Flying on the Cheap - Wood

[[email protected]]

To All:

A few years ago I posted an article offering some hints about how to
build an inexpensive airplane that was safe and reliable (Flying on the
Cheap, October 2001; Google will find it for you). The key point in
the article was the use of commonly available mild steel tubing for the
fuselage. Of course, that meant you had to weld and nowadays most
folks don't, nor do they want to learn. Wood's the thing,
according to non-welding folks, citing its use in KR's and Piets and
dozens of other airframes, each held as the Perfect Design by that
particular person.

The advocates of wooden airframe construction have a valid point, at
least here in the States. Because of the rise of the box stores (Home
Depot, Lowes, etc), wood is more commonly available than steel tubing
and despite what many think, there's plenty of aviation-quality wood
lurking inside the knot-hole collection at your local box store. The
task of the lo-buck builder is to cut away the non-aviation parts, glue
the good stuff together and go flying. Thanks to modern adhesives, the
likelihood of a novice builder producing an unsafe glue-joint is small.


To support the builders of Box Store Bombers I shared my woodworking
experience in several articles posted to this newsgroup (How to Make
Ribs Out of Old Orange Crates [Nov 2002], Wooden Notes [Jan 2006] and
several others). Surprisingly, homebuilding at that level is not an
especially welcome topic on the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup. This
lead to relaying such information in private posts to guys who were
interested in actually building something. Like Fred. Which isn't
his name, but work with me here.

After considerable thought Fred settled upon a single-place, VW-powered
KR-ish design as being the best match for his particular situation. In
working toward that goal he didn't find much support, especially from
the only organization that claims to speak for grass-roots aviation in
America. Thanks to an income of only $25k or thereabouts, to the EAA,
Fred and the millions of people like him simply do not exist. But Fred
is determined to build and fly his very own airplane, even if he has to
use the local box store for most of his materials. Indeed, he
doesn't have much choice. The total cost for his box store lumber
will be under $100 whereas a kit of aviation-grade spruce would cost
about a thousand dollars by the time the freight was paid. The lumber
will have to be resawn and spliced but that's the reality of Flying
on the Cheap.

Fred is bucking additional headwinds in that he has zero woodworking
experience, doesn't own a table saw and has only a limited amount of
shop space. But he does have a computer and lots of determination.
With a bit of help, he has been making slow but steady progress.

Having finally gained access to a table saw, Fred began prowling the
box stores for suitable lumber. (His KR-ish design uses built-up
spars, the main spar having caps two inches square, the aft spar about
an inch.) His next message verged on panic. Did I know that ALL of
the lumber sold in box stores was incorrectly marked? Some of their
one inch wood was only three-quarters of an inch thick! And all of the
2x4's he looked at were only one and a half by three and a half!

I assured Fred that the box stores weren't trying to cheat him,
explained about rough versus finished dimensions and pointed him toward
some places on the internet where the matter was explained in more
detail. His reply sounded a bit discouraged, having realized he
won't be able to cut a 2x2 out of any piece of finish-size
two-by-something lumber. The only way he's going to get a good 2x2
stick is to start with 1x2's, spliced to get rid of any knots, and
glue them together to get his 2x2's. That's the reality of Flying
on the Cheap (why does that sound familiar...) but as a matter of fact,
except for the splices it isn't that much different than starting
with a spruce kit.

I sent him some drawings showing how to slice up a 2x4 to produce spar
caps. Because of the knots he'll probably need about eighteen
2x4's, resawn and laminated to produce the required number of spar
caps. It is labor intensive but there's surprisingly little waste
since the residue of spar cap production yields the intercostals,
stringers and tail-feather spars.

Any mention of splicing spars usually sets several heads of hair on
fire, even though such splices are an accepted practice, their details
fully covered in the old CAM or the new AC13 manuals. In fact, once
you've made up a suitable fixture to ensure all of your splices will
have the same angle, doing a long-splice in solid wood is no more
difficult than doing a short-splice in plywood. (Hint: Solid wood,
you want an angle of about 1:15. With plywood, thanks to the
orientation of the plys, you can develop full strength with angles
between 1:10 for mahogany and 1:12 for birch. As a point of interest,
boat builders commonly use 1:8 for either.)

Making up a scarfing fixture tends to drive a lot of homebuilders crazy
as they fiddle and tweak, trying to achieve a precise angle of 3.8
degrees for a long-splice. Or 7.1 degrees for a boat-work 1:8. The
truth is, the precise angle doesn't really matter. What matters is
that all of the pieces be cut to EXACTLY the SAME angle... and that the
splice be strong enough for the task at hand. This degree of accuracy
can be achieved using nothing more complicated than fixtures assembled
from scrap wood, one for scarfing solid stock, the other for scarfing
plywood. In each case the wood gets clamped in the fixture and the
same cutter - - a portable circular saw - - is used on both.

(As you might suspect, scarfing actually begins at the box store. When
picking the stack for lumber having the proper grain and run-out, you
envision the cuts you'll make when resawing. In many cases you can
orient the piece so that any knots fall entirely within the pieces you
are cutting off, leaving you with a knot-free stick.)

When using box store lumber for airplanes or boats there are a host of
details bobbing just beneath the surface, ready to sink the unwary.
Most of those details can be resolved with a dose of plain
old-fashioned Common Sense, such as keeping your saw-blades sharp,
adjusting the rate of your cut according to its depth and so forth.
Fortunately the details tend to be fail-safe. And self-educating
because of it. Do it wrong, you'll end up with a part that can't
be used. But once you get the hang of it, splicing longerons or spar
caps is no more complicated than checking the air in your tires.

- -

For more than fifteen years millions of low-income but air-minded
Americans waited for Light Sport Aircraft to become a reality. Sadly,
that reality is airplanes and flight training which remain too
expensive for the average American. As the LSA concept turned into
vapor-ware I began receiving more mail from people like Fred who have
decided to follow a different drummer. On the whole, I think this is a
good idea. Based on more than ten years of such messages, folks like
Fred cleave closer to the ideals of grass-roots aviation. These folks
have learned more about their engines and airframes than the typical
kit-builder and some have acquired a remarkable depth of knowledge in
engineering and aeronautics. But I don't think we'll see Fred at
Oshkosh - - it's simply gotten too expensive. Indeed, I've a hunch
a lot of these fellows will end up flying 'black' - - completely
off the books of any Agency or organization. Not because they want to
but because it's the only way they can keep the Dream alive.

-R.S.Hoover

[Denny]

More power to Fred... I hope he can stay the course and get a flying
machine...

denny

[Bret Ludwig]

wrote:
> To All:
>
> A few years ago I posted an article offering some hints about how to
> build an inexpensive airplane that was safe and reliable (Flying on the
> Cheap, October 2001; Google will find it for you). The key point in
> the article was the use of commonly available mild steel tubing for the
> fuselage. Of course, that meant you had to weld and nowadays most
> folks don't, nor do they want to learn. Wood's the thing,
> according to non-welding folks, citing its use in KR's and Piets and
> dozens of other airframes, each held as the Perfect Design by that
> particular person.
>
> The advocates of wooden airframe construction have a valid point, at
> least here in the States. Because of the rise of the box stores (Home
> Depot, Lowes, etc), wood is more commonly available than steel tubing
> and despite what many think, there's plenty of aviation-quality wood
> lurking inside the knot-hole collection at your local box store. The
> task of the lo-buck builder is to cut away the non-aviation parts, glue
> the good stuff together and go flying. Thanks to modern adhesives, the
> likelihood of a novice builder producing an unsafe glue-joint is small.
>
>
> To support the builders of Box Store Bombers I shared my woodworking
> experience in several articles posted to this newsgroup (How to Make
> Ribs Out of Old Orange Crates [Nov 2002], Wooden Notes [Jan 2006] and
> several others). Surprisingly, homebuilding at that level is not an
> especially welcome topic on the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup. This
> lead to relaying such information in private posts to guys who were
> interested in actually building something. Like Fred. Which isn't
> his name, but work with me here.
>
> After considerable thought Fred settled upon a single-place, VW-powered
> KR-ish design as being the best match for his particular situation. In
> working toward that goal he didn't find much support, especially from
> the only organization that claims to speak for grass-roots aviation in
> America. Thanks to an income of only $25k or thereabouts, to the EAA,
> Fred and the millions of people like him simply do not exist. But Fred
> is determined to build and fly his very own airplane, even if he has to
> use the local box store for most of his materials. Indeed, he
> doesn't have much choice. The total cost for his box store lumber
> will be under $100 whereas a kit of aviation-grade spruce would cost
> about a thousand dollars by the time the freight was paid. The lumber
> will have to be resawn and spliced but that's the reality of Flying
> on the Cheap.


Aircraft wood doesn't necessarily have to come from Wicks or Aircraft
Spruce: it has to meet the requirements as set forth in AC 43-13 et
seq. You can find aircraft wood or get it sawn if you know what to look
for. But using wood that clearly is out of those spec is going to cause
trouble.

The biggest problem with flying costs are not traditional simple
airframes: they are the overpriced ridiculous powerplants and high
storage costs.

Direct drive VW made sense in 1965. Not today. Use a liquid cooled car
engine and a redrive, perhaps a Honda since they are attractively
priced as JDM pulls.

[Stealth Pilot]

On 10 Aug 2006 05:23:38 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:


>
>
> Aircraft wood doesn't necessarily have to come from Wicks or Aircraft
>Spruce: it has to meet the requirements as set forth in AC 43-13 et
>seq. You can find aircraft wood or get it sawn if you know what to look
>for. But using wood that clearly is out of those spec is going to cause
>trouble.

wood is just an engineering material, one of many, it has to meet the
strength requirements put on it by the loads on the airframe.

ac43-13 contains a description of what woods that have met the
requirements usually look like. it is the structural characteristics
of the wood that are important not the visual appearance.

btw I agree totally with Veedubbers comments on wood sourcing and wood
selection. none of my wood comes from certified sources.

Stealth Pilot

[David Melby Cavalier]

wrote:
> To All:
>
> A few years ago I posted an article offering some hints about how to
> build an inexpensive airplane that was safe and reliable (Flying on the
> Cheap, October 2001; Google will find it for you). The key point in
> the article was the use of commonly available mild steel tubing for the
> fuselage. Of course, that meant you had to weld and nowadays most
> folks don't, nor do they want to learn. Wood's the thing,
> according to non-welding folks, citing its use in KR's and Piets and
> dozens of other airframes, each held as the Perfect Design by that
> particular person.
>
> The advocates of wooden airframe construction have a valid point, at
> least here in the States. Because of the rise of the box stores (Home
> Depot, Lowes, etc), wood is more commonly available than steel tubing
> and despite what many think, there's plenty of aviation-quality wood
> lurking inside the knot-hole collection at your local box store. The
> task of the lo-buck builder is to cut away the non-aviation parts, glue
> the good stuff together and go flying. Thanks to modern adhesives, the
> likelihood of a novice builder producing an unsafe glue-joint is small.
>
>
> To support the builders of Box Store Bombers I shared my woodworking
> experience in several articles posted to this newsgroup (How to Make
> Ribs Out of Old Orange Crates [Nov 2002], Wooden Notes [Jan 2006] and
> several others). Surprisingly, homebuilding at that level is not an
> especially welcome topic on the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup. This
> lead to relaying such information in private posts to guys who were
> interested in actually building something. Like Fred. Which isn't
> his name, but work with me here.
>
> After considerable thought Fred settled upon a single-place, VW-powered
> KR-ish design as being the best match for his particular situation. In
> working toward that goal he didn't find much support, especially from
> the only organization that claims to speak for grass-roots aviation in
> America. Thanks to an income of only $25k or thereabouts, to the EAA,
> Fred and the millions of people like him simply do not exist. But Fred
> is determined to build and fly his very own airplane, even if he has to
> use the local box store for most of his materials. Indeed, he
> doesn't have much choice. The total cost for his box store lumber
> will be under $100 whereas a kit of aviation-grade spruce would cost
> about a thousand dollars by the time the freight was paid. The lumber
> will have to be resawn and spliced but that's the reality of Flying
> on the Cheap.
>
> Fred is bucking additional headwinds in that he has zero woodworking
> experience, doesn't own a table saw and has only a limited amount of
> shop space. But he does have a computer and lots of determination.
> With a bit of help, he has been making slow but steady progress.
>
> Having finally gained access to a table saw, Fred began prowling the
> box stores for suitable lumber. (His KR-ish design uses built-up
> spars, the main spar having caps two inches square, the aft spar about
> an inch.) His next message verged on panic. Did I know that ALL of
> the lumber sold in box stores was incorrectly marked? Some of their
> one inch wood was only three-quarters of an inch thick! And all of the
> 2x4's he looked at were only one and a half by three and a half!
>
> I assured Fred that the box stores weren't trying to cheat him,
> explained about rough versus finished dimensions and pointed him toward
> some places on the internet where the matter was explained in more
> detail. His reply sounded a bit discouraged, having realized he
> won't be able to cut a 2x2 out of any piece of finish-size
> two-by-something lumber. The only way he's going to get a good 2x2
> stick is to start with 1x2's, spliced to get rid of any knots, and
> glue them together to get his 2x2's. That's the reality of Flying
> on the Cheap (why does that sound familiar...) but as a matter of fact,
> except for the splices it isn't that much different than starting
> with a spruce kit.
>
> I sent him some drawings showing how to slice up a 2x4 to produce spar
> caps. Because of the knots he'll probably need about eighteen
> 2x4's, resawn and laminated to produce the required number of spar
> caps. It is labor intensive but there's surprisingly little waste
> since the residue of spar cap production yields the intercostals,
> stringers and tail-feather spars.
>
> Any mention of splicing spars usually sets several heads of hair on
> fire, even though such splices are an accepted practice, their details
> fully covered in the old CAM or the new AC13 manuals. In fact, once
> you've made up a suitable fixture to ensure all of your splices will
> have the same angle, doing a long-splice in solid wood is no more
> difficult than doing a short-splice in plywood. (Hint: Solid wood,
> you want an angle of about 1:15. With plywood, thanks to the
> orientation of the plys, you can develop full strength with angles
> between 1:10 for mahogany and 1:12 for birch. As a point of interest,
> boat builders commonly use 1:8 for either.)
>
> Making up a scarfing fixture tends to drive a lot of homebuilders crazy
> as they fiddle and tweak, trying to achieve a precise angle of 3.8
> degrees for a long-splice. Or 7.1 degrees for a boat-work 1:8. The
> truth is, the precise angle doesn't really matter. What matters is
> that all of the pieces be cut to EXACTLY the SAME angle... and that the
> splice be strong enough for the task at hand. This degree of accuracy
> can be achieved using nothing more complicated than fixtures assembled
> from scrap wood, one for scarfing solid stock, the other for scarfing
> plywood. In each case the wood gets clamped in the fixture and the
> same cutter - - a portable circular saw - - is used on both.
>
> (As you might suspect, scarfing actually begins at the box store. When
> picking the stack for lumber having the proper grain and run-out, you
> envision the cuts you'll make when resawing. In many cases you can
> orient the piece so that any knots fall entirely within the pieces you
> are cutting off, leaving you with a knot-free stick.)
>
> When using box store lumber for airplanes or boats there are a host of
> details bobbing just beneath the surface, ready to sink the unwary.
> Most of those details can be resolved with a dose of plain
> old-fashioned Common Sense, such as keeping your saw-blades sharp,
> adjusting the rate of your cut according to its depth and so forth.
> Fortunately the details tend to be fail-safe. And self-educating
> because of it. Do it wrong, you'll end up with a part that can't
> be used. But once you get the hang of it, splicing longerons or spar
> caps is no more complicated than checking the air in your tires.
>
> - -
>
> For more than fifteen years millions of low-income but air-minded
> Americans waited for Light Sport Aircraft to become a reality. Sadly,
> that reality is airplanes and flight training which remain too
> expensive for the average American. As the LSA concept turned into
> vapor-ware I began receiving more mail from people like Fred who have
> decided to follow a different drummer. On the whole, I think this is a
> good idea. Based on more than ten years of such messages, folks like
> Fred cleave closer to the ideals of grass-roots aviation. These folks
> have learned more about their engines and airframes than the typical
> kit-builder and some have acquired a remarkable depth of knowledge in
> engineering and aeronautics. But I don't think we'll see Fred at
> Oshkosh - - it's simply gotten too expensive. Indeed, I've a hunch
> a lot of these fellows will end up flying 'black' - - completely
> off the books of any Agency or organization. Not because they want to
> but because it's the only way they can keep the Dream alive.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

If Fred plans to build a plane from wood purchased from Home Depot, he
should also build a pine box. He will need it. I have never found
wood acceptable for aircraft at HD or any other such outlet. Why pass
on such bad information?

[pbc76049]

There is another spec for Spruce and Doug Fir that is a bit easier to find
than "Spar Stock".
History lesson follows.... One of the biggest markets for dead straight
tight grain wood was for
the construction of fire department ladders, especially aerial ladders. The
ladder makers
created a standard for wood used in ladders. "Ladder Grade" spruce is a
commercial spec that is
indistinguishable from AC43 and in many cases tighter.. If you call around
and find the folks who sell it, you can save
hours of dumpster diving to find good stuff at box stores. It is reasonably
priced compared
to "airplans stuff" with only a moderate premium over regular wood prices.
Scott
"

[Bret Ludwig]

pbc76049 (removethis) wrote:
> There is another spec for Spruce and Doug Fir that is a bit easier to find
> than "Spar Stock".
> History lesson follows.... One of the biggest markets for dead straight
> tight grain wood was for
> the construction of fire department ladders, especially aerial ladders. The
> ladder makers
> created a standard for wood used in ladders. "Ladder Grade" spruce is a
> commercial spec that is
> indistinguishable from AC43 and in many cases tighter.. If you call around
> and find the folks who sell it, you can save
> hours of dumpster diving to find good stuff at box stores. It is reasonably
> priced compared
> to "airplans stuff" with only a moderate premium over regular wood prices.
> Scott


If one is going to build anything of wood one needs to learn a great
deal about wood, at least in comparison to what most vendors know.
Dealing directly with mills is always advantageous, especially if you
are not in immediate need of the wood and can buy early and age it
yourself, at least partially. If you are contemplating building a
woodster, car, boat or plane, buy wood now and put it away. You can
always resell at no loss if you buy right.

[Peter Dohm]

"David Melby Cavalier" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
> > To All:
> >
> > A few years ago I posted an article offering some hints about how to
> > build an inexpensive airplane that was safe and reliable (Flying on the
> > Cheap, October 2001; Google will find it for you). The key point in
> > the article was the use of commonly available mild steel tubing for the
> > fuselage. Of course, that meant you had to weld and nowadays most
> > folks don't, nor do they want to learn. Wood's the thing,
> > according to non-welding folks, citing its use in KR's and Piets and
> > dozens of other airframes, each held as the Perfect Design by that
> > particular person.
> >
> > The advocates of wooden airframe construction have a valid point, at
> > least here in the States. Because of the rise of the box stores (Home
> > Depot, Lowes, etc), wood is more commonly available than steel tubing
> > and despite what many think, there's plenty of aviation-quality wood
> > lurking inside the knot-hole collection at your local box store. The
> > task of the lo-buck builder is to cut away the non-aviation parts, glue
> > the good stuff together and go flying. Thanks to modern adhesives, the
> > likelihood of a novice builder producing an unsafe glue-joint is small.
> >
> >
> > To support the builders of Box Store Bombers I shared my woodworking
> > experience in several articles posted to this newsgroup (How to Make
> > Ribs Out of Old Orange Crates [Nov 2002], Wooden Notes [Jan 2006] and
> > several others). Surprisingly, homebuilding at that level is not an
> > especially welcome topic on the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup. This
> > lead to relaying such information in private posts to guys who were
> > interested in actually building something. Like Fred. Which isn't
> > his name, but work with me here.
> >
> > After considerable thought Fred settled upon a single-place, VW-powered
> > KR-ish design as being the best match for his particular situation. In
> > working toward that goal he didn't find much support, especially from
> > the only organization that claims to speak for grass-roots aviation in
> > America. Thanks to an income of only $25k or thereabouts, to the EAA,
> > Fred and the millions of people like him simply do not exist. But Fred
> > is determined to build and fly his very own airplane, even if he has to
> > use the local box store for most of his materials. Indeed, he
> > doesn't have much choice. The total cost for his box store lumber
> > will be under $100 whereas a kit of aviation-grade spruce would cost
> > about a thousand dollars by the time the freight was paid. The lumber
> > will have to be resawn and spliced but that's the reality of Flying
> > on the Cheap.
> >
> > Fred is bucking additional headwinds in that he has zero woodworking
> > experience, doesn't own a table saw and has only a limited amount of
> > shop space. But he does have a computer and lots of determination.
> > With a bit of help, he has been making slow but steady progress.
> >
> > Having finally gained access to a table saw, Fred began prowling the
> > box stores for suitable lumber. (His KR-ish design uses built-up
> > spars, the main spar having caps two inches square, the aft spar about
> > an inch.) His next message verged on panic. Did I know that ALL of
> > the lumber sold in box stores was incorrectly marked? Some of their
> > one inch wood was only three-quarters of an inch thick! And all of the
> > 2x4's he looked at were only one and a half by three and a half!
> >
> > I assured Fred that the box stores weren't trying to cheat him,
> > explained about rough versus finished dimensions and pointed him toward
> > some places on the internet where the matter was explained in more
> > detail. His reply sounded a bit discouraged, having realized he
> > won't be able to cut a 2x2 out of any piece of finish-size
> > two-by-something lumber. The only way he's going to get a good 2x2
> > stick is to start with 1x2's, spliced to get rid of any knots, and
> > glue them together to get his 2x2's. That's the reality of Flying
> > on the Cheap (why does that sound familiar...) but as a matter of fact,
> > except for the splices it isn't that much different than starting
> > with a spruce kit.
> >
> > I sent him some drawings showing how to slice up a 2x4 to produce spar
> > caps. Because of the knots he'll probably need about eighteen
> > 2x4's, resawn and laminated to produce the required number of spar
> > caps. It is labor intensive but there's surprisingly little waste
> > since the residue of spar cap production yields the intercostals,
> > stringers and tail-feather spars.
> >
> > Any mention of splicing spars usually sets several heads of hair on
> > fire, even though such splices are an accepted practice, their details
> > fully covered in the old CAM or the new AC13 manuals. In fact, once
> > you've made up a suitable fixture to ensure all of your splices will
> > have the same angle, doing a long-splice in solid wood is no more
> > difficult than doing a short-splice in plywood. (Hint: Solid wood,
> > you want an angle of about 1:15. With plywood, thanks to the
> > orientation of the plys, you can develop full strength with angles
> > between 1:10 for mahogany and 1:12 for birch. As a point of interest,
> > boat builders commonly use 1:8 for either.)
> >
> > Making up a scarfing fixture tends to drive a lot of homebuilders crazy
> > as they fiddle and tweak, trying to achieve a precise angle of 3.8
> > degrees for a long-splice. Or 7.1 degrees for a boat-work 1:8. The
> > truth is, the precise angle doesn't really matter. What matters is
> > that all of the pieces be cut to EXACTLY the SAME angle... and that the
> > splice be strong enough for the task at hand. This degree of accuracy
> > can be achieved using nothing more complicated than fixtures assembled
> > from scrap wood, one for scarfing solid stock, the other for scarfing
> > plywood. In each case the wood gets clamped in the fixture and the
> > same cutter - - a portable circular saw - - is used on both.
> >
> > (As you might suspect, scarfing actually begins at the box store. When
> > picking the stack for lumber having the proper grain and run-out, you
> > envision the cuts you'll make when resawing. In many cases you can
> > orient the piece so that any knots fall entirely within the pieces you
> > are cutting off, leaving you with a knot-free stick.)
> >
> > When using box store lumber for airplanes or boats there are a host of
> > details bobbing just beneath the surface, ready to sink the unwary.
> > Most of those details can be resolved with a dose of plain
> > old-fashioned Common Sense, such as keeping your saw-blades sharp,
> > adjusting the rate of your cut according to its depth and so forth.
> > Fortunately the details tend to be fail-safe. And self-educating
> > because of it. Do it wrong, you'll end up with a part that can't
> > be used. But once you get the hang of it, splicing longerons or spar
> > caps is no more complicated than checking the air in your tires.
> >
> > - -
> >
> > For more than fifteen years millions of low-income but air-minded
> > Americans waited for Light Sport Aircraft to become a reality. Sadly,
> > that reality is airplanes and flight training which remain too
> > expensive for the average American. As the LSA concept turned into
> > vapor-ware I began receiving more mail from people like Fred who have
> > decided to follow a different drummer. On the whole, I think this is a
> > good idea. Based on more than ten years of such messages, folks like
> > Fred cleave closer to the ideals of grass-roots aviation. These folks
> > have learned more about their engines and airframes than the typical
> > kit-builder and some have acquired a remarkable depth of knowledge in
> > engineering and aeronautics. But I don't think we'll see Fred at
> > Oshkosh - - it's simply gotten too expensive. Indeed, I've a hunch
> > a lot of these fellows will end up flying 'black' - - completely
> > off the books of any Agency or organization. Not because they want to
> > but because it's the only way they can keep the Dream alive.
> >
> > -R.S.Hoover
>
> If Fred plans to build a plane from wood purchased from Home Depot, he
> should also build a pine box. He will need it. I have never found
> wood acceptable for aircraft at HD or any other such outlet. Why pass
> on such bad information?
>
Since Veeduber's original post, I have taken a long glance at the lumber in
both of the local big boxes, as well as a couple of the local independents,
and I have concluded that the method is reasonable and a good compromise.
Arguments in favor include:
1) the high cost of shipping for small quantities,
2) the ability to buy a little at a time
(think empenage kit, wing kit, etc.),
3) laminating can be used to defeat any remaining tendency of wood to warp
or bow over time,
4) laminated wood better resists splitting, and
5) the relative amount of expertise (a/k/a experience) required to evaluate
small (thin) peices is less than that required for large (thick) peices.

There is no question that more work, including a lot of clamping, is
required to splice and laminate. But the old timers all swear by it and I
have NEVER heard or read anything in opposition from an experienced source!

That does not mean that I either will or will not use wood as the base
material for a composite, only that I kow it to be a sound engineering
material.

Peter

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> ...
>
> Any mention of splicing spars usually sets several heads of hair on
> fire, even though such splices are an accepted practice, their details
> fully covered in the old CAM or the new AC13 manuals. In fact, once
> you've made up a suitable fixture to ensure all of your splices will
> have the same angle, doing a long-splice in solid wood is no more
> difficult than doing a short-splice in plywood. (Hint: Solid wood,
> you want an angle of about 1:15. With plywood, thanks to the
> orientation of the plys, you can develop full strength with angles
> between 1:10 for mahogany and 1:12 for birch. As a point of interest,
> boat builders commonly use 1:8 for either.)
>
> Making up a scarfing fixture tends to drive a lot of homebuilders crazy
> as they fiddle and tweak, trying to achieve a precise angle of 3.8
> degrees for a long-splice. Or 7.1 degrees for a boat-work 1:8. The
> truth is, the precise angle doesn't really matter. What matters is
> that all of the pieces be cut to EXACTLY the SAME angle... and that the
> splice be strong enough for the task at hand. This degree of accuracy
> can be achieved using nothing more complicated than fixtures assembled
> from scrap wood, one for scarfing solid stock, the other for scarfing
> plywood. In each case the wood gets clamped in the fixture and the
> same cutter - - a portable circular saw - - is used on both.
>

I recommend that Fred pick up and tune a couple of hand planes.
At the very least I think he'll find a block plane and and jack to be
useful, especially for those scarf joints. Old Stanley, Union,
Ohio Tools, Sargent, Millers-Falls, KeenKutter, Winchester, or
Fultons are excellent, and better than any new planes found in
the Borgs today.

--

FF

[Peter Dohm]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
> > To All:
> >
> > A few years ago I posted an article offering some hints about how to
> > build an inexpensive airplane that was safe and reliable (Flying on the
> > Cheap, October 2001; Google will find it for you). The key point in
> > the article was the use of commonly available mild steel tubing for the
> > fuselage. Of course, that meant you had to weld and nowadays most
> > folks don't, nor do they want to learn. Wood's the thing,
> > according to non-welding folks, citing its use in KR's and Piets and
> > dozens of other airframes, each held as the Perfect Design by that
> > particular person.
> >
> > The advocates of wooden airframe construction have a valid point, at
> > least here in the States. Because of the rise of the box stores (Home
> > Depot, Lowes, etc), wood is more commonly available than steel tubing
> > and despite what many think, there's plenty of aviation-quality wood
> > lurking inside the knot-hole collection at your local box store. The
> > task of the lo-buck builder is to cut away the non-aviation parts, glue
> > the good stuff together and go flying. Thanks to modern adhesives, the
> > likelihood of a novice builder producing an unsafe glue-joint is small.
> >
> >
> > To support the builders of Box Store Bombers I shared my woodworking
> > experience in several articles posted to this newsgroup (How to Make
> > Ribs Out of Old Orange Crates [Nov 2002], Wooden Notes [Jan 2006] and
> > several others). Surprisingly, homebuilding at that level is not an
> > especially welcome topic on the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup. This
> > lead to relaying such information in private posts to guys who were
> > interested in actually building something. Like Fred. Which isn't
> > his name, but work with me here.
> >
> > After considerable thought Fred settled upon a single-place, VW-powered
> > KR-ish design as being the best match for his particular situation. In
> > working toward that goal he didn't find much support, especially from
> > the only organization that claims to speak for grass-roots aviation in
> > America. Thanks to an income of only $25k or thereabouts, to the EAA,
> > Fred and the millions of people like him simply do not exist. But Fred
> > is determined to build and fly his very own airplane, even if he has to
> > use the local box store for most of his materials. Indeed, he
> > doesn't have much choice. The total cost for his box store lumber
> > will be under $100 whereas a kit of aviation-grade spruce would cost
> > about a thousand dollars by the time the freight was paid. The lumber
> > will have to be resawn and spliced but that's the reality of Flying
> > on the Cheap.
>
>
> Aircraft wood doesn't necessarily have to come from Wicks or Aircraft
> Spruce: it has to meet the requirements as set forth in AC 43-13 et
> seq. You can find aircraft wood or get it sawn if you know what to look
> for. But using wood that clearly is out of those spec is going to cause
> trouble.
>
> The biggest problem with flying costs are not traditional simple
> airframes: they are the overpriced ridiculous powerplants and high
> storage costs.
>
> Direct drive VW made sense in 1965. Not today. Use a liquid cooled car
> engine and a redrive, perhaps a Honda since they are attractively
> priced as JDM pulls.
>
I must dissagree. "Fred" appears to have settled on what could be termed a
light, single seat, ELSA which should need roughly 30 to 45 HP. The VW
should be ideal for the purpose.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"pbc76049" > wrote in message
...
> There is another spec for Spruce and Doug Fir that is a bit easier to find
> than "Spar Stock".
> History lesson follows.... One of the biggest markets for dead straight
> tight grain wood was for
> the construction of fire department ladders, especially aerial ladders.
The
> ladder makers
> created a standard for wood used in ladders. "Ladder Grade" spruce is a
> commercial spec that is
> indistinguishable from AC43 and in many cases tighter.. If you call
around
> and find the folks who sell it, you can save
> hours of dumpster diving to find good stuff at box stores. It is
reasonably
> priced compared
> to "airplans stuff" with only a moderate premium over regular wood prices.
> Scott
> "
>
>
Thanks. I have saved the post for future reference.

Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> I must dissagree. "Fred" appears to have settled on what could be termed
> a
> light, single seat, ELSA which should need roughly 30 to 45 HP. The VW
> should be ideal for the purpose.

No matter what he builds from Home Depot lumber it isn't ever going to be an
ELSA.

[[email protected]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> ...
>
> Direct drive VW made sense in 1965. Not today. Use a liquid cooled car
> engine and a redrive, perhaps a Honda since they are attractively
> priced as JDM pulls.

Have you seen many airplanes flying with liquid cooled car
engines and a redrives?

How many with Honda engines?

Is the CVCC engine better (or worse) for flying than other
auto engines?

--

FF

[Peter Dohm]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I must dissagree. "Fred" appears to have settled on what could be
termed
> > a
> > light, single seat, ELSA which should need roughly 30 to 45 HP. The VW
> > should be ideal for the purpose.
>
> No matter what he builds from Home Depot lumber it isn't ever going to be
an
> ELSA.
>
>
Perhaps, and perhaps not.

At the moment, they appear to still be pretty busy working on kit
certification. However, it appeared (by reading between the lines in an
interview with Marion Blakely) that plans built ELSA is in the future. It
would then be "out of character" for custom built aircraft and/or small
designers of plans to be specifically excluded.

Besides, I think you know what I meant in terms of performance--even if Fred
chooses to apply only for the traditional amateur built experimental
category.

Peter

[Lou]

Spoken like a true idiot that never looked at Home Depot lumber.

[Dave[_2_]]

Nice article Veeduber, I doubt I'll ever build from wood, or from scratch
for that matter but I enjoyed the read. Thanks.

[[email protected]]

David Melby Cavalier wrote:
>
> ...
>
> If Fred plans to build a plane from wood purchased from Home Depot, he
> should also build a pine box. He will need it. I have never found
> wood acceptable for aircraft at HD or any other such outlet. Why pass
> on such bad information?

Have you ever looked at the FAS Doug Fir they stock next to the
hardwoods?

--

FF

[Jim Carriere]

wrote:
> David Melby Cavalier wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> If Fred plans to build a plane from wood purchased from Home Depot, he
>> should also build a pine box. He will need it. I have never found
>> wood acceptable for aircraft at HD or any other such outlet. Why pass
>> on such bad information?
>
> Have you ever looked at the FAS Doug Fir they stock next to the
> hardwoods?

I bet either "no," or the stock in his region may simply be lower quality.

Personally I've seen some very knot-free and fine grain birch and fir at
the local Lowe's. Of course, there is also plenty "doghouse grade" wood.

Lowe's is fifteen minutes closer to me than HD :)

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:33:37 -0400, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> > No matter what he builds from Home Depot lumber it isn't ever going to be
> > an ELSA.
> >
> Perhaps, and perhaps not.
>
> At the moment, they appear to still be pretty busy working on kit
> certification. However, it appeared (by reading between the lines in an
> interview with Marion Blakely) that plans built ELSA is in the future. It
> would then be "out of character" for custom built aircraft and/or small
> designers of plans to be specifically excluded.

I think the basic problem would lie in the certification process. Ignoring the
grandfathered aircraft, ELSA certification requires two things: That an example
of the aircraft be built and certified as an SLSA, and that the ELSA builder
strictly conform to the materials, processes, and design of that example SLSA.
You can't change the engine, you can't change the radio, you can't make a single
deviation from the manufacturer's construction manual UNTIL your plane receives
its ELSA certification.

Thus, the plans must specify the materials to be used. The structural wood
elements will have to be spelled out. Conceivably, the designer could just
specify "Hemlock with XXX rings per inch, with the grain slope no more than
X:Y," etc, which means you *will* be able to go to Home Depot Aerospace and hunt
and pick for conforming wood.

However...remember, the designer has to certify the aircraft as a
production-type LSA. It's going to be a lot easier for him to specify "Spruce
conforming to XXXX standard."

Either way, there can be problems afoot for the plans builders. In both cases,
a hard-nosed FAA inspector could demand proof that the wood on the aircraft
meets the standard specified by the designer. If the designer specifies a
particular grade of spruce, you can probably show the appropriate receipts. But
if the designer merely states the qualification criteria for wood selection,
this might be a bit more difficult to provide sufficient proof.

ELSA is NOT Experimental-Amateur Built. There are some significant differences.
If you're building, the only advantage you get with an ELSA certification is
that a later owner can receive an LS-I certificate that lets them do their own
annuals. Otherwise, you're much better off as Exp-Am.

Ron Wanttaja

[Peter Dohm]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:33:37 -0400, "Peter Dohm" >
wrote:
>
> > > No matter what he builds from Home Depot lumber it isn't ever going to
be
> > > an ELSA.
> > >
> > Perhaps, and perhaps not.
> >
> > At the moment, they appear to still be pretty busy working on kit
> > certification. However, it appeared (by reading between the lines in an
> > interview with Marion Blakely) that plans built ELSA is in the future.
It
> > would then be "out of character" for custom built aircraft and/or small
> > designers of plans to be specifically excluded.
>
> I think the basic problem would lie in the certification process.
Ignoring the
> grandfathered aircraft, ELSA certification requires two things: That an
example
> of the aircraft be built and certified as an SLSA, and that the ELSA
builder
> strictly conform to the materials, processes, and design of that example
SLSA.
> You can't change the engine, you can't change the radio, you can't make a
single
> deviation from the manufacturer's construction manual UNTIL your plane
receives
> its ELSA certification.
>
> Thus, the plans must specify the materials to be used. The structural
wood
> elements will have to be spelled out. Conceivably, the designer could
just
> specify "Hemlock with XXX rings per inch, with the grain slope no more
than
> X:Y," etc, which means you *will* be able to go to Home Depot Aerospace
and hunt
> and pick for conforming wood.
>
> However...remember, the designer has to certify the aircraft as a
> production-type LSA. It's going to be a lot easier for him to specify
"Spruce
> conforming to XXXX standard."
>
> Either way, there can be problems afoot for the plans builders. In both
cases,
> a hard-nosed FAA inspector could demand proof that the wood on the
aircraft
> meets the standard specified by the designer. If the designer specifies a
> particular grade of spruce, you can probably show the appropriate
receipts. But
> if the designer merely states the qualification criteria for wood
selection,
> this might be a bit more difficult to provide sufficient proof.
>
> ELSA is NOT Experimental-Amateur Built. There are some significant
differences.
> If you're building, the only advantage you get with an ELSA certification
is
> that a later owner can receive an LS-I certificate that lets them do their
own
> annuals. Otherwise, you're much better off as Exp-Am.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I am not sure how much is set in stone so far, but will stay tuned. My
understanding was that LSA was to be complete (ready to fly), SLSA was to be
kits, and ELSA was not yet final. Of course, that is now old info and may
have changed...

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Nice article Veeduber, I doubt I'll ever build from wood, or from scratch
> for that matter but I enjoyed the read. Thanks.
>
>
That's really my feeling as well.

Peter

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:30:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> I am not sure how much is set in stone so far, but will stay tuned. My
> understanding was that LSA was to be complete (ready to fly), SLSA was to be
> kits, and ELSA was not yet final. Of course, that is now old info and may
> have changed...

"LSA" is a definition. FAR 1.1, Definitions: "Light-sport aircraft means an
aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original
certification, has continued to meet the following..."

SLSA means "Special Light Sport Aircraft"; an LSA that has received a
Special-category airworthiness certificate.

ELSA means "Experimental Light Sport Aircraft," an LSA that has received
certification in the Experimental category, under the "LSA" subcategory (as
"Amateur-Built" is another subcategory).

SLSAs must be constructed in accordance with the process that the FAA has
accepted meets the consensus standards, and must be maintained in accordance
with the standards. ELSAs must also be constructed in accordance to the
process, but once certification is receive, the owner is not required to
maintain the aircraft in accordance with its certification.

Aircraft can receive ELSA certification a number of ways. A builder may
construct an ELSA in compliance with an approved kit or plans. The owner of an
SLSA can convert his or her aircraft to ELSA. The owner of an existing
non-certified aircraft (e.g., two seat ultralights) can gain ELSA certification
(for the next year and a half). The builder of a plane meeting the LSA
definition can receive ELSA certification (again, until the deadline in January
2008).

Ron Wanttaja

[flybynightkarmarepair]

wrote:
>
> Fred is bucking additional headwinds in that he has zero woodworking
> experience, doesn't own a table saw and has only a limited amount of
> shop space.

I've never had a table saw of my own either. I now have a little 9
inch Delta bandsaw though, and I find for this sort of light-duty
resawing, I like it rather better than a table saw, in part because the
smaller kerf means less wood reduced to powder in the conversion of
"white wood" shelves into longerons or rib sticks. Lots of sawmills
use bandsaws - big, scarey ones - for sawing balks into finished
lumber.

> Making up a scarfing fixture tends to drive a lot of homebuilders crazy
> as they fiddle and tweak, ..... This degree of accuracy
> can be achieved using nothing more complicated than fixtures assembled
> from scrap wood, one for scarfing solid stock, the other for scarfing
> plywood. In each case the wood gets clamped in the fixture and the
> same cutter - - a portable circular saw - - is used on both.

For the benefit of the readers, here are a few scarfing web pages for
inspection.

http://www.marisystems.com/ellipticat/page4.htm I've used one very
much like this with a hand plane, after roughing the cut with a
japanese saw. Use a fairly large plane, with a lot of plane ahead and
behind to the blade to guide you if you use this method or you'll end
up planing the jig.

That was the only decent link I found on scarfing solid wood.
Scarfing plywood has lots more links, and some of these methods can be
adoped to small stringers - just stack a bunch of them side-by-side,
and they start to look like a sheet of plywood.

http://www.seqair.com/skunkworks/WoodWkgMethods/GaugerScarfJig/Gauger.html
for plywood. Gougeon, the WEST epoxy people, sell a device like this
for a Skilsaw that works very well.
http://www.boat-links.com/scarf_bevels.html Free-handing plywood scarfs
http://www.menestrel.org.uk/scarfing_plywood.htm A sander approach.

Finally, "The Gougeon Brothers On Boat Construction" devotes a whole
chapter to scarfing, both dimensional lumber and plywood, and is widely
available in libraries. Other books on wooden boat building may also
cover it, but of the two I've kept from the dozens I used to have, only
this one did.

[Bret Ludwig]

wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Direct drive VW made sense in 1965. Not today. Use a liquid cooled car
> > engine and a redrive, perhaps a Honda since they are attractively
> > priced as JDM pulls.
>
> Have you seen many airplanes flying with liquid cooled car
> engines and a redrives?

A few.
>
> How many with Honda engines?

Fewer.
>
> Is the CVCC engine better (or worse) for flying than other
> auto engines?


The CVCC is rarer than a Lycoming now since the Honda cars made with
it are almost all crushed out. I think they discontinued CVCC in the
_very_ early eighties. Most Honda mechanics working today have never
seen one. You must be a fossil to even remember CVCC.

The point is not what is most common today but what would offer the
best prospects for inexpensive, safe flying. If safety is the ONLY
criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

REAL aircraft engines are turbines. If you think otherwise you are
bull****ting yourself. Lycoming and Continental are, like Harley
Davidson and Porsche, toys for people with just a little too much
money.

I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
gear drive could fix that.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I must dissagree. "Fred" appears to have settled on what could be
> termed
>> > a
>> > light, single seat, ELSA which should need roughly 30 to 45 HP. The VW
>> > should be ideal for the purpose.
>>
>> No matter what he builds from Home Depot lumber it isn't ever going to be
> an
>> ELSA.
>>
>>
> Perhaps, and perhaps not.
>
> At the moment, they appear to still be pretty busy working on kit
> certification. However, it appeared (by reading between the lines in an
> interview with Marion Blakely) that plans built ELSA is in the future. It
> would then be "out of character" for custom built aircraft and/or small
> designers of plans to be specifically excluded.
>
> Besides, I think you know what I meant in terms of performance--even if
> Fred
> chooses to apply only for the traditional amateur built experimental
> category.
>
> Peter
>

The entire basis of the E-LSA is that it is built exactly to "factory"
standards with no deviation. Otherwise it is a Exp-Amateur that just happens
to be legal to fly by an LSA.

There is nothing to be gained by builders, manufacturers, pilots or the FAA
by a change such as you describe and many things to lost so where is the
motivation for such a move?

[Jim Carriere]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> SLSAs must be constructed in accordance with the process that the FAA has
> accepted meets the consensus standards, and must be maintained in accordance
> with the standards. ELSAs must also be constructed in accordance to the
> process, but once certification is receive, the owner is not required to
> maintain the aircraft in accordance with its certification.

So... the owner of an ELSA could, in the course of "maintaining" the
aircraft, change out everything except the data plate and end up with a
very different aircraft. Talk about major repairs, maybe we'll see a
niche market around "repairman assist" modifications, violating the heck
out of the spirit and intent of the rule.

I'm being facetious, I haven't finished my coffee yet this morning. :)

[Stealth Pilot]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:49:22 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>
>"David Melby Cavalier" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> wrote:
>> > To All:
>> >

>>
>Since Veeduber's original post, I have taken a long glance at the lumber in
>both of the local big boxes, as well as a couple of the local independents,
>and I have concluded that the method is reasonable and a good compromise.
>Arguments in favor include:
>1) the high cost of shipping for small quantities,
>2) the ability to buy a little at a time
> (think empenage kit, wing kit, etc.),
>3) laminating can be used to defeat any remaining tendency of wood to warp
>or bow over time,
>4) laminated wood better resists splitting, and
>5) the relative amount of expertise (a/k/a experience) required to evaluate
>small (thin) peices is less than that required for large (thick) peices.
>
>There is no question that more work, including a lot of clamping, is
>required to splice and laminate. But the old timers all swear by it and I
>have NEVER heard or read anything in opposition from an experienced source!
>
>That does not mean that I either will or will not use wood as the base
>material for a composite, only that I kow it to be a sound engineering
>material.
>
>Peter
>
>
cellulose is a macro molecule assembled from sugar.
apart from some grain characteristics that are species related the
main arbiter for wood strength is its density. since most of the wood
you see in commercial sales areas is all at 12 to 15% moisture content
the density of the wood is a reasonable guide as to its strength.
compression, tension and izod tests are actually what you need but the
visual inspection of wood to exclude defects (from the actual length
of the cut piece as veedubber suggests) has served builders well for
all of aviation.

the only other piece of information needed for laminating is an
understanding of whether the lignin binding the cellulose together is
a thermoset plastic or a thermosoftening plastic.
thermosoftening lignins allow for woods that can be steamed and shaped
very easily. thermosetting lignin makes for a wood that should only be
used in straight pieces.

my own wood is sourced via a relative on the other side of the country
from the stocks of a chap who makes bee hive boxes for the apiary
industry. Talk to people and ask around because you can find some
amazing wood sources. One chap I know stumbled on 3 pieces of 50 year
old spruce, that were absolutely straight grained for over 30 ft, out
of a deceased estate. he now has enough for two aeroplanes.

if you look around and weigh woods you will find an amazing array of
suitable woods. I'm writing from Australia but in my local Bunnings (
a clone of your home depot) I can get Alaskan Yellow Cedar that ranges
from useless heavily knotted pieces to pieces with close straight
grain for over 6ft. I can find Australian "Oak" in densities from just
heavier than Spruce to nearly 65lb per cubic ft. I can occasionally
source Oregon Pine (Douglas Fir) that is usually suitable.
Mainly though I use Queensland Hoop Pine in the manner that Veedubber
suggests.

One of the keys to getting a supply of good wood is to be prepared to
buy it when it becomes available. It is a natural product and supply
is variable. There are lots of people out to obtain good woods.

I think my aircraft will have about 8 species of wood in it by the
time I'm finished. I'm using it because Wood structures are
permanently repairable.

Stealth Pilot

[Peter Dohm]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > I must dissagree. "Fred" appears to have settled on what could be
> > termed
> >> > a
> >> > light, single seat, ELSA which should need roughly 30 to 45 HP. The
VW
> >> > should be ideal for the purpose.
> >>
> >> No matter what he builds from Home Depot lumber it isn't ever going to
be
> > an
> >> ELSA.
> >>
> >>
> > Perhaps, and perhaps not.
> >
> > At the moment, they appear to still be pretty busy working on kit
> > certification. However, it appeared (by reading between the lines in an
> > interview with Marion Blakely) that plans built ELSA is in the future.
It
> > would then be "out of character" for custom built aircraft and/or small
> > designers of plans to be specifically excluded.
> >
> > Besides, I think you know what I meant in terms of performance--even if
> > Fred
> > chooses to apply only for the traditional amateur built experimental
> > category.
> >
> > Peter
> >
>
> The entire basis of the E-LSA is that it is built exactly to "factory"
> standards with no deviation. Otherwise it is a Exp-Amateur that just
happens
> to be legal to fly by an LSA.
>
> There is nothing to be gained by builders, manufacturers, pilots or the
FAA
> by a change such as you describe and many things to lost so where is the
> motivation for such a move?
>
>
We seem to be working our way around to agreement as we iron out the
nomenclature.

Now, if we can just get rid of those damanble dolly launches to transfer the
amphibians from airport to seaplane base--and the belly landings coming
back...

Peter
;-)

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0500, Jim Carriere >
wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> > SLSAs must be constructed in accordance with the process that the FAA has
> > accepted meets the consensus standards, and must be maintained in accordance
> > with the standards. ELSAs must also be constructed in accordance to the
> > process, but once certification is receive, the owner is not required to
> > maintain the aircraft in accordance with its certification.
>
> So... the owner of an ELSA could, in the course of "maintaining" the
> aircraft, change out everything except the data plate and end up with a
> very different aircraft. Talk about major repairs, maybe we'll see a
> niche market around "repairman assist" modifications, violating the heck
> out of the spirit and intent of the rule.

You're absolutely correct. The owner of an ELSA, once the airplane is initially
certified, can change practically anything.

We won't even have to worry about "repairman assist" issues, because there *are*
no Repairman Certificates for ELSAs. Just like Experimental/Amateur-Builts,
anyone can maintain or modify them. But the "Light Sport-Inspection" license
permits you to perform the annual on any ELSA that you own...not just the plane
you built, like the Exp-Ambuilt Repairman Certificate. And you can get the LS-I
license after a 16-hour course.

Like I said earlier, any owner can take a production LSA (SLSA), change the
certification to Experimental LSA (ELSA), and thereafter maintain and modify it
as he or she wishes.

Getting an inkling on why Cessna is going to certify its new LSA in *normal*
category, not SLSA? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Bret Ludwig]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0500, Jim Carriere >
> wrote:
<<snip>.
>
> Getting an inkling on why Cessna is going to certify its new LSA in *normal*
> category, not SLSA? :-)


The fact is that Cessna would be better off just to make the airplane
everyone wants-a 150 hp 150 Aerobat with gear hardpoints for tricycle
or conventional gear (or floats)-and leave LSA alone. Like CB radio,
LSA is going to turn into a quagmire.

The upside is that it will put just enough people in the air to give
them some political pull. I personally hope it turns into such a
stinking mess the FAA begs Congress to be allowed to do what would have
been the right thing anyway-expand Part 103 to 1250 lbs empty-and wash
their hands of the whole disgusting mess.

Of course, I hope the Hezzies pound the living holy **** out of the
IDF too. I'm contrarian like that.

[[email protected]]

Jim Carriere wrote:
> wrote:
> > ...
>
> Personally I've seen some very knot-free and fine grain birch and fir at
> the local Lowe's. Of course, there is also plenty "doghouse grade" wood.
>
> Lowe's is fifteen minutes closer to me than HD :)

Other than plywood I've never seen birch in one of the Borgs after
visitng
more than a score of them in four states. Selection is highly
variable,
even within the same company in the same region.

If you don't like what you see in one, go to another.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Now, if we can just get rid of those damanble dolly launches to transfer the
> amphibians from airport to seaplane base--and the belly landings coming
> back...
>

They're working on it.

Meanwhile your options include repostionable floats (leaving the
gear fixed) and motorgliders, which are allowed retracts. Actually,
I haven't found a prohibition against multiple engines for
motorgliders either.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> wrote:
> > Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Direct drive VW made sense in 1965. Not today. Use a liquid cooled car
> > > engine and a redrive, perhaps a Honda since they are attractively
> > > priced as JDM pulls.
> >
> > Have you seen many airplanes flying with liquid cooled car
> > engines and a redrives?
>
> A few.
> >
> > How many with Honda engines?
>
> Fewer.
> >
> > Is the CVCC engine better (or worse) for flying than other
> > auto engines?
>
>
> The CVCC is rarer than a Lycoming now since the Honda cars made with
> it are almost all crushed out. I think they discontinued CVCC in the
> _very_ early eighties. Most Honda mechanics working today have never
> seen one. You must be a fossil to even remember CVCC.

I remember getting 50 mpg while cruising at 60 mph in my 1300cc
Civic with the CVCC engine turning about 500 rpm slower than
my brother's Toyota Corolla. So I think it was a damn fine
fuel efficient high torque at low rpm engine.

>
> The point is not what is most common today but what would offer the
> best prospects for inexpensive, safe flying.

Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
and unsafe to me.

> If safety is the ONLY
> criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
> consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.

I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
every
homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.

>
> ...
>
> I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
> and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
> pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
> one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
> the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
> major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
> gear drive could fix that.

Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?

--

FF

P.S. What's a 'JDM pull'?

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> I remember getting 50 mpg while cruising at 60 mph in my 1300cc
> Civic with the CVCC engine turning about 500 rpm slower than
> my brother's Toyota Corolla. So I think it was a damn fine
> fuel efficient high torque at low rpm engine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're comparing apples to oranges. 50mpg @ 60mph is about 10
horsepower, which tells us the vehicle is fairly light and well
streamlined. But it has nothing to do with airplanes. Expressions
such as 'high torque' and 'low rpm' are meaningless unless quantified,
and if ten horsepower are all you need, there are much lighter engines
than the Honda Civic.

-R.S.Hoover

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 11 Aug 2006 08:09:50 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

>
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0500, Jim Carriere >
> > wrote:
> <<snip>.
> >
> > Getting an inkling on why Cessna is going to certify its new LSA in *normal*
> > category, not SLSA? :-)
>
> The fact is that Cessna would be better off just to make the airplane
> everyone wants-a 150 hp 150 Aerobat with gear hardpoints for tricycle
> or conventional gear (or floats)...

Sorry, don't see it. Few people want conventional gear today; no reason to go
through all the work to certify taildragger versions.

Doubt the market is there for a 150 aerobat, either....there were 5,303 Cessna
150s of 1970 model year or later in the January 2006 FAA aircraft registration
database, and only 257 were Aerobats. That's only ~5% of the fleet...sure
doesn't look like the Aerobat was that popular.

Can you point to any published statistics that show market demand for low-power
(and even 150 HP is "low power") aerobatic taildraggers?

If Cessna certified its new airplane as an LSA, their certification costs would
be much lower. However, they would put themselves at legal risk as owners
re-certify their Cessnas as ELSAs in order to do their own maintenance.

On the other hand, by pursuing Normal category certification, they ensure the
planes remain in as-certified configuration and would be maintained and
inspected by fully-trained mechanics. The certification itself costs more, but
it's a process they're very familiar with.

Ron Wanttaja

[Kyle Boatright]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0500, Jim Carriere
>> >
>> wrote:
> <<snip>.
>>
>> Getting an inkling on why Cessna is going to certify its new LSA in
>> *normal*
>> category, not SLSA? :-)
>
>
> The fact is that Cessna would be better off just to make the airplane
> everyone wants-a 150 hp 150 Aerobat with gear hardpoints for tricycle
> or conventional gear (or floats)-and leave LSA alone. Like CB radio,
> LSA is going to turn into a quagmire.

If "quagmire" is defined as something I can buy for 1/4 of what it cost when
it was over-regulated, I'm a big fan. Also, if LSA was going to provide the
relief from the government bureacracy that CB'ers gained 25 years ago,
again, I'm for that too...

Give me quagmire!!!

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I remember getting 50 mpg while cruising at 60 mph in my 1300cc
> > Civic with the CVCC engine turning about 500 rpm slower than
> > my brother's Toyota Corolla. So I think it was a damn fine
> > fuel efficient high torque at low rpm engine.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You're comparing apples to oranges.

Respectfully, I was comparing the Honda engine with the Toyota
engine.

> ... But it has nothing to do with airplanes. ...

That depends on whether or not either one is any good for
airplanes. Which as you point out, is probably not the case.

But I still wonder if the CVCC combustion system would be
good for an airplane engine.

--

FF

[Anthony W]

wrote:

> But I still wonder if the CVCC combustion system would be
> good for an airplane engine.

Back in the 70's there was a Honda car TV commercial that featured an
airplane builder that loved his Honda car so much, he powered his plane
with the same engine. It shouldn't be that hard to find out what
happened to that plane.

Tony

[Bret Ludwig]

wrote:
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I remember getting 50 mpg while cruising at 60 mph in my 1300cc
> > > Civic with the CVCC engine turning about 500 rpm slower than
> > > my brother's Toyota Corolla. So I think it was a damn fine
> > > fuel efficient high torque at low rpm engine.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > You're comparing apples to oranges.
>
> Respectfully, I was comparing the Honda engine with the Toyota
> engine.
>
> > ... But it has nothing to do with airplanes. ...
>
> That depends on whether or not either one is any good for
> airplanes. Which as you point out, is probably not the case.

He has NO IDEA whether or not Honda car engines would be good or bad
for airplanes. The hardcore DIY converters seem to be much more
interested in the Suzuki/Geo engines, but that doesn't mean the Hondas
would be bad. I have no idea what Honda engines weigh, which since they
have a superior reliability record even in markets like Germany where
people run them WOT for a long time (and since they are used as
outboard powerheads at power settings equal or higher than in the cars,
again with apparently superb reliability) would probably be the main
factor. Of course, most any car engine is going to outperform a
Lycoming today in terms of engine life at WOT. The Lycoming is a 1930s
farm tractor engine built using WWI split crankcase, bolt on cylinder
technology and belongs, really, in a museum. If it were really so great
it would find many other uses besides aircraft. The military used them
in generators and lifeboats and found they were cantankerous and
troublesome and sensibly got rid of them. If only they had reefaged
them instead of selling them surplus they would have done Experimental
aviation a great favor.

>
> But I still wonder if the CVCC combustion system would be
> good for an airplane engine.

The CVCC was a low intensity (vis-a-vis Ford PROCO, for example)
stratified charge system designed primarily for emissions compliance
without using catalytic converters, which were very expensive to
maufacture and required unleaded gas which sold at a premium back then.
(I'm old enough to remember the days of "punching" catalysts and filler
restrictors to burn leaded gas at considerable savings-and satisfaction
of F'ing the EPA, which we hated.) Since aircraft engines are not
emissions controlled and unleaded gas is a lot cheaper than avgas, the
advantage is nonexistent.

CVCC was pretty troublesome, to be honest, and there were a fair
number of people who converted their CVCC Hondas to the Canadian
non-CVCC head and carb at some point in the car's lifecycle,
particularly in areas where the cars didn't rust but which were outside
emissions inspection areas-of course, most garages couldn't tell the
difference anyway.

[Bret Ludwig]

wrote:



>
> Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
> engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
> aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
> successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
> and unsafe to me.

The Curtiss OX-5 was the "proven" aircraft engine at one time. if
everyone thought like you it still would be. Designing an airframe
around a Lyc today is more chronologically retarded than if Burt Rutan
had used an OX-5 or OXX-6 in the first VariEze. (Do the math: I'm
right. The OX-5 was a 1915 engine and the VariEze flew in 1975 or so.
The OXX-6 came along in 1921 or so and the Milwaukee Tank aircooled
conversion around then. This is 2006, although that probably has
escaped the attention of the Lycophiles.)

>
> > If safety is the ONLY
> > criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
> > consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.
>
> Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
> when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
> by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.

Two beefy guys can easily lift a PT-6, at least the small series. A
PT-6A-27 weighs 149 kg according to one Web site on Google.

>
> I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
> every
> homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.

What does that tell you? MANY homebuilts are marginal airplanes? That
much is true.
>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
> > and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
> > pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
> > one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
> > the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
> > major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
> > gear drive could fix that.
>
> Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
> But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
> having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?

You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.

>
> --
>
> FF
>
> P.S. What's a 'JDM pull'?

Japanese Domestic Market. They scrap cars prematurely to artificially
fluff their new car markets.

[Bret Ludwig]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2006 08:09:50 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" > wrote:
>
> >
> > Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0500, Jim Carriere >
> > > wrote:
> > <<snip>.
> > >
> > > Getting an inkling on why Cessna is going to certify its new LSA in *normal*
> > > category, not SLSA? :-)
> >
> > The fact is that Cessna would be better off just to make the airplane
> > everyone wants-a 150 hp 150 Aerobat with gear hardpoints for tricycle
> > or conventional gear (or floats)...
>
> Sorry, don't see it. Few people want conventional gear today; no reason to go
> through all the work to certify taildragger versions.
>
> Doubt the market is there for a 150 aerobat, either....there were 5,303 Cessna
> 150s of 1970 model year or later in the January 2006 FAA aircraft registration
> database, and only 257 were Aerobats. That's only ~5% of the fleet...sure
> doesn't look like the Aerobat was that popular.

They did everything they could not to sell them. I had family that
were Cessna dealers then.
>
> Can you point to any published statistics that show market demand for low-power
> (and even 150 HP is "low power") aerobatic taildraggers?

When the FAA is forced to make GA train pilots, they will need to
require aerobatic training, and the demand will be on. You cannot
really train pilots without requiring spins and a certain amount of
full-inverted aerobatics: the military knows this which is why the
bomber-tanker-transport guys had to have specially beefed bizjets
built.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 12 Aug 2006 17:35:18 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> >
> > Doubt the market is there for a 150 aerobat, either....there were 5,303 Cessna
> > 150s of 1970 model year or later in the January 2006 FAA aircraft registration
> > database, and only 257 were Aerobats. That's only ~5% of the fleet...sure
> > doesn't look like the Aerobat was that popular.
>
> They did everything they could not to sell them. I had family that
> were Cessna dealers then.

If there had been a market for them, they would have sold. Maybe Cessna didn't
run many ads for them, but the magazines back then were publicizing the
aircraft. People knew it was available, and with its checkerboard paint, it was
pretty visible. If the factory received orders, they would have built more.

> > Can you point to any published statistics that show market demand for low-power
> > (and even 150 HP is "low power") aerobatic taildraggers?
>
> When the FAA is forced to make GA train pilots, they will need to
> require aerobatic training, and the demand will be on.

I agree with this, except for one word: Change "When" to "If." And it ain't
gonna happen. In fact, the FAA is going the OTHER way...takes just 20 hours to
get a Sport Pilot license, and none of that is aerobatic time.

The planes don't exist, and, especially, the *instructors* don't exist. Who's
going to give the instruction? Heck, who's going to teach the instructors?

When you look at the accident reports, there's no question that additional
*training* would reduce the accident rates. But specifically *aerobatic*
training? Not hardly. When you look through the probable causes, folks are
crashing because they lose control on landing and takeoff...not because of
inadvertent entry to unusual attitudes. They'd benefit more from 10 hours of
additional instruction in landing in gusty/crosswind conditions more than they'd
benefit from spin instruction.

I did a search on "spin" in the Probable Causes for non-training Cessna 172 and
210 accidents in the years 2002, 2003, and 2004 (about 420 accidents). Only got
two hits. On the first, the NTSB says "During takeoff, the airplane entered an
extremely steep climb, stalled, and impacted the terrain in a nose low, left
wing low attitude." In other words, not enough altitude for recovery.

The only other hit referred to a spinning bearing, not a spinning aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:01:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On 12 Aug 2006 17:35:18 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" > wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Doubt the market is there for a 150 aerobat, either....there were 5,303 Cessna
>> > 150s of 1970 model year or later in the January 2006 FAA aircraft registration
>> > database, and only 257 were Aerobats. That's only ~5% of the fleet...sure
>> > doesn't look like the Aerobat was that popular.
>>
>> They did everything they could not to sell them. I had family that
>> were Cessna dealers then.
>
>If there had been a market for them, they would have sold. Maybe Cessna didn't
>run many ads for them, but the magazines back then were publicizing the
>aircraft. People knew it was available, and with its checkerboard paint, it was
>pretty visible. If the factory received orders, they would have built more.
>
>> > Can you point to any published statistics that show market demand for low-power
>> > (and even 150 HP is "low power") aerobatic taildraggers?
>>
>> When the FAA is forced to make GA train pilots, they will need to
>> require aerobatic training, and the demand will be on.
>
>I agree with this, except for one word: Change "When" to "If." And it ain't
>gonna happen. In fact, the FAA is going the OTHER way...takes just 20 hours to
>get a Sport Pilot license, and none of that is aerobatic time.
>
>The planes don't exist, and, especially, the *instructors* don't exist. Who's
>going to give the instruction? Heck, who's going to teach the instructors?
>
>When you look at the accident reports, there's no question that additional
>*training* would reduce the accident rates. But specifically *aerobatic*
>training? Not hardly. When you look through the probable causes, folks are
>crashing because they lose control on landing and takeoff...not because of
>inadvertent entry to unusual attitudes. They'd benefit more from 10 hours of

Oh, I don't know about that. Trying to imitate a lawn dart is an
unusual attitude as far as I'm concerned. Maybe i've had instructors
that were more demanding then most, but the last time I did departure
stall recovery and stall recovery from slow flight for an instructor
they wanted to see *zero* altitude loss and it is possible even with a
departure stall in a 150 or 172, but not without a lot of practice.

>additional instruction in landing in gusty/crosswind conditions more than they'd
>benefit from spin instruction.
>
>I did a search on "spin" in the Probable Causes for non-training Cessna 172 and
>210 accidents in the years 2002, 2003, and 2004 (about 420 accidents). Only got
>two hits. On the first, the NTSB says "During takeoff, the airplane entered an
>extremely steep climb, stalled, and impacted the terrain in a nose low, left
>wing low attitude." In other words, not enough altitude for recovery.

A steep pull up on take off is more than just a departure stall. <:-))
In a 172 a departure stall entered just because they got too slow is
still revoverable even at very low altitude as long as the plane isn't
overloaded. It takes recognizing the onset of the stall, and
releasing the back pressure, but not pushing the nose down as so many
students and pilots do.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>>The only other hit referred to a spinning bearing, not a spinning aircraft.
>
>Ron Wanttaja
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On 12 Aug 2006 17:30:49 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>
wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
>> engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
>> aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
>> successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
>> and unsafe to me.
>
> The Curtiss OX-5 was the "proven" aircraft engine at one time. if
>everyone thought like you it still would be. Designing an airframe
>around a Lyc today is more chronologically retarded than if Burt Rutan
>had used an OX-5 or OXX-6 in the first VariEze. (Do the math: I'm
>right. The OX-5 was a 1915 engine and the VariEze flew in 1975 or so.
>The OXX-6 came along in 1921 or so and the Milwaukee Tank aircooled
>conversion around then. This is 2006, although that probably has
>escaped the attention of the Lycophiles.)
>
>>
>> > If safety is the ONLY
>> > criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
>> > consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

You ever see now much fuel these things burn? Admittedly, slowly
shoving the torque to 100% in a Glas air III or Aircomp is a real
rush, but they make the 300 HP Lycosarus positively look like an
economy engine.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>> Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
>> when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
>> by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.
>
> Two beefy guys can easily lift a PT-6, at least the small series. A
>PT-6A-27 weighs 149 kg according to one Web site on Google.
>
>>
>> I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
>> every
>> homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.
>
> What does that tell you? MANY homebuilts are marginal airplanes? That
>much is true.
>>
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
>> > and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
>> > pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
>> > one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
>> > the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
>> > major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
>> > gear drive could fix that.
>>
>> Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
>> But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
>> having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?
>
> You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
>experiment? Buy a Cessna.
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> FF
>>
>> P.S. What's a 'JDM pull'?
>
>Japanese Domestic Market. They scrap cars prematurely to artificially
>fluff their new car markets.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
> > engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
> > aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
> > successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
> > and unsafe to me.
>
> The Curtiss OX-5 was the "proven" aircraft engine at one time. if
> everyone thought like you it still would be.

No, because I do not think everyone should restrict themselves to
tried and true engines. Rather, I think that homebuilders who are
only interested in building and flying an airplane, and not interested
in R&D should.

> Designing an airframe
> around a Lyc today is more chronologically retarded than if Burt Rutan
> had used an OX-5 or OXX-6 in the first VariEze. ..

Which is why one calls that a 'straw man' argument.

> >
> > > If safety is the ONLY
> > > criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
> > > consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.
> >
> > Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
> > when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
> > by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.
>
> Two beefy guys can easily lift a PT-6, at least the small series. A
> PT-6A-27 weighs 149 kg according to one Web site on Google.

Like I said, too heavy. Also way too much power I'll warrant.

If safety were the only consideration, the homebuilder wouldn't
be building an airplane.

>
> >
> > I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
> > every homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.
>
> What does that tell you? MANY homebuilts are marginal airplanes? That
> much is true.

I'll agree that many are. (Volksplanes come to mind.) OTOH consider
the FAI records set by planes powered by VW and or Rotax engines,
or consider planes like the Corby Starlet and the Sadler Vampyre.

> >
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
> > > and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
> > > pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
> > > one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
> > > the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
> > > major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
> > > gear drive could fix that.
> >
> > Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
> > But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
> > having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?
>
> You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
> experiment? Buy a Cessna.

If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
roll control.

OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
than engines, most do not.

Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'
airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.

--

FF

[Bret Ludwig]

wrote:


> >
> > You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
> > experiment? Buy a Cessna.
>
> If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
> roll control.
>
> OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
> than engines, most do not.
>
> Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'
> airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
> should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
> never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
> genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
> ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
> one.


If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

[[email protected]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
> > > experiment? Buy a Cessna.
> >
> > If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
> > roll control.
> >
> > OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
> > than engines, most do not.
> >
> > Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'
> > airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
> > should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
> > never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
> > genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
> > ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
> > one.
>
>
> If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
> BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????
>
> It's cheaper?? It isn't.

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.

--

FF

[Wayne Paul]

>
>> If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
>> BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????
>>
>> It's cheaper?? It isn't.
>
> As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
> Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
> sailplanes.
>
> --
>
> FF
>

Thought the kits are no longer available, you can get a lot of performance
for the dollar by purchasing one of the Schreder sailplane designs!
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

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

[Bret Ludwig]

Wayne Paul wrote:
> >
> >> If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
> >> BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????
> >>
> >> It's cheaper?? It isn't.
> >
> > As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
> > Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
> > sailplanes.


Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.

[[email protected]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote:
>
> >We call them sailplanes.
> > Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.
>
> Not if you use:
>
> bungee,
> ground launch/car,
> ground launch/winch,
> horse, or
> self launch,
>
> all of which I've seen at one time or another :-)

I HOPE you shot video of the horse launch!

Self launch includes such things as rolling down a steep
hill into a headwind where the topography permits. See
the BUG and GOAT for details.

--

FF

[gorgon]

>
> If Fred plans to build a plane from wood purchased from Home Depot, he
> should also build a pine box. He will need it. I have never found
> wood acceptable for aircraft at HD or any other such outlet. Why pass
> on such bad information?

Must disagree with this. You should look a little harder. I have many
board feet of really tight grained, vertical sawn, dry, straight
hemlock (not hemfir, a fast growing commercial mutant wood) found right
in the trim/banister section of our local Sutherlands. Our
independant lumber outlet occasionally has 8/4 shop doug fir that also
meets AC standards for all criteria. I know of a couple of Piets built
long ago with white pine ribs with hardware store flashing leading
edges.

Years ago, I heard one of the FAA guys give a lecture about final
inspections and the use of AC grade materials. At that time he made a
comment that homebuilders were the ones that certified the materials
and that as far as they were concerned you could use wet cardboard and
shaving cream to build your plane. As long as you could back up your
material choice with a least some data anything went. However, he did
mention that they could also restrict you to 200+ hours ground (taxi)
testing prior to flight.

Even Rutan ignored the AC quality thing on the first Vari-eze since
there wasn't ( and may still not be) anything such as AC certified foam.

[Wayne Paul]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> > As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
>> > Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
>> > sailplanes.
>
>
> Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.
>

Bert,

Here is a picture of a homebuilt Schreder HP-16T being launched using 1,500
feet of rope hooked to a pickup truck.

http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N16VP/N16VP_6b.jpg

Local area pilots have used this technique at the Nampa, ID and Ontario, OR
airports as well as from the Alvord Desert dry lake.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"

[[email protected]]

gorgon wrote:
> >
> > If Fred plans to build a plane from wood purchased from Home Depot, he
> > should also build a pine box. He will need it. I have never found
> > wood acceptable for aircraft at HD or any other such outlet. Why pass
> > on such bad information?
>
> Must disagree with this. You should look a little harder. I have many
> board feet of really tight grained, vertical sawn, dry, straight
> hemlock (not hemfir, a fast growing commercial mutant wood) found right
> in the trim/banister section of our local Sutherlands. ...

Splorf! It sounds like you got your species information from a
clerk at the Home Depot. The last ime I asked one iif their
Hem-FIr was Helock or Fir he said it was probably a hybrid!

Hem-Fir is a softwood lumber association _species group_, like
SPF, only one level higher up in quality. Hem-Fir may be Western
hemlock or any of several Firs, it won't be any species of pine,
larch, Doug Fir, or spruce and the minimum tensile strength
requirement for that group is higher than for SPF, but lower than
for Southern Yellow pine, or Doug Fir.

It may be fast grown or not, but it isn't a hybrid or a mutant any more
than SPF (Spruce, Pine or Fir) is a mutant or hybrid wood. Most
Douglas Fir and Southern Yellow Pine sold by the Borgs IS fast
grown and bears little resemblence to old-growth despite being the
named genus, or group of species.

--

FF

[Roger[_4_]]

On 15 Aug 2006 06:52:46 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>
wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> > You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
>> > experiment? Buy a Cessna.
>>
>> If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
>> roll control.
>>
>> OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
>> than engines, most do not.
>>
>> Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'

I've known a couple of them who got killed doing that and some that
had planes with rater strange handeling characteristics. Of course
like building, flying one with no break out force or stick gradient is
a challenge<:-)) Then installing a 6 cylinder IO-540 with a 3-blade
hartzell in place of a IO-360 and 2-blade prop that required moving
the wing forward to get some semblance of a reasonable GC, or adding
wide profile tires that required a thicker wing root of a different
and symmetrical airfoil to accommodate the gear which required a
different angle of incidence for the outboard wing sections to
maintain sufficient lift...

>> airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
>> should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
>> never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
>> genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
>> ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
>> one.
>
>
> If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
>BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????
>
> It's cheaper?? It isn't.

Cheaper? Are you kidding? By the time I finish the G-III (If I ever
do) I'll have more than twice the price of the Deb in it and that is
going with a used engine and prop.

OTOH price is a relative thing. If you build it you can economize
where ever you'd like or, go hog wild and get the best of everything.
You can use a minimal panel with steam gages, or the latest in glass
panel and technology.

We just have to remember that every airplane is a group of compromises
flying in formation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

Roger wrote:
> ...
>
> Cheaper? Are you kidding? By the time I finish the G-III (If I ever
> do) I'll have more than twice the price of the Deb in it and that is
> going with a used engine and prop.
>
> OTOH price is a relative thing. If you build it you can economize
> where ever you'd like or, go hog wild and get the best of everything.
> You can use a minimal panel with steam gages, or the latest in glass
> panel and technology.

Let's not forget that the articles that prompted this thread were about
how to build a plane with at least the same performance and safety
as many kit planes, but for much less money.

People have scratch built ultralights for under $1000 in materials and
less than 400 hours times which works out, even including labor rated
at, say $20/hr, to about what one might pay for a completed UL.

It might be better economics to get a second job to pay for plane
but it won't be as enjoyable and they won't know thier plane as
well.

--

FF

[Bret Ludwig]

Wayne Paul wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >> > As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
> >> > Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
> >> > sailplanes.
> >
> >
> > Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.
> >
>
> Bert,
>
> Here is a picture of a homebuilt Schreder HP-16T being launched using 1,500
> feet of rope hooked to a pickup truck.
>
> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N16VP/N16VP_6b.jpg
>
> Local area pilots have used this technique at the Nampa, ID and Ontario, OR
> airports as well as from the Alvord Desert dry lake.


Almost all soaring in the US is done by aero tow.

Winch, vehicle and other methods are not very popular in the US but
more so in Europe.

[Bret Ludwig]

>
> Even Rutan ignored the AC quality thing on the first Vari-eze since
> there wasn't ( and may still not be) anything such as AC certified foam.

The Rutans ignored a great deal of "proven" practice in their
homebuilt designs yet after they proved unable to make a direct drive
pusher VW work in the prototype VariEze (which others had, having less
theoretical knowledge but much more common sense than Burt and Dick)
decided only certified aircraft engines were any good. Then they freely
instructed builders to not only ignore but defy manufacturer's
instructions, such as not operating the O-200A as a pusher.

In other words they are talking out their mouth and ass
simultaneously. When one or the other Rutan does buy it, I won't cheer,
but I'm not going to get lachrymose either. Honebuilders don't have the
sense to figure out Rutan F'ed them and kicked them out before dawn
like an acne-ridden fat broad picked up at a bar.

[Bret Ludwig]

Roger wrote:

> >> airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
> >> should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
> >> never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
> >> genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
> >> ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
> >> one.
> >
> >
> > If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
> >BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????
> >
> > It's cheaper?? It isn't.
>
> Cheaper? Are you kidding? By the time I finish the G-III (If I ever
> do) I'll have more than twice the price of the Deb in it and that is
> going with a used engine and prop.


In other words you could have bought a T-6 or an L-39 when you
started and they would now be worth much more than the G-III (I assume
by G-III you do not mean what averyone else I know means by a G-III-a
large Grumman with two turbofans used to haul VIPs and train Shuttle
pilots on approaches.)

[pbc76049]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Let's not forget that the articles that prompted this thread were about
> how to build a plane with at least the same performance and safety
> as many kit planes, but for much less money.
>

NO.... INCORRECT...........
Lets go back and READ.
The thread started out talking about inexpensive wood sources and how
sometimes
good stuff can be had at box stores like Home Depot. RS Hoover specifically
referenced his past writings on wood selection in post one of this thread.
It had NOTHING to do with performance, just the use of lo buck wood.
SOMEBODY morphed this into a design circular argument, but getting back on
point
isn't on some folks agenda.

[Wayne Paul]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Wayne Paul wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >> > As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
>> >> > Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
>> >> > sailplanes.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.
>> >
>>
>> Bert,
>>
>> Here is a picture of a homebuilt Schreder HP-16T being launched using
>> 1,500
>> feet of rope hooked to a pickup truck.
>>
>> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N16VP/N16VP_6b.jpg
>>
>> Local area pilots have used this technique at the Nampa, ID and Ontario,
>> OR
>> airports as well as from the Alvord Desert dry lake.
>
>
> Almost all soaring in the US is done by aero tow.
>
> Winch, vehicle and other methods are not very popular in the US but
> more so in Europe.
>

Winch operation are becoming more popular in the US as fuel and insurance
cost continue to escalate.

[Peter Dohm]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Wayne Paul wrote:
> >> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> >> > As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
> >> >> > Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
> >> >> > sailplanes.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Bert,
> >>
> >> Here is a picture of a homebuilt Schreder HP-16T being launched using
> >> 1,500
> >> feet of rope hooked to a pickup truck.
> >>
> >> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N16VP/N16VP_6b.jpg
> >>
> >> Local area pilots have used this technique at the Nampa, ID and
Ontario,
> >> OR
> >> airports as well as from the Alvord Desert dry lake.
> >
> >
> > Almost all soaring in the US is done by aero tow.
> >
> > Winch, vehicle and other methods are not very popular in the US but
> > more so in Europe.
> >
>
> Winch operation are becoming more popular in the US as fuel and insurance
> cost continue to escalate.
>
>
>

I always just assumed that terrain and cost were the determining factors and
that aero tow was mainly used in flat terrain. I would expect that with
hills and a little wind the less costly methods would be more
popular--unless the launch point was in the bottom of a valley.

(This is a subject in which I lack experience, but would like to know much
more.)

Peter

[[email protected]]

pbc76049 (removethis) wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Let's not forget that the articles that prompted this thread were about
> > how to build a plane with at least the same performance and safety
> > as many kit planes, but for much less money.
> >
>
> NO.... INCORRECT...........
> Lets go back and READ.
> The thread started out talking about inexpensive wood sources and how
> sometimes
> good stuff can be had at box stores like Home Depot. RS Hoover specifically
> referenced his past writings on wood selection in post one of this thread.
> It had NOTHING to do with performance, just the use of lo buck wood.
> SOMEBODY morphed this into a design circular argument, but getting back on
> point
> isn't on some folks agenda.

How does buying your own wood, instead of buying the wood as
part of a kit, change the performance of the plane?

--

FF

[J.P.]

Here is what a Honda engine can do in an airplane:

http://www.firewall.ca/cam100.htm


Hope this helps

J.P.

> He has NO IDEA whether or not Honda car engines would be good or bad
> for airplanes. The hardcore DIY converters seem to be much more
> interested in the Suzuki/Geo engines, but that doesn't mean the Hondas
> would be bad. I have no idea what Honda engines weigh, which since they
> have a superior reliability record even in markets like Germany where
> people run them WOT for a long time (and since they are used as
> outboard powerheads at power settings equal or higher than in the cars,
> again with apparently superb reliability) would probably be the main
> factor. Of course, most any car engine is going to outperform a
> Lycoming today in terms of engine life at WOT. The Lycoming is a 1930s
> farm tractor engine built using WWI split crankcase, bolt on cylinder
> technology and belongs, really, in a museum. If it were really so great
> it would find many other uses besides aircraft. The military used them
> in generators and lifeboats and found they were cantankerous and
> troublesome and sensibly got rid of them. If only they had reefaged
> them instead of selling them surplus they would have done Experimental
> aviation a great favor.
>
> >
> > But I still wonder if the CVCC combustion system would be
> > good for an airplane engine.
>
> The CVCC was a low intensity (vis-a-vis Ford PROCO, for example)
> stratified charge system designed primarily for emissions compliance
> without using catalytic converters, which were very expensive to
> maufacture and required unleaded gas which sold at a premium back then.
> (I'm old enough to remember the days of "punching" catalysts and filler
> restrictors to burn leaded gas at considerable savings-and satisfaction
> of F'ing the EPA, which we hated.) Since aircraft engines are not
> emissions controlled and unleaded gas is a lot cheaper than avgas, the
> advantage is nonexistent.
>
> CVCC was pretty troublesome, to be honest, and there were a fair
> number of people who converted their CVCC Hondas to the Canadian
> non-CVCC head and carb at some point in the car's lifecycle,
> particularly in areas where the cars didn't rust but which were outside
> emissions inspection areas-of course, most garages couldn't tell the
> difference anyway.

[Peter Dohm]

>
> Here is what a Honda engine can do in an airplane:
>
> http://www.firewall.ca/cam100.htm
>
>
> Hope this helps
>
> J.P.
>
I can offer no opinion regarding the longevity at comparable power loadings.
But, they do seem to be honest about the weight comparison.

Peter

[Roger[_4_]]

On 16 Aug 2006 10:43:03 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>
>Roger wrote:
>
>> >> airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
>> >> should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
>> >> never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
>> >> genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
>> >> ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
>> >> one.
>> >
>> >
>> > If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
>> >BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????
>> >
>> > It's cheaper?? It isn't.
>>
>> Cheaper? Are you kidding? By the time I finish the G-III (If I ever
>> do) I'll have more than twice the price of the Deb in it and that is
>> going with a used engine and prop.
>
>
> In other words you could have bought a T-6 or an L-39 when you
>started and they would now be worth much more than the G-III (I assume
>by G-III you do not mean what averyone else I know means by a G-III-a
>large Grumman with two turbofans used to haul VIPs and train Shuttle

Any one except those that build their own airplanes. <:-))

Actually I could have purchased a relatively low time, very nice L-39
with a brand new (spare) engine still in the can for what I paid for
the Deb or what I have in the G-III. The T-6s were about double that
price back then.

As for wood I'd think, which means I don't know for sure, that pallets
and shipping containers which may look rough, probably have better
wood in them than the stuff we purchase to put into homes now days.
The crate my G-III came in is far better wood than I can find at any
of the local lumberyards except the one that mills the stuff when you
order it. There is a *slight* difference in price.<:-))

I should have kept the Ash tree that died in the front yard. It was
out by the power lines so the power company came out, trimmed it and
left me with a 20 foot tallt, stump about 2' across at the base and
over a foot at the top, that must have weighed well over a ton. Man
but that was some dense stuff. OTOH it's a crime to even ship, or
move dead Ash from one location to another around here. (courtesy of
the "Emerald Ash Borer")

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>pilots on approaches.)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:03:51 -0600, "Wayne Paul" >
wrote:

>
>"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>>> > As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
>>> > Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
>>> > sailplanes.
>>
>>
>> Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.
>>
>
>Bert,
>
>Here is a picture of a homebuilt Schreder HP-16T being launched using 1,500
>feet of rope hooked to a pickup truck.
>
>http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N16VP/N16VP_6b.jpg
Good Lord, but that is one BIG photo at full resolution but it doesn't
show the truck . <:-))

Not too many years ago (less than 10, maybe 5) they had a sail plane
operation over at Mt Pleasant MI (MOP). No tow plane and apparently
not much money so they used a pickup truck, rope, and pulley
arrangement for launch. The pulley was anchored down toward the
departure end of the runway. This left the pickup going West while the
sail plane went east. It really shortens the amount of runway needed.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Local area pilots have used this technique at the Nampa, ID and Ontario, OR
>airports as well as from the Alvord Desert dry lake.
>
>Wayne
>HP-14 N990 "6F"
>
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

This brings to mind several things about building on the cheap.

A couple years ago one of the locals who is not a pilot, but was
interested in building an airplane decided to build an Emeraud.

The project was a prime example of "building on the cheap". The
builder has been in poor health most of his life and has only worked
at a few non demanding odd jobs so he had little money.

He scrounged, for just about everything and eventually ended up with a
good looking airplane. He some where he found an APU with a good 125
HP engine ... Cheap! He did a very nice job of construction and I
think you could probably find examples of just about everything Bob
said in the original post. However when he got to the engine he
didn't have the money for it even if it was cheap. So at this point he
took on a partner with two things in mind. One was money for the
engine and the other was a pilot who could take him for rides in his
airplane.

Welll... best laid plans...
I've mentioned this airplane before. It's the one where the new
partner had only been checked out in, I believe it was a two seat
Cessna tail dragger. The Emeraud with 125 HP was a different animal.

They were doing taxi tests when for some reason instead of easing in
the power the new partner firewalled it. The thing went ballistic with
the nose coming up higher and higher. He panicked and pulled the power
instead of shoving the nose down. So what goes straight up will pretty
much come straight down. Fortunately there was a slight cross wind.
Very slight as it was almost calm, but it was enough. The wing had
enough lift to bring the nose back up and it impacted just to the side
of the runway. It hit hard enough to drive the wheels (with tires)
into the ground far enough for the wing the hit the ground.

The only damage to this "Flying on the Cheap", wood airplane was the
gear and struts ripped off the main spar, a foot long vertical crack
in the bottom fiberglass cowl, and two sets of teeth marks in the
glare shield. Well, the prop was kinda short which meant the engine
had to be rebuilt ... again, but the point is this was one of the
"stick built", scrounged parts, "Flying on the Cheap" airplanes and it
came out of the crash far better than you could have expected from a
Cessna or Piper.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com