question about engines

[Cirrus]

Ok,this is probably an obvious question to many of you, but I'll ask
anyway. I usually fly in C172s and C182s with the Lycoming oil cooled
engines that many of you are probably familiar with. I still see planes
with the large radial engines (for instance, like what you would see on
a Dehavilland Beaver) flying around. I had thought maybe these were
just old planes that were well taken care of and still flying after all
these years.....BUT... It seem like the radial engines are popular in
bush flying, and I even see a number of seaplanes with Kenmore Air
(local small airline/airtaxi) with them in use.
1) are these engines still be manufacture on any new planes?
2) Are there any significant advantages to them over the "newer"
engines?

After doing some hunting around for info, I've gotten many varied
answers, but nothing concrete. The main answers I've gotten indicate a
power advantage and the benifits of air cooling father than liquid.
Anything else any of you can think of?

Thanks for your thoughts.!

[Jim Macklin]

The crankshaft is very short, stiff and strong. The radial
engine does not use a long whippy camshaft, rather it uses a
cam wheel. The fuel induction system often is into an
impeller which mixes the fuel-air mixture.

In the USA, very few of these engines have been built since
the end of WWII, but they built a huge number.

The air cooled radial is easier to produce in large hp
engines, the in-line engine crankcase casting is more
difficult to make as is the crank and cam shafts. Air
cooling has advantages in arctic weather.

Russia and Poland still have open production lines on radial
engines and western supplies still use WWII P&W and Wright
produced radial engines.

The trend in high horsepower aircraft engines is to the P&W
PT6 series on ag and seaplanes and bush planes.
They sound good.


"Cirrus" > wrote in message
ps.com...
| Ok,this is probably an obvious question to many of you,
but I'll ask
| anyway. I usually fly in C172s and C182s with the Lycoming
oil cooled
| engines that many of you are probably familiar with. I
still see planes
| with the large radial engines (for instance, like what you
would see on
| a Dehavilland Beaver) flying around. I had thought maybe
these were
| just old planes that were well taken care of and still
flying after all
| these years.....BUT... It seem like the radial engines are
popular in
| bush flying, and I even see a number of seaplanes with
Kenmore Air
| (local small airline/airtaxi) with them in use.
| 1) are these engines still be manufacture on any new
planes?
| 2) Are there any significant advantages to them over the
"newer"
| engines?
|
| After doing some hunting around for info, I've gotten many
varied
| answers, but nothing concrete. The main answers I've
gotten indicate a
| power advantage and the benifits of air cooling father
than liquid.
| Anything else any of you can think of?
|
| Thanks for your thoughts.!
|

[John[_1_]]

I am not sure if anyone in the U.S. is still building "new" radial
engines, but the WACO YMF-5 built and sold by Classic Aircraft
Corporation has a 275 hp Jacobs R-755 B2, 7-cylinder radial engine that
is remanufactured to new engine tolerances. The work is done by Radial
Engines, Ltd. in Guthrie, Oklahoma.

I will leave it to the A&P guys as well as others with more experience
than me (that would be about all of you here *S*) to compare and
contrast the differences between a new engine and a remanufactured
engine. But if you want a radial . . . you can buy one.

As for the YMF-5, I know it's all in the eye of the beholder, but there
is some lucky stiff near me who flies one, and each time I see or hear
the thing, in the air or on the ground, there is true lust in my heart.

Blue skies . . .

John

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

Jim pretty much hit the nail on the head.
During WWII there were a huge number of radial engines produced, more than
were needed. The surplus engines were readily available until recently.
The current trend of ag and seaplane operators switching to PT6's is
primarily a direct result of the depletion of the inventory of WWII era new
pickled engines. As they became harder and harder to obtain, operators were
forced to choose between overhauls, rebuilds, new radials, and PT6s. Our ag
operator was simply not satisfied with high price and high maintenence of
the new raidals nor the quality of the overhauled and rebuilt engines,
cylinders, and other components and has began the switch to PT6s.
Jim Burns

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Cirrus" > wrote

> I usually fly in C172s and C182s with the Lycoming oil cooled
> engines that many of you are probably familiar with.

It would be unfair to call them oil cooled engines. Yes, the oil is important
to cooling, but the air flowing across the cylinders and heads is also very
important. That is why some planes with flat engines have cowl flaps that move,
and very tight fitting baffels around the cylinders and heads.

> I still see planes
> with the large radial engines (for instance, like what you would see on
> a Dehavilland Beaver) flying around. I had thought maybe these were
> just old planes that were well taken care of and still flying after all
> these years.....BUT... It seem like the radial engines are popular in
> bush flying, and I even see a number of seaplanes with Kenmore Air
> (local small airline/airtaxi) with them in use.

> 2) Are there any significant advantages to them over the "newer"
> engines?

The higher HP is a major reason, since you rarely see flat engines with HP
ratings of more than a bit over 300 HP. There are many radial engines that are
much larger than that.

Another very larger reason for bush pilots using the radial engines are
toughness and ease of repair. In WW II, it was not uncommon for a plane to have
a jug or two shot completely off, all of the oil pumped overboard, and still
have it return to land back onboard the carrier, still running.

Also, it is common for a bush pilot to have a radial engine failure out of range
of home base, land, have a jug removed, taken back to a shop, repaired, and put
back on the plane in the field, and flown out, or just have a new jug and piston
flown in and switched out.
--
Jim in NC

[Jose[_1_]]

> Another very larger reason for bush pilots using the radial engines are toughness and ease of repair.

What (in the design) makes this so?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Another very larger reason for bush pilots using the radial engines are
>> toughness and ease of repair.
>
> What (in the design) makes this so?

Ask the US Navy, for many years. The radial engine is the only type that would
be considered aboard aircraft carriers.

I would think that the major thing is the construction of the crankshaft, and
the great toughness that it has to have, to withstand that many pistons, of high
horsepower, on one throw.

If a jug blows off, or seizes, it thrashes the rod until there is nothing left
banging around. If a multi throw crankshaft had to do the same thing, it would
usually bent or break, thus stopping all horsepower from being produced.

A jug on a radial is also more out in the open, than an opposing engine, and
especially more so than an inline engine, thus making a changeout easier.

I'm sure there are other factors that I am missing, but those are the ones that
come to mind quickly, from what I have read.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected][_1_]]

On 7 Dec 2006 09:30:44 -0800, "John" > wrote:

>I will leave it to the A&P guys as well as others with more experience
>than me (that would be about all of you here *S*) to compare and
>contrast the differences between a new engine and a remanufactured
>engine. But if you want a radial . . . you can buy one.

Last I had heard Harrison Ford ended up with a brand spanking new
(disregarding "calender" time) R-985 on his Beaver.

Wonder how much it cost him...

Back in the good old days, when they o-hauled a 985 they stamped the
total time on the front crankcase plate. Have seen a couple plates
that had some scary rows of numbers on them.

TC

[Blueskies]

"John" > wrote in message ps.com...
:
: I am not sure if anyone in the U.S. is still building "new" radial
: engines, but the WACO YMF-5 built and sold by Classic Aircraft
: Corporation has a 275 hp Jacobs R-755 B2, 7-cylinder radial engine that
: is remanufactured to new engine tolerances. The work is done by Radial
: Engines, Ltd. in Guthrie, Oklahoma.
:



http://www.wacoclassic.com/intro.html

http://www.radialengines.com/

[Cirrus]

Jim and everyone, thanks for your great replys- I really appreciate it.
And Morgans, thanks for pointing out the oil cooled+Air cooled cessna
182 engine distinction. I actually knew that in the back of my head,
but should have been paying more attention....


Cheers everyone,
Jamie

[[email protected]]

Morgans wrote:
>
> The higher HP is a major reason, since you rarely see flat engines with HP
> ratings of more than a bit over 300 HP. There are many radial engines that are
> much larger than that.

Lycoming built a 12-cylinder opposed engine. I don't think it ever
went into production. There's a picture of it here:
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Images/lyco1230.jpg

The home page for a bunch of interesting engines, including Lycoming
auto engines:

http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html

Dan

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote


> Lycoming built a 12-cylinder opposed engine. I don't think it ever
> went into production. There's a picture of it here:
> http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Images/lyco1230.jpg
>
> The home page for a bunch of interesting engines, including Lycoming
> auto engines:
>
> http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html

That is why I typed the following

since you rarely see flat engines with HP
ratings of more than a bit over 300 HP.

Note the word rarely.
--
Jim in NC

[Greg Farris]

In article m>,
says...
>
>
>Ok,this is probably an obvious question to many of you, but I'll ask
>anyway. I usually fly in C172s and C182s with the Lycoming oil cooled
>engines that many of you are probably familiar with.

Oil cooled?
Not familiar - these are air cooled engines.

Yes they do depend on oil flow for some cooling - and they also depend
on fuel flow for some degree of cooling - but they are essentially
air-cooled engines.


GF

[Cirrus]

>
> Oil cooled?
> Not familiar - these are air cooled engines.
>
> Yes they do depend on oil flow for some cooling - and they also depend
> on fuel flow for some degree of cooling - but they are essentially
> air-cooled engines.
>
>
> GF

Ok,ok, I'm crying uncle....
:)
Really guys, I do understand how the engines work on the planes I fly.
Radial engines, on the other hand, I can only dream of getting to make
that kind of noise.
I was just trying to draw a distinction (with my poor wording) between
the two types so that I could ask my question, and from what I had
previously understood, the radial engines could often fly home clooled
by air if they lost oil. This, as compared to a C182, which doesn't
cool very well without it's oil.....
You guys are a great source of info-thanks for your comments, and
teaching me a few new things!
-Jamie

[Matt Whiting]

Cirrus wrote:

>
>>Oil cooled?
>>Not familiar - these are air cooled engines.
>>
>>Yes they do depend on oil flow for some cooling - and they also depend
>>on fuel flow for some degree of cooling - but they are essentially
>>air-cooled engines.
>>
>>
>>GF
>
>
> Ok,ok, I'm crying uncle....
> :)
> Really guys, I do understand how the engines work on the planes I fly.
> Radial engines, on the other hand, I can only dream of getting to make
> that kind of noise.
> I was just trying to draw a distinction (with my poor wording) between
> the two types so that I could ask my question, and from what I had
> previously understood, the radial engines could often fly home clooled
> by air if they lost oil. This, as compared to a C182, which doesn't
> cool very well without it's oil.....
> You guys are a great source of info-thanks for your comments, and
> teaching me a few new things!
> -Jamie

Oils primary function is lubrication, not cooling. I'd be very
surprised if a radial engine could "fly home" if it lost its oil. The
bearings would seize from localized heating long before the rest of the
engine overheated.

Matt

[Don]

Check out http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4980/engine9.html
a real radial. I've seen these running with the top of a cylinder
blown off and the only way to tell it was BMEP was a little low and
you could see it on the ingnition analyzer.

The biggest reason we all fly jets is without all those zillions of
reciprocating parts they are a hundred times more reliable.

[Jim Macklin]

The biggest radial engine topped out about 5000 cubic inches
and 4,000 horsepower in the late 1940. They were also about
3,000 to 5,000 pounds in weight with a prop installed.

Turbine engines are much lighter in weight and have 15,000
to 75,000 eshp in thrust, jumbo airliners and freighter are
only possible with the jet.



"Don" > wrote in message
...
| Check out
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4980/engine9.html
| a real radial. I've seen these running with the top of a
cylinder
| blown off and the only way to tell it was BMEP was a
little low and
| you could see it on the ingnition analyzer.
|
| The biggest reason we all fly jets is without all those
zillions of
| reciprocating parts they are a hundred times more
reliable.

[Don]

>
>Turbine engines are much lighter in weight and have 15,000
>to 75,000 eshp in thrust, jumbo airliners and freighter are
>only possible with the jet.
>

I tend to agree with you but -
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/c-124_globemaster_ii.pl

To get the size they are now you are correct, but the turbine engine
wasn't invented to build large aircraft. I think it was kerosene for
$.08 when they were paying $.15 for 140 octane and greatly reduced
maintenance costs that caused the airlines to park their DC-7s and
Connie's. Cost of operation drives everything in the airlines.

Cheers

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Greg Farris" > wrote
>
> Meanwhile - I've seen KingAir conversions replacing the PT6's with
> water-cooled V8's!They make all kinds of claims for performance improvements.

Cool! Got any links?
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

That and the smooth ride that passengers liked.



"Don" > wrote in message
...
|
| >
| >Turbine engines are much lighter in weight and have
15,000
| >to 75,000 eshp in thrust, jumbo airliners and freighter
are
| >only possible with the jet.
| >
|
| I tend to agree with you but -
|
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/c-124_globemaster_ii.pl
|
| To get the size they are now you are correct, but the
turbine engine
| wasn't invented to build large aircraft. I think it was
kerosene for
| $.08 when they were paying $.15 for 140 octane and
greatly reduced
| maintenance costs that caused the airlines to park their
DC-7s and
| Connie's. Cost of operation drives everything in the
airlines.
|
| Cheers

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, there are people who want a Model T Ford too. But the
only advantage a piston engine has over a turbine is low
altitude fuel consumption.



"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| says...
| >
| >
| >Jim pretty much hit the nail on the head.
| >During WWII there were a huge number of radial engines
produced, more than
| >were needed. The surplus engines were readily available
until recently.
| >The current trend of ag and seaplane operators switching
to PT6's is
| >primarily a direct result of the depletion of the
inventory of WWII era new
| >pickled engines. As they became harder and harder to
obtain, operators were
| >forced to choose between overhauls, rebuilds, new
radials, and PT6s. Our ag
| >operator was simply not satisfied with high price and
high maintenence of
| >the new raidals nor the quality of the overhauled and
rebuilt engines,
| >cylinders, and other components and has began the switch
to PT6s.
|
|
|
|
| Meanwhile - I've seen KingAir conversions replacing the
PT6's with
| water-cooled V8's!They make all kinds of claims for
performance improvements.
|
| GF
|

[John[_1_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Greg Farris" > wrote
> >
> > Meanwhile - I've seen KingAir conversions replacing the PT6's with
> > water-cooled V8's!They make all kinds of claims for performance improvements.
>
> Cool! Got any links?
> --
> Jim in NC

Good morning,

There was some press about an outfit that was developing a conversion
to swap the King Air's PT6 turboprop engines for V-8 piston engines. I
think the name of the engine was spelled something similar to "Oreneda"
or something vaguely like that. I have not read anything about it in
the past year or so, never seen a real one, and there is nothing that I
can find on the net about it ( perhaps someone more proficient with
Google would have success). Given the near bullet-proof reputation of
the PT6, maybe it was just too hard to sell, despite the cost of
dealing with timed-out turbines.

Blue skies . . .

John

[Jim Macklin]

look for Thunder engine


"John" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Morgans wrote:
| > "Greg Farris" > wrote
| > >
| > > Meanwhile - I've seen KingAir conversions replacing
the PT6's with
| > > water-cooled V8's!They make all kinds of claims for
performance improvements.
| >
| > Cool! Got any links?
| > --
| > Jim in NC
|
| Good morning,
|
| There was some press about an outfit that was developing a
conversion
| to swap the King Air's PT6 turboprop engines for V-8
piston engines. I
| think the name of the engine was spelled something similar
to "Oreneda"
| or something vaguely like that. I have not read anything
about it in
| the past year or so, never seen a real one, and there is
nothing that I
| can find on the net about it ( perhaps someone more
proficient with
| Google would have success). Given the near bullet-proof
reputation of
| the PT6, maybe it was just too hard to sell, despite the
cost of
| dealing with timed-out turbines.
|
| Blue skies . . .
|
| John
|

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Jim pretty much hit the nail on the head.
>During WWII there were a huge number of radial engines produced, more than
>were needed. The surplus engines were readily available until recently.
>The current trend of ag and seaplane operators switching to PT6's is
>primarily a direct result of the depletion of the inventory of WWII era new
>pickled engines. As they became harder and harder to obtain, operators were
>forced to choose between overhauls, rebuilds, new radials, and PT6s. Our ag
>operator was simply not satisfied with high price and high maintenence of
>the new raidals nor the quality of the overhauled and rebuilt engines,
>cylinders, and other components and has began the switch to PT6s.




Meanwhile - I've seen KingAir conversions replacing the PT6's with
water-cooled V8's!They make all kinds of claims for performance improvements.

GF

[Greg Farris]

In article om>,
says...

>
>There was some press about an outfit that was developing a conversion
>to swap the King Air's PT6 turboprop engines for V-8 piston engines. I
>think the name of the engine was spelled something similar to "Oreneda"
>or something vaguely like that. I have not read anything about it in
>the past year or so, never seen a real one, and there is nothing that I
>can find on the net about it ( perhaps someone more proficient with
>Google would have success). Given the near bullet-proof reputation of
>the PT6, maybe it was just too hard to sell, despite the cost of
>dealing with timed-out turbines.
>
>Blue skies . . .
>



That's it :

http://www.orendarecip.com/index2.htm

I agree they seem to have quieted down a lot over the past couple of years.
Sure doies seem like a hard sell - the principal attractiveness of a KingAir
is the performance and reliability of a pair of PT6A's - then to go and put
recuiprocating engines in it . . .

[John[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> look for Thunder engine
>
The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang? Sheesh, I know the plane
has eaten some folks' lunches . . . but what a beauty

John

[Newps]

John wrote:

> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>>look for Thunder engine
>>
>
> The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?


Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out of a King Air and puts
in pistons.

[Jim Macklin]

Or switches from a P&W PT6 to a Walter
"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| John wrote:
|
| > Jim Macklin wrote:
| >
| >>look for Thunder engine
| >>
| >
| > The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?
|
|
| Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out of a King
Air and puts
| in pistons.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>look for Thunder engine
>


Found it !
http://www.intandem.com/NewPrideSite/MD/Lesson2/Lesson2_13.html

[John[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Or switches from a P&W PT6 to a Walter
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
> |
> |
> | John wrote:
> |
> | > Jim Macklin wrote:
> | >
> | >>look for Thunder engine
> | >>
> | >
> | > The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?
> |
> |
> | Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out of a King
> Air and puts
> | in pistons.

Jim -

I agree with you on all kinds of levels . . . it was just a
conversation. There may have been a business case . . . but I sure
never saw it

[Jim Macklin]

If I was building a high performance single, maybe for
racing, a Walter engine would be fine... probably last a
long time and be cheap. But the P&W is proven.



"John" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Or switches from a P&W PT6 to a Walter
| > "Newps" > wrote in message
| > . ..
| > |
| > |
| > | John wrote:
| > |
| > | > Jim Macklin wrote:
| > | >
| > | >>look for Thunder engine
| > | >>
| > | >
| > | > The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?
| > |
| > |
| > | Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out of a
King
| > Air and puts
| > | in pistons.
|
| Jim -
|
| I agree with you on all kinds of levels . . . it was just
a
| conversation. There may have been a business case . . .
but I sure
| never saw it
|

[Brian[_1_]]

Hi John

I was the primary draftsman for the Thunder Mustang. To date I only
personally know of about 4 of them that are flying. I suspect there
another 4 or 5 I don't know about. From the parts and engines we
manufactured there could be as many as 25 of them flying.

To date the only accident involving injuries that I am aware of was the
crash of the prototype.
Have there been any more accidents?

I have to admit the when we put it paper it was pretty obvious it was a
hot airplane and that people would kill themselves in it. I am bit
surprised it hasn't been worse. But maybe the fact that it is obviously
a hot airplane that deserves respect has contributed to this.

Brian

John wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
> > look for Thunder engine
> >
> The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang? Sheesh, I know the plane
> has eaten some folks' lunches . . . but what a beauty
>
> John

[Brian[_1_]]

Hi John

I was the primary draftsman for the Thunder Mustang. To date I only
personally know of about 4 of them that are flying. I suspect there
another 4 or 5 I don't know about. From the parts and engines we
manufactured there could be as many as 25 of them flying.

To date the only accident involving injuries that I am aware of was the
crash of the prototype.
Have there been any more accidents?

I have to admit the when we put it paper it was pretty obvious it was a
hot airplane and that people would kill themselves in it. I am bit
surprised it hasn't been worse. But maybe the fact that it is obviously
a hot airplane that deserves respect has contributed to this.

Brian

John wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
> > look for Thunder engine
> >
> The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang? Sheesh, I know the plane
> has eaten some folks' lunches . . . but what a beauty
>
> John

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Brian" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hi John
>
> I was the primary draftsman for the Thunder Mustang. To date I only
> personally know of about 4 of them that are flying. I suspect there
> another 4 or 5 I don't know about. From the parts and engines we
> manufactured there could be as many as 25 of them flying.
>
> To date the only accident involving injuries that I am aware of was the
> crash of the prototype.
> Have there been any more accidents?
>
> I have to admit the when we put it paper it was pretty obvious it was a
> hot airplane and that people would kill themselves in it. I am bit
> surprised it hasn't been worse. But maybe the fact that it is obviously
> a hot airplane that deserves respect has contributed to this.
>
> Brian
>

Is the above statement really something you want archived on the internet
for eternity? Well I guess it's to late now.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

It may be proven, but they still quit.

I've had two quit on me in a King Air. Nobody counts the failures.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> If I was building a high performance single, maybe for
> racing, a Walter engine would be fine... probably last a
> long time and be cheap. But the P&W is proven.
>
>
>
> "John" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> |
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> | > Or switches from a P&W PT6 to a Walter
> | > "Newps" > wrote in message
> | > . ..
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | John wrote:
> | > |
> | > | > Jim Macklin wrote:
> | > | >
> | > | >>look for Thunder engine
> | > | >>
> | > | >
> | > | > The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out of a
> King
> | > Air and puts
> | > | in pistons.
> |
> | Jim -
> |
> | I agree with you on all kinds of levels . . . it was just
> a
> | conversation. There may have been a business case . . .
> but I sure
> | never saw it
> |
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

I've had them quit too, and shut down a couple more because
of a desire to protect the engine.




"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
| It may be proven, but they still quit.
|
| I've had two quit on me in a King Air. Nobody counts the
failures.
|
| Karl
| "Curator" N185KG
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > If I was building a high performance single, maybe for
| > racing, a Walter engine would be fine... probably last a
| > long time and be cheap. But the P&W is proven.
| >
| >
| >
| > "John" > wrote in message
| >
ups.com...
| > |
| > | Jim Macklin wrote:
| > | > Or switches from a P&W PT6 to a Walter
| > | > "Newps" > wrote in message
| > | > . ..
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | John wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | > Jim Macklin wrote:
| > | > | >
| > | > | >>look for Thunder engine
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >
| > | > | > The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out
of a
| > King
| > | > Air and puts
| > | > | in pistons.
| > |
| > | Jim -
| > |
| > | I agree with you on all kinds of levels . . . it was
just
| > a
| > | conversation. There may have been a business case . .
..
| > but I sure
| > | never saw it
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Brian[_1_]]

I think it was a pretty safe statement. Remember we were planning on
building 300 of them and it is smaller than a Cessna 150. Weighs twice
as much and has 600+ horse power.

I think this could be said of any airplane that meets those
specification.

It was pretty obvious to me that someone would eventually do something
stupid with one.

However flown properly and with the proper respect it is probably no
worse than anything else in this category

Brian






Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Hi John
> >
> > I was the primary draftsman for the Thunder Mustang. To date I only
> > personally know of about 4 of them that are flying. I suspect there
> > another 4 or 5 I don't know about. From the parts and engines we
> > manufactured there could be as many as 25 of them flying.
> >
> > To date the only accident involving injuries that I am aware of was the
> > crash of the prototype.
> > Have there been any more accidents?
> >
> > I have to admit the when we put it paper it was pretty obvious it was a
> > hot airplane and that people would kill themselves in it. I am bit
> > surprised it hasn't been worse. But maybe the fact that it is obviously
> > a hot airplane that deserves respect has contributed to this.
> >
> > Brian
> >
>
> Is the above statement really something you want archived on the internet
> for eternity? Well I guess it's to late now.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Brian's day in court.

Attorney for the plaintiff: Did you write and post to an internet newsgroup
and I quote, "...it was pretty obvious it was a hot airplane and that people
would kill themselves in it."?

Brian: Yes, but...

Attorney for the plaintiff: (interrupting Brian) Thank you sir.


"Brian" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I think it was a pretty safe statement. Remember we were planning on
> building 300 of them and it is smaller than a Cessna 150. Weighs twice
> as much and has 600+ horse power.
>
> I think this could be said of any airplane that meets those
> specification.
>
> It was pretty obvious to me that someone would eventually do something
> stupid with one.
>
> However flown properly and with the proper respect it is probably no
> worse than anything else in this category
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "Brian" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > Hi John
>> >
>> > I was the primary draftsman for the Thunder Mustang. To date I only
>> > personally know of about 4 of them that are flying. I suspect there
>> > another 4 or 5 I don't know about. From the parts and engines we
>> > manufactured there could be as many as 25 of them flying.
>> >
>> > To date the only accident involving injuries that I am aware of was the
>> > crash of the prototype.
>> > Have there been any more accidents?
>> >
>> > I have to admit the when we put it paper it was pretty obvious it was a
>> > hot airplane and that people would kill themselves in it. I am bit
>> > surprised it hasn't been worse. But maybe the fact that it is obviously
>> > a hot airplane that deserves respect has contributed to this.
>> >
>> > Brian
>> >
>>
>> Is the above statement really something you want archived on the internet
>> for eternity? Well I guess it's to late now.
>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:45:13 -0600, in
>, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Brian's day in court.
>
> Attorney for the plaintiff: Did you write and post to an internet
> newsgroup and I quote, "...it was pretty obvious it was a hot airplane
> and that people would kill themselves in it."?
>
> Brian: Yes, but...
>
> Attorney for the plaintiff: (interrupting Brian) Thank you sir.

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/lawyer-problem-solution