Starduster Too...experiences?

[david]

My quest to find "the ideal" homebuilt bipe continues.

Has anyone got any build experiences with the Starduster Too? It looks
pretty, but is "pretty" another word for "very difficult"?

I have seen the AS&S web site - nice - so have to ask...do most people buy
kits in stages and build from that or what? Or do they just buy a sheet of
plans? (Can't believe that). It seems most folk in the UK buy ready made
from the States! Eek!

Anyone know what the 'hole' size is like on the Starduster? I'm well over 6
feet tall and 200lb

David

[Al]

"david" > wrote in message
...
> My quest to find "the ideal" homebuilt bipe continues.
>
> Has anyone got any build experiences with the Starduster Too? It looks
> pretty, but is "pretty" another word for "very difficult"?
>
> I have seen the AS&S web site - nice - so have to ask...do most people buy
> kits in stages and build from that or what? Or do they just buy a sheet
> of plans? (Can't believe that). It seems most folk in the UK buy ready
> made from the States! Eek!
>
> Anyone know what the 'hole' size is like on the Starduster? I'm well over
> 6 feet tall and 200lb
>
> David


Hole size is about the only question I can answer. I too am tall. 6'2", and
205, and I fit very well in either seat. My friend has just finished his
Starduster II(with a continental radial), and I got to taxi it last weekend,
it hasn't flown yet. The only problem I had was taxiing from the front seat.
There is a cross member just above the landing gear, that runs about 5"
behind the rudder pedals. With my feet on the pedals, my heel jammed the
cross member, and locked the rudder in position. It could be a problem, so
he'll probably disconnect the forward pedals when carrying pax.

Al

[david]

Thanks Al

D


"Al" > wrote in message
...
> "david" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My quest to find "the ideal" homebuilt bipe continues.
>>
>> Has anyone got any build experiences with the Starduster Too? It looks
>> pretty, but is "pretty" another word for "very difficult"?
>>
>> I have seen the AS&S web site - nice - so have to ask...do most people
>> buy kits in stages and build from that or what? Or do they just buy a
>> sheet of plans? (Can't believe that). It seems most folk in the UK buy
>> ready made from the States! Eek!
>>
>> Anyone know what the 'hole' size is like on the Starduster? I'm well over
>> 6 feet tall and 200lb
>>
>> David
>
>
> Hole size is about the only question I can answer. I too am tall. 6'2",
> and 205, and I fit very well in either seat. My friend has just finished
> his Starduster II(with a continental radial), and I got to taxi it last
> weekend, it hasn't flown yet. The only problem I had was taxiing from the
> front seat. There is a cross member just above the landing gear, that runs
> about 5" behind the rudder pedals. With my feet on the pedals, my heel
> jammed the cross member, and locked the rudder in position. It could be a
> problem, so he'll probably disconnect the forward pedals when carrying
> pax.
>
> Al
>
>

[xlch58]

david wrote:
> My quest to find "the ideal" homebuilt bipe continues.
>
> Has anyone got any build experiences with the Starduster Too? It looks
> pretty, but is "pretty" another word for "very difficult"?
>
> I have seen the AS&S web site - nice - so have to ask...do most people buy
> kits in stages and build from that or what? Or do they just buy a sheet of
> plans? (Can't believe that). It seems most folk in the UK buy ready made
> from the States! Eek!
>
> Anyone know what the 'hole' size is like on the Starduster? I'm well over 6
> feet tall and 200lb
>
> David

I have the plans, but have not built it (yet) There are two books out
there on people's experience building and flying the starduster. One
is called "Building the Golduster"( an aerobatic version) by James
McKeehan, the other is called "Starduster" I think and is more of a
novel than a howto. Jimi at Desert Eagle had an early version
partially built for sale last year. Don't know if he sold it or not. It
was just the airframe. I used to follow the builders forum pretty
closely. Pretty in this case does add difficulty. The wings are far
from cookie cutter, so each rib is different I am pretty sure. I don't
have the plans with me. The plans by the way are beautifully done, or
at least the ones that I got were. The business has changed hands since
I bought mine. My plan was to tackle something simpler first. It is
an absolutely beautiful plane up close. A common complaint on the
builders site used to be that the resale value was on par or lower than
the build cost, which might explain why UK buyers go for the complete
airframes.

Charles

[Rich S.]

Don't overlook the Steen Skybolt. Fantastic aircraft and nice size.

Rich S.

[ET]

"Rich S." > wrote in
:

> Don't overlook the Steen Skybolt. Fantastic aircraft and nice size.
>
> Rich S.
>
>
>

Anyone know a good biplane that would do well with a 110HP Corvair???
(about 235lbs FWF)

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Tom Wait]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> "Rich S." > wrote in
> :
>
> > Don't overlook the Steen Skybolt. Fantastic aircraft and nice size.
> >
> > Rich S.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Anyone know a good biplane that would do well with a 110HP Corvair???
> (about 235lbs FWF)

I think I've seen a Hatz with a Corvair at OSH. It was good enough to get
there.
Tom

[Montblack]

("ET" wrote)
> Anyone know a good biplane that would do well with a 110HP Corvair???
> (about 235lbs FWF)


When people use that term, does that mean the prop, too?


Montblack

[ET]

"Montblack" > wrote in
:

> ("ET" wrote)
>> Anyone know a good biplane that would do well with a 110HP Corvair???
>> (about 235lbs FWF)
>
>
> When people use that term, does that mean the prop, too?
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

It depends on the person...<grin> But in this case, yes.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Brian Huffaker]

Al > wrote:
> "david" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Anyone know what the 'hole' size is like on the Starduster? I'm well over
> > 6 feet tall and 200lb
> >
> > David


> Hole size is about the only question I can answer. I too am tall. 6'2", and
> 205, and I fit very well in either seat. My friend has just finished his
> Starduster II(with a continental radial), and I got to taxi it last weekend,
> it hasn't flown yet. The only problem I had was taxiing from the front seat.
> There is a cross member just above the landing gear, that runs about 5"
> behind the rudder pedals. With my feet on the pedals, my heel jammed the
> cross member, and locked the rudder in position. It could be a problem, so
> he'll probably disconnect the forward pedals when carrying pax.

Didn't build it, so also can only answer the hole size question, at
6'4", 250 I have trouble with my left knee interfering with the mixture, so
can't quite get full left aileron. This is in the rear seat only. The
front seat is quite a bit roomier. Regarding the cross member problem
you mention, ours has aluminum sheet screwed to the floor, and wrapped
around the tube to prevent feet getting caught. It can be seen at
extreme right at:

http://www.xmission.com/~bifft/plane/bungee.jpg

(this picture was taken to show the worn bungee cord, just got those
replaced this weekend)

External pictures at:

http://www.xmission.com/~bifft/plane/index.htm

Brian Huffaker, DSWL )
RV-8A drilling roll bar
1/4 N23UT flying.

[Al]

"Brian Huffaker" > wrote in message
...
> Al > wrote:
>> "david" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Anyone know what the 'hole' size is like on the Starduster? I'm well
>> > over
>> > 6 feet tall and 200lb
> Regarding the cross member problem
> you mention, ours has aluminum sheet screwed to the floor, and wrapped
> around the tube to prevent feet getting caught. It can be seen at
> extreme right at:
>
> http://www.xmission.com/~bifft/plane/bungee.jpg
>

Thanks Brian, that is a good idea.

Al

[Michael]

My girlfriend used to own one, and I flew it a few times. I also
worked on it some, but didn't build it. So here's my two cents.

I'm a lardass, and I fit OK. The 200 lbs is no issue - neither is 250
- in terms of fit. Well over 6 ft might be. The plane is WAY roomier
than any biplane I've ever been in other than a Stearman. If you don't
fit into a 'Duster, not sure what you will fit into.

Considering what they go for in the US, I don't see how you could build
one for less than the cost of buying. Maybe if you're great at
scrounging. I wouldn't even consider building one. There are always
plenty for sale.

There is a reason there are plenty for sale. They're just not very
useful.

They're aerobatic, in the sense that they can take the stresses. +/- 6
gees, and with a relatively high stall speed (60 mph, IIRC) the Va is
above Vne. What's more, the thing is so draggy that about the only way
to exceed Vne would be to point the nose straight down with full power.
It's a great plane to teach yourself aerobatics - it's damn near
impossible to hurt yourself, as long as you have altitude to recover.

On the other hand, the cg range is pretty limited (I was always
flirting with the aft limit at 250) so they don't make good aerobatic
trainers unless instructor (and especially student) are very light.
And the aerobatic performanceis underwhelming. Climbs are slow (at
least with the typical IO-360, ever with CS), rolls are leisurely at
best (even with four ailerons).

XC flying in one isn't much fun. The stability is non-existent. The
open-cockpit thing is cool, but the wind makes it near-impossible to
have a map. I flew it XC once, just to say I had done it, but once was
enough. Cruise speed is an unimpressive 100 kts for a 180-hp 2-seater.

It's not too bad on grass, but it's a bitch on pavement. The one I
flew could not be wheeled. Everyone (including a test pilot who had
flown every piston fighter on the inventory) tried, nobody succeeded.
You could put the mains down at 100 mph and without power the tail
would bang down, sending you for a bucking bronco ride. Normal
landings were 90-95 mph on final (usually a curving final, to keep the
airport in sight), touchdown 3-point (or maybe a tad tailwheel first)
at 75 or so, and hold on. About 50, the rudder became ineffective.
You might start getting the nerve to use the brakes at about 30. In
between, steering was mostly by prayer. Visibility was normal for a
biplane - nothing straight ahead. Just stare at the fuel gauge and try
to make the peripheral vision pictures match. Max crosswind was about
10 kts. When a VERY experienced pilot with thousands of hours of Pitts
time tried to land it in 15-20, he scraped up the wing.

So bottom line - you have a plane that's difficult to land, lands hot
for a toy, isn't much of a traveling plane, isn't much of an aerobat -
and using the same engine/prop, you could have built an RV for the same
money. But it's an open-cockpit biplane. The concept is cool, but
after you've done a few loops and rolls and buzzed a few speedboats it
gets old. That, I think, is why so many are for sale - and why
building one makes little sense.

Michael