "if you want to make omelet, you have to break eggs"
and I suspect that we are "breaking fewer eggs" with the current small
number of poorly handled engine failures than would be the case if we
attempted to train more intensively. The acrobatic/airshow guys do an
amazing job, but also encounter the problem more often.

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Joe Schneider

> It makes me feel bad that I can't recall his name. I tried a Google
> search of the newsgroup archives and didn't find it.

Google "N2992".

Dave S. wrote:

>> The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine ......
>> Nothing definitive was determined from a cause standpoint, but one
>> of the fuel injectors (which was used, not new) was found to be
>> faulty from a flow standpoint.

That is slightly misleading. If you're talking about what caused the
engine to stop producing power, there were a few likely possibilities.
If you're talking about why the aircraft crashed the way it did, the
answer was pretty clear.

For those interested, see:

http://www.cozybuilders.org/N2992_Accident_Eval/index.html

for an alternative (and IMNSHO, a far more accurate) evaluation.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

[Peter Dohm]

> And there are a significant fraction that almost NEVER fly.
>
That "almost" is a real concern. I presume that pilot proficiency is as
important as the aircraft.

[Peter Dohm]

> I think I'm just going to skip my homebuilt's first flight, and start on
the
> second flight. ;-)
> --
Sorry to be a copy-cat. But, so will I! ;-)

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Tater Schuld" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Ammeter" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My "first flight" WAS my second flight...
> >
> > I was "taxi testing" my RV-6 when I became airborne for about a hundred
> > yards or so. Since I was not authorized to commit flight per the FAA
> > obviously I had not flown.... right??
> >
> > John
>
> that makes me wonder, how does one report such a flight? technically you
> broke the rules, and if no one saw you do it, it must not have happened.
>
> but I like being an honest guy and would report myself anyway. what's the
> penalty?
>
>
I've been guilty of that "being an honest guy thing" and will again. It's
some sort of curse, and I need an exorcist ...

OTOH, I'm not at all convinced that a long bounce in ground effect is
flying. As an example with plenty of witnesses, Lindberg was said to hve
bounced twice and then flown on his departure to Paris...

[Tater Schuld]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
>> I think I'm just going to skip my homebuilt's first flight, and start on
> the
>> second flight. ;-)
>> --
> Sorry to be a copy-cat. But, so will I! ;-)

heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers would
tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?

sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
up. make sure to sandbag for CG!

[Richard Lamb]

Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> Richard, I did not take offense nor was I frightened. :-) Having
> attended FIRC every two years for 30 years I see the numbers and they
> are not much different than those of factory built aircraft. I was
> trying to figure out if you thought homebuilts were more dangerous than
> any other type of aircraft? I got the impression that the original
> poster was glad that he had not bought a kitbuilt airplane because they
> were more dangerous. Anyone that is interested in some interesting
> statistics can dnload the Nall report from the AOPA web site:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/
>
> All of us that fly I believe understand that there is a certain amount
> of risk involved.
>
> Jerry

That's good news, Jerry.
Limited to text alone it is real easy to give the wrong impression or get
the wrong impression.

I've built several airplanes, depending on how you count them.
Four of my own parasols, a dozen or so with Beeson, and fairly deeply involved
in maybe a dozen others in one way or another.

I had about half finished my Tailwind when my medical was denied.
That was several years ago, but I'm still hoping to get it back some day.

I vowed, the day my Tailwind left home, that WHEN (gotta think positively!) it
is restored, I'd order materials for a new Tailwind that very day.

Richard


http://www.home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/

I put some new pics up this evening.
2a.jpg - 2h.jpg are the latest of my parasol. Doc named her "Betty Boop".
tank(xxx).jpg are pics of beating out the fuel tank parts.
therapy.jpg - well, it's just that - excellent therapy...

[Peter Dohm]

> heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
would
> tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?
>
> sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
> up. make sure to sandbag for CG!
>
>
I don't recall hearing of that, except for launching gliders. But a BD-5
was pushed along on a boom ahead of a pick-up truck as a sort of poor man's
true motion simulator. I believe that something similar may have been done
with another design as well--possibly one of Rutan's.

[Richard Lamb]

Peter Dohm wrote:

>>And there are a significant fraction that almost NEVER fly.
>>
>
> That "almost" is a real concern. I presume that pilot proficiency is as
> important as the aircraft.
>
>
Absolutely, Peter.

The smaller machines can be a handful at first.

Even when perfectly balanced, they can be very quick to respond.
Way much more so than anything built in Wichita or Florida.

My parasol, as an example, flies strictly by thought control.
(Stole the set-up from the Russians :)

You only THINK about moving the stick.
If you actually MOVE it, you're going for a roller coaster ride!

Mind you, it's not unstable, twitchy or anything like that.
It's just quick!

The control pressure is very light, and the pressure gradient
(i.e.: the increase in stick pressure due to control deflection)
is less than a pound per G.

It's a finger tip airplane. One finger tip on top of the stick.

Somebody used to a Cessna or Piper is going to be at a real disadvantage
for the first flight(s?).
Until they get used to it.
Then, the old Cessna suddenly feels like flying a 2-ton dump truck.

Richard

[Richard Lamb]

Peter Dohm wrote:

>>heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
>
> would
>
>>tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?
>>
>> sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
>>up. make sure to sandbag for CG!
>>
>>
>
> I don't recall hearing of that, except for launching gliders. But a BD-5
> was pushed along on a boom ahead of a pick-up truck as a sort of poor man's
> true motion simulator. I believe that something similar may have been done
> with another design as well--possibly one of Rutan's.
>
>

I got to "fly" that contraption - once.
That was enough.

It was sorta fun, but with the truck driver manning the "throttle", the
limited lateral range, and limited roll range, it was - well - interesting...

I heard it was later destroyed by some guy who claimed 10,000 hours of glider
time...


Richard

[Highflyer]

"kd5sak" > wrote in message
m...

> Same tactic killed Wiley Post and Will Rogers. Don't fly myself, but in a
> lifetime of reading
> I've seen several references to crashes occuring from pilots trying to
> turn back to a runway
> when they had a reasonably flat bit of terrain in front of them. It's been
> said that Post knew better, but had the family fortune tied up in the
> plane he and Will were traveling in and just let that drive his decision
> making. What do some of you actual pilots think?
>
> Harold
> KD5SAK
>

It seems to me that when I learned to fly the normal landing was a "power
off" landing. You always cut the power on the downwind leg heading away
from the airport and from the end of the runway. Then, after a little
while, you proceeded to make a 180 degree turn back to the airport and
landed. This was done with the engine cut to idle. Sometimes, they cut
even beyond idle and quit completely! :-) It was called a normal landing
and you were supposed to do all of them that way.

Clearly there is some altitude and distance from the end of the runway where
a "turnback" type maneuver is no problem at all, and actually closely
approximates the normal landing of my youth. Equally clearly there is also
some altitude and distance from the end of the runway where such a
"turnback" maneuver is clearly impossible. Obviously the trick is knowing
exactly where in the range between A and B that you are at the moment the
engine quits and behaving accordingly. Most flight instructors cop out
totally and just say "Go straight ahead."

Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead was
best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was best.
And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither "turnback" nor
"straight ahead" would work and I had to do something creative! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Highflyer]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
>
> To the Cessna 172 driver that asked for proof that homebuilt aircraft were
> safe please post you information saying they are not as safe as
> any other aircraft flying. I find that is mostly the uniformed that
> that have a preconceived notion that an aircraft built at home must not
> be as safe as factory built aircraft. Most homebuilders are very
> particulier and realize that it is their butts and their families and
> friends that will be flying in these creations.
>
> Jerry(flying my RV-6 over 16 years)Springer

As both an FAA Technical Safety Counselor and an EAA Technical Counselor I
have inspected a lot of airplanes, both certified and homebuilt. For what
it is worth, the average homebuilt is built to a much higher standard than
the average certified factory built airplane.

I suspect this is due to several factors. First, the type of people who
invest the time for both building and for skills acquisition that is
required to actually build an airplane are the type of people who are very
proud of what they do and how they do it and take the care required to do it
both well and right. Secondly, when the guy who built it is also the guy
who is going to fly in it, it lends one a certain incentive to avoid cutting
corners or making do with something that is a bit less than it really should
be! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Peter Dohm]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> >>heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
> >
> > would
> >
> >>tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?
> >>
> >> sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw
comes
> >>up. make sure to sandbag for CG!
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I don't recall hearing of that, except for launching gliders. But a
BD-5
> > was pushed along on a boom ahead of a pick-up truck as a sort of poor
man's
> > true motion simulator. I believe that something similar may have been
done
> > with another design as well--possibly one of Rutan's.
> >
> >
>
> I got to "fly" that contraption - once.
> That was enough.
>
> It was sorta fun, but with the truck driver manning the "throttle", the
> limited lateral range, and limited roll range, it was - well -
interesting...
>
> I heard it was later destroyed by some guy who claimed 10,000 hours of
glider
> time...
>
>
> Richard

The picture of it that I recall suggested that it might be - well -
interesting...

Peter

[Highflyer]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
> My "first flight" WAS my second flight...
>
> I was "taxi testing" my RV-6 when I became airborne for about a hundred
> yards or so. Since I was not authorized to commit flight per the FAA
> obviously I had not flown.... right??
>
> John
>

Sure is funny how often that happens, John. I think taxiing around in a new
airplane must really be dangerous! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[kd5sak]

"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "kd5sak" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead
> was best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was
> best. And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither
> "turnback" nor "straight ahead" would work and I had to do something
> creative! :-)
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
>
>
Hmmm, I imagine one could add a bank left or right and center the bubble,
what was the right choice when neither turn back or go straight was correct?
You have my curiosity
itching something fierce.

Harold
KD5SAK

[Highflyer]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
>> In any event, we climbed to a little more than 350 feet before I pulled
>> the
>> power to idle; and promptly began my turn back tothe runway.
>
> Idle thrust is still quite a bit of applied power.
> Instead of pulling the throttle (air), pull the mixture (gas).
> This will give you a windmilling prop with all the associated drag.
> When you are ready to restore power, push the mixture back in.
> Try it and see how your results change.

I recall pulling the mixture on a newly overhauled A-65 Continental on a
little airplane. It had a wooden prop. I pulled the mixture and the prop
didn't have enough inertia to overcome the compression on the fresh overhaul
and the prop stopped. Since the A-65 doesn't have an electrical starter the
only way to get a restart was to get out and flip the prop. It seemed to me
that do so would require me to land first! The stopped prop had
considerably less drag than the engine at idle.

By the way, any multiengine instructor can tell you that an engine at idle
has less than nuetral thrust and does NOT contribute any thrust. :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

PS: The 10th annual Pinckneyville RAH Flyin is coming up May 19, 20, and
21. Plan now to attend. Send Mary a note at or there may
not be enough food for you! :-)

[Richard Lamb]

Highflyer wrote:

snipped

> Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead was
> best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was best.
> And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither "turnback" nor
> "straight ahead" would work and I had to do something creative! :-)

Hi, my name is HF, and I'm an airplane adict...



Come on, Confess!
It's "I learned about flying from that" time.


>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
>
>
BTW, where ya been?


Richard

[Morgans]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote

> I put some new pics up this evening.
> 2a.jpg - 2h.jpg are the latest of my parasol. Doc named her "Betty Boop".
> tank(xxx).jpg are pics of beating out the fuel tank parts.
> therapy.jpg - well, it's just that - excellent therapy...
\
Nice looking plane. And that is a nice ..... hammer, too! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote

> It's a finger tip airplane. One finger tip on top of the stick.
>
> Somebody used to a Cessna or Piper is going to be at a real disadvantage
> for the first flight(s?).
> Until they get used to it.
> Then, the old Cessna suddenly feels like flying a 2-ton dump truck.

So, when are the plans going to be available? :-)

What are the specs?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Tater Schuld" > wrote

> heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
> would tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?
>
> sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
> up. make sure to sandbag for CG!

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
Is there no limit to what some *don't* know?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote

> I got to "fly" that contraption - once.
> That was enough.
>
> It was sorta fun, but with the truck driver manning the "throttle", the
> limited lateral range, and limited roll range, it was - well -
> interesting...
>
> I heard it was later destroyed by some guy who claimed 10,000 hours of
> glider
> time...

That sounds like something Capt.. Zoom, the test pilot would have done,
don't you think?

What would you bet that he looped and rolled it, too? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> It would still be nice to have a safe way to realistically simulate engine
> failures. \

How about idle power and a small parachute mounted on a quick release line?
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Lamb]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote
>
>> I put some new pics up this evening.
>> 2a.jpg - 2h.jpg are the latest of my parasol. Doc named her "Betty
>> Boop".
>> tank(xxx).jpg are pics of beating out the fuel tank parts.
>> therapy.jpg - well, it's just that - excellent therapy...
>
> \
> Nice looking plane. And that is a nice ..... hammer, too! <g>

Thankee, Morg!

It's real good therapy....


Richard

[Richard Lamb]

Morgans wrote:

>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote
>
>> It's a finger tip airplane. One finger tip on top of the stick.
>>
>> Somebody used to a Cessna or Piper is going to be at a real disadvantage
>> for the first flight(s?).
>> Until they get used to it.
>> Then, the old Cessna suddenly feels like flying a 2-ton dump truck.
>
>
> So, when are the plans going to be available? :-)

Real Soon Now (tm!)

Started selling plans back about 2000 and have had several built.
First one completed from plans was in New Zealand (!?!)

It's been quite a trip.
Most fun I've ever had on the ground with my clothes on,
and at the same time the biggest hassle I've EVER had.
Guess you have to expect that when dealing with the public.

Anyway, I've decided to put the plans up for free download.
Matronix has offered to give me room for them and I'll get them uploaded
(hopefully) next week. It's a couple of rather big PDF files and I'm
not going to try to upload via this tin can and twine lash at home.
The public library looks like my best bet.

I also have a CDr that I'll still sell for $30. It has the plans, all
the old web site stuff, plus a whole mess of construction pics.
I figure even if people can get the plans for free, people who build
will still want the construction photos, tips, etc.


> What are the specs?

Well, depends on how heavy you build it, what it's powered by, etc.

Wingspan 26 ft
Wing Chord 4.6’ (56-inch)
Wing Area 125 sq. ft
Aspect Ratio 5.8
Reynolds # 1.5 to 3 million
Empty Weight 350 to 450 lb.
Gross Weight 650 lb. max.
Power 40 to 65 HP

PERFORMANCE
Stall 30 mph
Cruise 55 to 75 mph
Vne 100 mph

Welcome to the world of alternate materials, guys.

One of the unique features is that the fuselage frame is built from
extruded 6061-T6 angle with driven rivets (AD-470 types).

There is a slight weight penalty involved compared to pop-riveted
aluminum tube, but the resulting structure is hell bent for stout,
and right inexpensive (I built one frame for $100 scrounging a bit).

The wings use aluminum tube spars at leading and trailing edges with
a bent up "C" channel (.025 6061-T6 sheet) at each rib location acting
as compression ribs.

Foam or light plywood ribs are then simply routed
out and glued to the compression ribs using (of all things!) Liquid Nail.
I did a bunch of testing a while back and Liquid Nail held to aluminum
better than anything else. Period. Sounds strange, maybe, but it works.

Chuck Beeson claims to have built over 70 airplanes like this. Several
of those were repeats, however. Build one and sell it, then later buy
it back, make some changes and sell it again. Still, it's a pretty
impressive piece of work. Chuck uses 2 strokes and called them ultralights
even if they weighed 350.

And, as I said in another thread, I've worked with him on at least a dozen
NEW planes over 10 years. So I know he has build a bunch of them.
He and I built six of these little darlings in 12 weeks. Bare frames on
the gear, wings and tail installed but not covered or with motors, etc.
Chuck was selling them as kits and was out of stock and had nothing to sell.
We worked 8 hours a day - 4 days a week. Six complete airframes in 12 weeks
is not too bad, folks. I've also know him to turn out a complete airplane
- from scratch - in just six weeks.

Doc Harr, Paul Hammond, Sonny Mosel, and myself have all used VW's and get
more like 450 - 465 empty.

At 650 gross she theoretically can pull right at 4 G's yield.
Doc had nearly 700 hours of aerobatics on his when he finally sold her (2004?).
The thing is with so little weight and so much drag, speed bleeds off
rapidly in hard maneuvers and it's difficult to actually pull that hard.


The Down Side:

There is a limit to how much weight one can hang on a two inch diameter spar
tube.

A bunch of guys (I'll not name) got together and started building a whole
bunch of these a few years ago. But they didn't like the fabric cover and
changed it to all metal skins (fuselage and wings both!) Then added heavy 4
stroke engines on them and suddenly discovered they were WAY too heavy to make
4 G margins.

Ok, to be fair, they had a professional aero engineer who was supposed to
design a heavier wing for it, but he died (natural causes) before finishing.
Next thing I know, I was getting bitched out for the wing being too "weak"
and they were threatening to "tell the FAA on me". What a mess.

I think there were a couple of guys who finished their planes in fabric and
got them flying ok. But the rest was a just total loss.
(that was the hassle part I mentioned)

But other than that, the trip has been a real blast.
Great people, interesting ideas, and a lot of enthusiasm for it.
It's been fun.

Richard

[Richard Lamb]

Morgans wrote:

>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote
>
>> I got to "fly" that contraption - once.
>> That was enough.
>>
>> It was sorta fun, but with the truck driver manning the "throttle", the
>> limited lateral range, and limited roll range, it was - well -
>> interesting...
>>
>> I heard it was later destroyed by some guy who claimed 10,000 hours of
>> glider
>> time...
>
>
> That sounds like something Capt.. Zoom, the test pilot would have done,
> don't you think?
>
> What would you bet that he looped and rolled it, too? <g>

Zoom, maybe.
I dunno about mere mortals.

That thing would be real easy to set down a little sideways...
Right in front of a speeding Dodge Ram!

Actually, the driver tries to stay right behind the airplane.
If you start drifting to one side of the other he'd stay with you -
up to a point. Then he decides to "chop power", and down you come!

That was the only time I've ever felt an airplane decelerate like that -
while still airborne.

Like I said, Once.


Richard

[Montblack]

("Richard Lamb" wrote)
[trimmed the heavy post <g>]
> Anyway, I've decided to put the plans up for free download. Matronix has
> offered to give me room for them and I'll get them uploaded (hopefully)
> next week. It's a couple of rather big PDF files and I'm not going to try
> to upload via this tin can and twine lash at home. The public library
> looks like my best bet.
>
> I also have a CDr that I'll still sell for $30. It has the plans, all the
> old web site stuff, plus a whole mess of construction pics. I figure even
> if people can get the plans for free, people who build will still want the
> construction photos, tips, etc.


How about a download-lite for the curious?


Montblack

[Tater Schuld]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tater Schuld" > wrote
>
>> heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
>> would tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?
>>
>> sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
>> up. make sure to sandbag for CG!
>
> Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
> Is there no limit to what some *don't* know?

yeah, I'll admit it. I'm interested in flying, in too remote of a place to
get a mentor, and too cheap to afford instruction.

I also looked at the prices of buying a certified plane, and the prices of
renting one, and was disheartened.

one of my biggest complaints is that there is no possible flying potential
for someone who works at minimum wage. EAA wants bigger and bigger
memberships, and wonders why it is so hard. I believe that if they could get
the price of flying down so that a minimum wage a afford it (minimum wage
income, not minimum wage IQ), you could get a LOT more people interested. a
plane in every garage and that sort of thing.

so I am looking at homebuilt plans, trying to see what would fit that
criteria. still looking for the perfect one plane. might still be looking 5
years from now.

ok, back on the topic. tow the plane, use sandbags to simulate the pilot,
and you eliminate what percentage of first flight failures? wrong control
throws, broken or stuck cables, improper wing incidence, incorrect control
surface areas, improper structural load theories..

and you KNOW that plane can get airborne. a big confidence builder for the
first time builder/flyer

[Tater Schuld]

"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "kd5sak" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead
> was best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was
> best. And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither
> "turnback" nor "straight ahead" would work and I had to do something
> creative! :-)

ok, now fess up!

add my name to the list of those who want to know.

I guess you did something that violates have a dozen rules, otherwise you'd
say so. forced spin? a outside loop? immelman? stall-drop?

[Richard Lamb]

Montblack wrote:

> ("Richard Lamb" wrote)
> [trimmed the heavy post <g>]
>
>> Anyway, I've decided to put the plans up for free download. Matronix
>> has offered to give me room for them and I'll get them uploaded
>> (hopefully) next week. It's a couple of rather big PDF files and I'm
>> not going to try to upload via this tin can and twine lash at home.
>> The public library looks like my best bet.
>>
>> I also have a CDr that I'll still sell for $30. It has the plans, all
>> the old web site stuff, plus a whole mess of construction pics. I
>> figure even if people can get the plans for free, people who build
>> will still want the construction photos, tips, etc.
>
>
>
> How about a download-lite for the curious?
>
>
> Montblack

Oddly enough, curious Sir, I think we can handle that request.

There are two main files that constitute the "plans".

The first is named P1-Text.pdf which is "only" 7.5 meg.
It describes the techniques and gives directions, tips, and photos on how to
work the material and such. It runs about 50 pages.
That would be the first thing to look at - an introduction, so to speak?

The other file, the drawings, is 16.5 meg file named P1-Draw.pdf.
These are CAD drawn engineering type drawings that describe the layout,
shape, and assembly.

Now, before everyone gets in a rush, I've been told by some that the plans are
Great! (and they go off and build the thing) - and by others that they suck
(and that NObody could build anything from such drivel!)

My own humble opinion is that they are not half bad.
The only reason I ever got a wild hair to tried to do this is because I bought
a set of Graham Lee's Neiuport 11 plans way back when. Now that's a very
popular project, but the "plans" (if anyone else has a copy, sound off?) ARE a
little - skimpy? in some areas...

Lt. Lee assumed that by that point in the project, you'd have learned what it
is all about and don't need Tab-A into Slot-B directions. Judging by the
number of planes finished and flying, he seems to have been right about that.

The only place I know I messed up was on the main gear. All the parts are
detailed, but I missed getting a dimensioned assembly drawing to show how
to rig Height and Track. That omission has been addressed with a JPG of
the set up.

Like I said earlier, I'll try to get them up to Matt this next week.
Then, you can judge for yourselves!

Thanks all,

Richard

[Richard Lamb]

Tater Schuld wrote:

> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Tater Schuld" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
>>>would tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?
>>>
>>>sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
>>>up. make sure to sandbag for CG!
>>
>>Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
>>Is there no limit to what some *don't* know?
>
>
> yeah, I'll admit it. I'm interested in flying, in too remote of a place to
> get a mentor, and too cheap to afford instruction.
>
> I also looked at the prices of buying a certified plane, and the prices of
> renting one, and was disheartened.
>
> one of my biggest complaints is that there is no possible flying potential
> for someone who works at minimum wage. EAA wants bigger and bigger
> memberships, and wonders why it is so hard. I believe that if they could get
> the price of flying down so that a minimum wage a afford it (minimum wage
> income, not minimum wage IQ), you could get a LOT more people interested. a
> plane in every garage and that sort of thing.
>
> so I am looking at homebuilt plans, trying to see what would fit that
> criteria. still looking for the perfect one plane. might still be looking 5
> years from now.
>
> ok, back on the topic. tow the plane, use sandbags to simulate the pilot,
> and you eliminate what percentage of first flight failures? wrong control
> throws, broken or stuck cables, improper wing incidence, incorrect control
> surface areas, improper structural load theories..
>
> and you KNOW that plane can get airborne. a big confidence builder for the
> first time builder/flyer
>
>
Sorry Tater, old boy, that's just not going to work.

Or, do you have some way of controlling said towed aircraft that we haven't
heard of yet?

There are two schools of thought on first flights.
Both have merit.

One is to "go for it!". Take off and climb to altitude where you can become
safely aquatinted with her "personality" safely.

The other is to make several short hops down the runway to get the feel first.

The latter, at first, scared the dickens out of me - just on principle.
Going from low and slow lift off to low and slow landing *seemed* like a bad
idea. But in the end, I've come to think this is safer than I originally
thought, and had become my standard approach to testing a new plane.

I like it because 1) we are low and slow and if anything does go wrong, at
least we are low and slow. And 2) we are expecting to "abort" the take off
soon after lift off. We will not have the danger of the engine possibly
quitting on climb out, and the attendant difficulties that presents.

And 3!) it let's you skip the first flight! When you finally are comfortable
with the plane and take it around the pattern for the first time, it's really
not the first flight! (how 'bout that for a plan!)

And, frankly, this turned out not to be the pilot challenge that I first
thought it would be. Although YMMV?


One other thing, Tater. If you can't afford lessons, wait until you can.
I know people who have tried. Most of them got smarter after dinging a
few airplanes (and themselves!). My own opinion is that teaching yourself
to fly is dumber than going into a Tiajuana whore house without a condom.
You are just begging to get hurt.

So, until then?

richard

[Tater Schuld]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:28:57 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>one of my biggest complaints is that there is no possible flying potential
>>for someone who works at minimum wage.
>
> You can't do a lot of things at minimum wage.
>
> If you're intelligent enough to fly, or for that matter, communicate
> on the Internet, can't you improve your marketable skills to raise
> your income? In fact, the time spent learning to fly would be much
> better spent improving your standard of living, no?

I didn't say *I* was being paid minimum wage. I wanted it to appear do-able
at minimum wage. that way the factory working that is working double minimum
wage can see that it is an affordable hobby.

takes aviation from "only doctors can afford it" to "anyone can afford it"

[kd5sak]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:28:57 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
> > wrote:
> If you're intelligent enough to fly, or for that matter, communicate
> on the Internet, can't you improve your marketable skills to raise
> your income? In fact, the time spent learning to fly would be much
> better spent improving your standard of living, no?
>
>
For the last several years I've heard families complaining about kids with
PHDs that are having to work for minimum wage. That didn't happen with my
kids,
I'm pleased to say. Glad I worked when I did and retired in 1996.

Harold
KD5SAK

[Vaughn]

"Tater Schuld" > wrote in message
...
> ok, back on the topic. tow the plane, use sandbags to simulate the pilot, and
> you eliminate what percentage of first flight failures? wrong control throws,
> broken or stuck cables, improper wing incidence, incorrect control surface
> areas, improper structural load theories..

Aerial tow is hard even when you have an experienced pilot at each end of
the rope. Take a couple of glider lessons (at a field where they use aerial tow
for launch) and you will quickly see what I mean. Hint: the glider does not
willingly follow the tow plane like a trailer follows a car; you gotta fly it
every second , and it is a learned skill.

Vaughn

[Peter Dohm]

"Bryan Martin" > wrote in message
...
> In a "normal landing" you start a half mile to a mile to one side of the
> runway and only require about 180 degrees of turn. In a turn back maneuver
> after takeoff, you are nearly directly off the end of the runway. Turning
> back to the runway from this position requires far more than 180 degrees
of
> turn. So calling it a 180 degree turn back can be misleading. 180 degrees
of
> turn will usually put you well to one side of the runway so you must
> continue turning until you are headed back towards the runway and then
turn
> back the opposite direction to line up with it. This maneuver requires
> closer to 360 degrees of turn than 180 and you will lose altitude faster
> while turning than when flying wings level. So before you attempt a turn
> back, you need to know how much altitude you will need for a 360 degree
> turn.
>
> If you are taking off from an airport with more than one runway, you might
> consider if it would be easier to turn back to a different runway than the
> one you took off from. One time during a BFR, my instructor pulled the
> throttle at about 500' after takeoff from runway 6 at Midland Barstow. He
> expected me to attempt to return to land on runway 24. He was kind of
> surprised when I just made a gentle 240 degree left turn and rolled out
> lined up with runway 18 with altitude to spare. I just looked back and
> realized it would be much easier to get to 18 than 24, the wind was
blowing
> us that way anyway.
> --
> Bryan Martin
>
>
Good point.

[jerry wass]

Al wrote:
> I was tempted once, but the temptation went away with the
> altitude...quickly.
>
> I lost an engine on a C210 at about 300 ft, on departure. The thing quit
> like someone had pulled the throttle, which turned out to be very close to
> reality. In the shock of the moment, I thought about trying a turn, but
> decided to plant it off the end of my departure runway(I was 3000' down a
> 4000' runway), instead. The clearway at the end was level and had no large
> trees. I had already cleaned up the departure flaps, was climbing at 80kts,
> and the gear doors were just closing when the thing quit. I immediately
> selected the gear back down, and was flat amazed at the sink rate that
> developed, no power, windmilling, with the gear in transit. At about 20',
> still over the runway, I had to hold it off using flaps, to wait for the
> gear to finish extending. The main gear came over center in the saddles,
> just as I ran out of elevator, we touched down on the mains, and had to hold
> the nose gear off long enough for it to extend. I slid onto the numbers at
> the far end with the gear pump still running to close the doors, and got it
> stopped. The engine lit off, and we taxied back to the tiedown, and
> deplaned.
> It turns out that this aircraft had recently come out of 100hr., and for
> some reason they had the Airquipt(sp?) hose that runs from the air cleaner
> to the turbo-charger off. When the mechanic put it back on, he didn't know
> what to do with the ends of the metal wire that winds around the inside of
> the hose. He bent each wire end into a little "U" shape, and hooked them
> together in the middle of the hose. (They should have been placed under the
> hose clamp at each end) A couple of hours later, with vibration, the glue
> holding the wire failed, and hooked in the middle the wire collapsed like a
> slinky, allowing the hose to collapse, shutting off all air to the turbo.
> What really amazed me was how fast the altitude and airspeed went away.
> When the thing first quit, I would have sworn I could not get down to my
> departure runway before going off the end. I was wrong. Wrong by over a
> thousand feet.
>
> Al CFIAMI
>
>
> "kd5sak" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>>>JJS wrote:
>>>The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine that had
>>>what the rotary community believes was an intermittent fuel supply
>>>program and was in flight test at the time. The aircraft had made one
>>>dead-stick due to what the community assumed was a vapor lock. This was a
>>>fairly low altitude turn back and landing on-field but off-runway. After
>>>some re-work on the fuel system he went up again, and on one of the
>>>subsequent flights weeks later lost power very low, and tried to make
>>>another low turn back to the runway. He ended up in trees.
>>
>>Same tactic killed Wiley Post and Will Rogers. Don't fly myself, but in a
>>lifetime of reading
>>I've seen several references to crashes occuring from pilots trying to
>>turn back to a runway I

I just read (somewhere fairly recently) that Will & Wileys floats were
leaking,took on enough water that ran to the rear on take-off creating
a BAD rear CG, that they couldn't recover from. (sounds reasonable to
me, they could have been getting by with it, draining the floats after
they were airborne each time)


>>when they had a reasonably flat bit of terrain in front of them. It's been
>>said that Post knew better, but had the family fortune tied up in the
>>plane he and Will were traveling in and just let that drive his decision
>>making. What do some of you actual pilots think?
>>
>>Harold
>>KD5SAK
>>
>
>
>

[Wayne Paul]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Aerial tow is hard even when you have an experienced pilot at each
end of
> the rope. Take a couple of glider lessons (at a field where they use
aerial tow
> for launch) and you will quickly see what I mean. Hint: the glider does
not
> willingly follow the tow plane like a trailer follows a car; you gotta fly
it
> every second , and it is a learned skill.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
As Vaughn mentioned, "it is a learned skill." From the gliders viewpoint it
is a type of formation flying, or wing-matching-tail-chase. The low tow
position (flying below the tow plane's wake) gives a look and feel similar
to the U.S Naval aviation version of air-to-air refueling.

When you tie two aircraft together both are at an increased risk when the
other aircraft has a problem. The tow plane is at a much higher risk than
the glider. The glider getting out of position close to the ground can
easily put the tow plane in a position from which it can not recover. If
the tow plane has a power failure shortly after becoming airborne, again the
glider is less at risk. An experienced pilot flying a glider with 35 to 1
or better glide ratio shouldn't have a problem doing a 180 and landing
down-wind. (I've done it from 250 feet with room to spare.)

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com

[Peter Dohm]

--------snip---------
> There are two schools of thought on first flights.
> Both have merit.
>
> One is to "go for it!". Take off and climb to altitude where you can
become
> safely aquatinted with her "personality" safely.
>
> The other is to make several short hops down the runway to get the feel
first.
>
> The latter, at first, scared the dickens out of me - just on principle.
> Going from low and slow lift off to low and slow landing *seemed* like a
bad
> idea. But in the end, I've come to think this is safer than I originally
> thought, and had become my standard approach to testing a new plane.
>
> I like it because 1) we are low and slow and if anything does go wrong, at
> least we are low and slow. And 2) we are expecting to "abort" the take off
> soon after lift off. We will not have the danger of the engine possibly
> quitting on climb out, and the attendant difficulties that presents.
>
> And 3!) it let's you skip the first flight! When you finally are
comfortable
> with the plane and take it around the pattern for the first time, it's
really
> not the first flight! (how 'bout that for a plan!)
>
> And, frankly, this turned out not to be the pilot challenge that I first
> thought it would be. Although YMMV?
>
-------snip---------

Personally, I agree and plan to use the aborted take-off method as well.
Actually, the plan has had many well known and respected advocates--IIRC,
Molt Taylor was among them.

Also, if the plan is to test a "custom built", or if there is any other
reason to question the weight and balance envelope, I plan to first test a
thrown model--prior to investing time in actual construction of a "real"
airplane. I would first re-read all of part 23 to glean any insight to
accumulated experience in defining the balance envelope. (I know, I really
have no intention to follow everything in part 23 either--for example, there
are specifications for the undercarriage and/or prop clearance that I may
find inappropriate for my application--experimental really is where we plow
the new ground!) Next, would construct a model of the wing only (with
dihedral, and a handle) and throw it with various weights and CG positions.
An excessive variation of airspeed and altitude due to fugoid oscillation,
as subjectively observed, would initially define the "natural" aft CG limit
of the wing by itself. The forward limit would be even more subjective--but
the basic objective of initial testing with something safe, light, simple,
and cheap should be fairly obvious. That should give some indication
whether the design actually has promise. If so, I would add a stick
fuselage and an empennage, and continue my subjective testing. If
satisfied, I could proceed with the main project; otherwise it might be time
to change the design and/or seek assistance.

The reason for this treatise is that I believe a lot really can be gained
from unmanned testing, and that it can be accomplished inexpensively and
with negligible risk of collateral damage.

However, (warning ... warning) the above applied only to conventional
aircraft, and even then does not address the required size of tail surfaces.
I am still looking for a "cheap and dirty" way to accept or reject a design
with regard to the tail's contribution to pitch and yaw stability. Also, I
also have NO intention of designing or building a canard aircraft because I
don't feel that I understand their principals well enough!

Peter

[Dave S]

Thanks for the link, Marc..

For the record I will state that my post regarding this was
unresearched, and from memory alone. I am actually thankful for the time
and work that the rotary community put into investigating his accident.

Dave

[[email protected]]

>>I am still looking for a "cheap and dirty" way to accept or reject a design
with regard to the tail's contribution to pitch and yaw stability. >>

www.X-plane.com

>> Also, I
also have NO intention of designing or building a canard aircraft
because I
don't feel that I understand their principals well enough! <<

Other than making sure that the "elevator" stalls before the main wing
the principals are the same. The final pitch/yaw stability derivative
doesn't care if the numbers came from a canard, a conventional plane ,
or a flying wing.

IMHO the stall resistance of a canard doesn't offset it's other
disadvantages so your not going to miss too much.
==============
Leon McAtee
Quickie builder ........... former Q-2 builder

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Dave S wrote:

> Thanks for the link, Marc..

You bet.

> ...... I am actually thankful for the time and work that the rotary
> community put into investigating his accident.

Just for the record, the "rotary community" didn't contribute to the
independent investigation - it was the "canard community" that did the
work and wrote up the report.

And we appreciate the thanks.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

[Kevin Davidson]

Several years ago in the Wide World of Flying video series (Volume 5, Number
18), captain Barry Schiff did a segment about this very topic. He
recommended practicing a 360 turn at altitude, with 45 degree bank at best
glide speed. In a climb, reduce power to idle, wait a few seconds to
simulate the time it takes for reality to soak in, then get the nose down to
establish glide speed. After rolling out level from the 360, pull up in a
landing flare to arrest the descent and see how much altitude was lost. In
a 172, if you really nail it you can lose 500 feet. 700 feet or more can
result if you don't do it just right.

Kevin Davidson


"Bryan Martin" > wrote in message
...
> In a "normal landing" you start a half mile to a mile to one side of the
> runway and only require about 180 degrees of turn. In a turn back maneuver
> after takeoff, you are nearly directly off the end of the runway. Turning
> back to the runway from this position requires far more than 180 degrees
of
> turn. So calling it a 180 degree turn back can be misleading. 180 degrees
of
> turn will usually put you well to one side of the runway so you must
> continue turning until you are headed back towards the runway and then
turn
> back the opposite direction to line up with it. This maneuver requires
> closer to 360 degrees of turn than 180 and you will lose altitude faster
> while turning than when flying wings level. So before you attempt a turn
> back, you need to know how much altitude you will need for a 360 degree
> turn.
>
> If you are taking off from an airport with more than one runway, you might
> consider if it would be easier to turn back to a different runway than the
> one you took off from. One time during a BFR, my instructor pulled the
> throttle at about 500' after takeoff from runway 6 at Midland Barstow. He
> expected me to attempt to return to land on runway 24. He was kind of
> surprised when I just made a gentle 240 degree left turn and rolled out
> lined up with runway 18 with altitude to spare. I just looked back and
> realized it would be much easier to get to 18 than 24, the wind was
blowing
> us that way anyway.
> --
> Bryan Martin
>
>
> in article , Highflyer at wrote on
> 2/4/06 11:14 PM:
>
> >
> > It seems to me that when I learned to fly the normal landing was a
"power
> > off" landing. You always cut the power on the downwind leg heading away
> > from the airport and from the end of the runway. Then, after a little
> > while, you proceeded to make a 180 degree turn back to the airport and
> > landed. This was done with the engine cut to idle. Sometimes, they cut
> > even beyond idle and quit completely! :-) It was called a normal
landing
> > and you were supposed to do all of them that way.
> >
> > Clearly there is some altitude and distance from the end of the runway
where
> > a "turnback" type maneuver is no problem at all, and actually closely
> > approximates the normal landing of my youth. Equally clearly there is
also
> > some altitude and distance from the end of the runway where such a
> > "turnback" maneuver is clearly impossible. Obviously the trick is
knowing
> > exactly where in the range between A and B that you are at the moment
the
> > engine quits and behaving accordingly. Most flight instructors cop out
> > totally and just say "Go straight ahead."
> >
> > Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead
was
> > best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was
best.
> > And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither "turnback"
nor
> > "straight ahead" would work and I had to do something creative! :-)
> >
> > Highflyer
> > Highflight Aviation Services
> > Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
> >
> >
>