Your fancy schmancy dream machine [Archive]

Richard Lamb

July 26th 03, 03:59 AM

David O wrote:
>
> There have been many posts in recent months by people contemplating
> their own complicated and even radical designs. Reading between the
> lines, it appears that many of those people have yet to build their
> first plane. May I kindly suggest that one's first plane should be a
> time-proved kit or plans-built plane with no major builder
> modifications. Build it, fly it, and maintain it for several hundred
> hours. After you've accomplished this, revisit your fancy schmancy
> dream machine. I expect that by that time, for most people anyway,
> reality will have dawned.
>
> David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com -- Oshkosh Bound!!!

P-51 syndrome, David.

If you are never really going to build it, why not build a P-51?
Hellofalot more impressive than some weekend flyer!

I have a friend who wants to build a scaled ME-262 Swallow.
Granted, the guy is an A&P, and he did work on the Stormbirds.
But he's never built an airplane before.

Setting the bar that high on a first time project (especially
a new design first time project), well, I dunno.

People have done it before.

But not many.

Richard

Jay

July 26th 03, 06:54 AM

Hey I resemble that remark. By now many of you may have viewed my
fancy dream machine at:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html

And you're pointing out something I've seen a few times here in RAH
and maybe we need a rec.aviation.experimental

Some people want to push the boundaries, even if its only in their own
heads, and try to do something new or better than before. And other
people are happy building what someone else designed, and thats great.
It takes all kinds. There's enough drilling, clecoeing, sanding,
layingup, painting to keep anyone busy, but hopefully you don't spend
so much time on the grunt work that you miss the opportunity to
invent.

Personally I get depressed at the thought of investing years of grunt
labor to end up with an airplane with similar numbers to a Cessna 150.
(Ya, but its MY sheet metal bending skills that made that spam can).
You can have a great time learning how to work various materials, each
one for the first time, and when you pass on, nobody will ever know
that you once got really good at fiberglassing so you could solve that
really tough fairing problem that each and every other builder of that
kit also had to solve. Or you figured out this trick so you could
make a bracket that supported a control rod. I figure people have
already done that before, so its not what interests me.

Someone once asked Edison "What good is an idea by itself?" to which
he responded "What good is a baby?" Its the potential that can become
of it.

So we need to have skilled technicians that can roll sheet, and paint
a smooth coating, but we also need people to concentrate on the
physics and try to really understand the phenomenon that are at work
over that rolled sheet and paint, to push the envelope, "to infinity
and beyond..."

And oh ya, thousands of hours of crop duster time spraying poisonous
chemicals on turnips doesn't make someone an expert in anything except
applying pesticide to crops using an airplane. When I have a question
about that topic I'll keep that persons name in mind.

Jerry Springer

July 26th 03, 07:44 AM

Jay wrote:
> Hey I resemble that remark. By now many of you may have viewed my
> fancy dream machine at:
>
> http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html
>
> And you're pointing out something I've seen a few times here in RAH
> and maybe we need a rec.aviation.experimental
>
> Some people want to push the boundaries, even if its only in their own
> heads, and try to do something new or better than before. And other
> people are happy building what someone else designed, and thats great.
> It takes all kinds. There's enough drilling, clecoeing, sanding,
> layingup, painting to keep anyone busy, but hopefully you don't spend
> so much time on the grunt work that you miss the opportunity to
> invent.
>

Jay I took a look at your design concept and your web page. It is a fantastic
concept but I would really hate to be in it flying somewhere always looking at
where I had been instead of where I was going.
I took the liberty to copy a couple some things here for the sake of discussion
that you say on your web page which I take exception with and almost find
offensive to those of us that take pride in the aircraft we built and fly.

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

and economics has a direct effect on public saftey bacause:

* Expensive up-keep is more likely to be put off.
* Engine replacement will be put off long past when it should be.
* Used engines and components (no joke) will be used and reused in active
aircraft.
* More likely that a broken or worn part will try to be repaired instead of
replaced as it should be.
* Airframe manufacturers are more likely to underpower their aircraft to
reduce cost of goods sold, and increase the proportion of the aircraft that they
build.

-----------------------------------------
I find fault in just about everything you say in the above sentences, I do not
believe that any of it is true and to try to sell a concept on the above
statements is wrong IMO. I post this here because I would like you to submit any
proof you have that the above is true. don't get me wrong I wish you all the
luck in the world with your design but lets keep it real.

Jerry

Barnyard BOb --

July 26th 03, 11:07 AM

>and economics has a direct effect on public saftey bacause:
>
> * Expensive up-keep is more likely to be put off.
> * Engine replacement will be put off long past when it should be.
> * Used engines and components (no joke) will be used and reused in active
>aircraft.
> * More likely that a broken or worn part will try to be repaired instead of
>replaced as it should be.
> * Airframe manufacturers are more likely to underpower their aircraft to
>reduce cost of goods sold, and increase the proportion of the aircraft that they
>build.
>
>-----------------------------------------
>I find fault in just about everything you say in the above sentences, I do not
>believe that any of it is true and to try to sell a concept on the above
>statements is wrong IMO. I post this here because I would like you to submit any
>proof you have that the above is true. don't get me wrong I wish you all the
>luck in the world with your design but lets keep it real.
>
>Jerry
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jay is your basic harmless delusional WANNABEE chatterbox
living in LA LA LAND, wanting to play with big boys before
he has grown up. He attracts like minded choir boys, so....
not too much to worry about and it keeps him off the streets.

Barnyard BOb --

Jay

July 28th 03, 05:57 PM

Read comments interspursed below...

Jerry Springer > wrote in message k.net>...

> Jay I took a look at your design concept and your web page. It is a fantastic
> concept but I would really hate to be in it flying somewhere always looking at
> where I had been instead of where I was going.

That was in the early drawings when I was trying to figure out a way
to control the CG for a tandem seating close enough to be able to
still use a high aspect wing and not always be a little nose heavy
(for stability) or have to adjust ballast (sailplane style). I've
riden backwards (adjacent escape door) on commercial jets and apart
from takeoff and landing, as a passenger, you'd never know the
difference. When you're up high, and the ground is just crawling by,
it isn't a problem. A lot of 2 seaters are mainly used as a one
seater with the occassional buddy or wife that wants a ride. Why
penalize the balance of the whole plane just for a non-flying
passenger?

> I took the liberty to copy a couple some things here for the sake of discussion
> that you say on your web page which I take exception with and almost find
> offensive to those of us that take pride in the aircraft we built and fly.

Didn't mean to offend, but I'd have to admit it was written in a way
to ellicit a response and get people thinking. I know a lot of people
buy used engines for their homebuilts, it doesn't mean I hate your
airplane, the economics force the decision. Did you know that since
this post came out, over 100 people have looked at the page and only
you and BOb have bothered to write anything? I'll address each point
in order below...

> --------------------------------------
>
> and economics has a direct effect on public saftey bacause:

Nobody in the government cares to change anything unless they might
get in trouble for not acting. So by putting it in the context of a
public safety issue, it just might get some administrator to take a
look see and reconsider how the economics and locations of GA airports
have changed since 1950. The real reason is selfish. I don't like
having to fly around constantly plotting my next emergency landing
spot because a single point failure in the most complex sub-system
(AKA engine) of my plane has decided to fail. When I rent a plane I
don't get the opportunity (or have the ability) to do the kind of
diagnostic required to really ensure I won't suffer a loss of power in
flight. Who knows what the history on the engine is or if a wasp
decided the week before to build a nest somewhere in the induction
system. Checking the oil, and looking for water in the gas is just
the beginning of what you'd really need to do to know for sure. It
may not matter as much if you're flying in Kansas, but in LA, its
nothin but houses 25 miles in each direction surrounded by a ring of
mountains and ocean.

> * Expensive up-keep is more likely to be put off.

You're average Joe is going to do just enough to get things signed off
till next year. If he doesn't like what his mechanic has to say, he
might find another one next time.

> * Engine replacement will be put off long past when it should be.

Replacing one valve here, or cylinder there, and leaving the rest old
just isn't the most reliable approach, but because the parts are so
expensive, thats what a lot of people do.

> * Used engines and components (no joke) will be used and reused in active
> aircraft.

At my EAA chapter someone was referring to the engine in their plane
as "the one from that crashed EZ a few years back". I'm sorry, but a
set of calipers ain't gunna prove thats its good as new. The
metalurgy required to really know for sure is just too impractical.

> * More likely that a broken or worn part will try to be repaired instead of
> replaced as it should be.

I hate to buy anything with moving parts that has been used by someone
else. You have no way of really knowing what abuse its been through
and how much life it has left. Do you really want to gamble your
health and that of the random people below you that the guy selling
you that engine is going to be completely honest (or even fully
understand) the condition of that used engine parted out to fix yours?

> * Airframe manufacturers are more likely to underpower their aircraft to
> reduce cost of goods sold, and increase the proportion of the aircraft that they
> build.

This was for all those light twin guys that were saying "the twin I
fly, on single engine, will climb at -200fpm at gross" That airplane
is either underpowered or its gross is over rated, pick one. So the
airframe manufacturer didn't want to give 50% of his selling price to
Continental, but he wanted to advertise a large lift, so this is what
you get.

We had a big discussion about this several months back under the topic
"2 ordinarly vs one extrodinary" or something like that. Back then I
didn't have any renderings or modeled numbers to show what I was
imagining.

> -----------------------------------------
> I find fault in just about everything you say in the above sentences, I do not
> believe that any of it is true and to try to sell a concept on the above
> statements is wrong IMO. I post this here because I would like you to submit any
> proof you have that the above is true. don't get me wrong I wish you all the
> luck in the world with your design but lets keep it real.
>
> Jerry

Corrie

July 29th 03, 06:10 AM

My tuppence-worth comments on the goals listed at the bottom of the
linked page:

Goals:
Raise awareness in the general aviation public of the advantages of
the inline twin configuration to drive new product development with
regulatory relief in the form of:
1) In regards to pilot licensing, petition FAA to count the number of
thrust lines rather than the number of engines. Would allow single
engine pilots to fly in-line twins such as the Cessna 337 with just a
type checkout like any other new aircraft. This being done to reflect
the particular training requied to handle the most serious issue in
tradition twin engine aircraft: yaw moment induced by loss of power on
one side, especially at low airspeeds.

IIRC, inline-twin is a separate category. Just because you're rated
to fly a 337 doesn't mean you can strap on an Apache. The feds
already recognize the distinction.

2) Petition FAA to allow for longer (2x?) intervals between mandatory
service/inspection for aircraft using in-line twin configuration due
to robust operation of inline twin configuration.

Doesn't make sense. The complexity of a system drives the inspection
/ MX schedule. The location of the system's components has little to
do with its complexity.

3) Petition FAA to allow otherwise compliant twin aircraft with a
single line of thrust (but 2 engines) to be part of the new "Sport"
aircraft classification.

Works fer me.

4) And regarding Sport classification, remove top speed limitation,
the stall speed requirement is sufficient; if someone can build a wing
with low speed stall characteristic and high top speed, then we'd all
like to have it.

A wing with those characteristics needs moving parts such as Fowler
flaps and slats. Think 727. That's likely to either be so heavy as
to outweigh the category, or require such exotic materials as to be
unaffordable.

Corrie

July 29th 03, 06:34 AM

David, what you say makes a good deal of sense. You can read about a
fancy-schmancy design in this month's Flying - Pete Garrison finally
got his Melmoth II in the air.

But even first-time builders with modest ambitions may have certain
requirements. Example: I'm looking for a moderately-performing
2-place low-wing wood design such as the Piel Emeradue or Cvjetcovic
CA-65, with a folding wing so that the aircraft can be stored
off-airport and trailered. Is that so much to ask?

The kind souls on the Emerauder list have clued me in about one
particular 3-piece-wing design for the Piel. With a couple of hours
of hard work, it appears possible to remove & replace the outer wing
panels - not what I'm looking for. Perhaps the Cvjetcovic design is
more "user-friendly" - at least the outer panels stay attached - but
information is hard to come by.

However, I've got time to do some more digging - I probably won't be
able to even begin building for another couple of years. I frankly
doubt that I'll be able to build more than one airplane. I'm 41 now.
It's clear that the process takes from 5 to 10 years, especially if
you have a family - and I do. Maybe I'll have to settle for a
Volksplane in the end. But here at the beginning, I prefer to keep my
options open.

Corrie

David O >> wrote in message >...
> There have been many posts in recent months by people contemplating
> their own complicated and even radical designs. Reading between the
> lines, it appears that many of those people have yet to build their
> first plane. May I kindly suggest that one's first plane should be a
> time-proved kit or plans-built plane with no major builder
> modifications. Build it, fly it, and maintain it for several hundred
> hours. After you've accomplished this, revisit your fancy schmancy
> dream machine. I expect that by that time, for most people anyway,
> reality will have dawned.
>
> David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com -- Oshkosh Bound!!!

Richard Lamb

July 29th 03, 08:54 AM

Corrie wrote:
>
> David, what you say makes a good deal of sense. You can read about a
> fancy-schmancy design in this month's Flying - Pete Garrison finally
> got his Melmoth II in the air.
>
> But even first-time builders with modest ambitions may have certain
> requirements. Example: I'm looking for a moderately-performing
> 2-place low-wing wood design such as the Piel Emeradue or Cvjetcovic
> CA-65, with a folding wing so that the aircraft can be stored
> off-airport and trailered. Is that so much to ask?
>
> The kind souls on the Emerauder list have clued me in about one
> particular 3-piece-wing design for the Piel. With a couple of hours
> of hard work, it appears possible to remove & replace the outer wing
> panels - not what I'm looking for. Perhaps the Cvjetcovic design is
> more "user-friendly" - at least the outer panels stay attached - but
> information is hard to come by.
>
> However, I've got time to do some more digging - I probably won't be
> able to even begin building for another couple of years. I frankly
> doubt that I'll be able to build more than one airplane. I'm 41 now.
> It's clear that the process takes from 5 to 10 years, especially if
> you have a family - and I do. Maybe I'll have to settle for a
> Volksplane in the end. But here at the beginning, I prefer to keep my
> options open.
>
> Corrie
>
> David O >> wrote in message >...
> > There have been many posts in recent months by people contemplating
> > their own complicated and even radical designs. Reading between the
> > lines, it appears that many of those people have yet to build their
> > first plane. May I kindly suggest that one's first plane should be a
> > time-proved kit or plans-built plane with no major builder
> > modifications. Build it, fly it, and maintain it for several hundred
> > hours. After you've accomplished this, revisit your fancy schmancy
> > dream machine. I expect that by that time, for most people anyway,
> > reality will have dawned.
> >
> > David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com -- Oshkosh Bound!!!

A couple of things, Corrie?

One, I'd hardly refer to Melmoth II as fancy-schmancy.
Maybe it's more airplane than most.
But there's nothing wrong with that.

And two, IIRC, Melmoth (I?) was a first-time origional design -
designed, built, and flown by one man - Pete Garrison.
Nothing wrong with that, either.

But for the likes of most of our gentle readers, dream on.

That's what P-51 Syndrome is all about.

For you to build something like Melmoth (either) could indeed
take a dozen years or more. (Pete? What was it? 6 year?)

There's just so much you have to learn how to do, and do well.

It would take me a lot longer than that - just to pay for it!

It's just not a reasonable thing for most people to do.

Let me offer a suggestion.
Take five or siz thoushand bucks and Build something a lot simpler.
A SINGLE seater. Perhaps like a Volksplane (although I like my
parasol a lot better. Go figure)

If you are 41, and you want to build an airplane,
you maybe better get off your dead a$$
and get started - on something.

Even if it's not a P-51...

Richard
http://home.flash.net/~lamb01/

Daniel

July 29th 03, 04:08 PM

Richard Lamb wrote ...

> ... get started - on something.

And THAT is the fundamental difference between a dream machine and a flying machine.

Daniel

Big John

July 29th 03, 04:28 PM

----clip----

>4) And regarding Sport classification, remove top speed limitation,
>the stall speed requirement is sufficient; if someone can build a wing
>with low speed stall characteristic and high top speed, then we'd all
>like to have it.
>
>
>A wing with those characteristics needs moving parts such as Fowler
>flaps and slats. Think 727. That's likely to either be so heavy as
>to outweigh the category, or require such exotic materials as to be
>unaffordable.

The 727 is the dirtiest bird I ever saw when configured for landing on
final approach. I thing they hang everything out except the kitchen
sink. <G>

Some 727 history.

When the 727 first came out, the final approach speed had been
established by test pilots. They were able to transition from the high
drag landing configuration and flare properly to make a safe landing
without stalling. This (while by the book) approach speed was as low
as possible to qualify the bird for landing on some of the short
commercial runways.

When bird became operational with the Airlines there were a couple of
hard landings (crashes) where the bird (and some passengers) received
serious damage because the pilots flared and stalled due to high drag
from landing configuration.

Airlines were about ready to stop flying the bird when someone
suggested that the approach speed be increased 3-5 MPH to allow time
line pilots to flare and make normal landing. From then on every one
knows the success of the 727 for years and years.

And another round of hanger flying <G>

Big John

One of the landing accidents was at Salt Lake City. High density
altitude, etc. Bird fell out of the sky on flare and hit in the over
run short of R/W.

Jay

July 29th 03, 05:26 PM

Thanks for contributing your 2 bits Corrie... read below...

(Corrie) wrote in message >...
> My tuppence-worth comments on the goals listed at the bottom of the
> linked page:
>
> Goals:
> IIRC, inline-twin is a separate category. Just because you're rated
> to fly a 337 doesn't mean you can strap on an Apache. The feds
> already recognize the distinction.

I should go correct that, what I mean is to put it in the same
catagory as singles, so you only need a type checkout, like going from
a C-150 to a Piper Tomahawk.

> Doesn't make sense. The complexity of a system drives the inspection
> / MX schedule. The location of the system's components has little to
> do with its complexity.

Think of Christmas tree lights. Type A puts 'em all in series, lose
one and you've lost 'em all, type B puts 'em in parallel, loose one,
and you've only lost 2% of your christmas spirit.

If your car brake system didn't have 2 parallel and independant
circuits you'd have more regular service required, but since its a
cross coupled redundant system, you can get away with all sorts of
abuse and neglect and still hardely ever have a total brake failure.
Its the same idea here with the in-line twin, since you have a fail
soft condition, you can afford to spend less money inspecting and
reinspecting your known working system.

The way in which the system is arranged has everything to do with its
composit reliability.

> 3) Petition FAA to allow otherwise compliant twin aircraft with a
> single line of thrust (but 2 engines) to be part of the new "Sport"
> aircraft classification.

> Works fer me.

great!

> 4) And regarding Sport classification, remove top speed limitation,
> the stall speed requirement is sufficient; if someone can build a wing
> with low speed stall characteristic and high top speed, then we'd all
> like to have it.
>
>
> A wing with those characteristics needs moving parts such as Fowler
> flaps and slats. Think 727. That's likely to either be so heavy as
> to outweigh the category, or require such exotic materials as to be
> unaffordable.

If thats REALLY the case, why make the rule then? The other rules
(and those of nature) would seem to dictate this top speed by default.
But in the mean time, maybe we'll see something people hadn't
considered because they've been made possible by recent materials
developments or computer technology.

Ernest Christley

July 29th 03, 07:01 PM

Richard Lamb wrote:

> But for the likes of most of our gentle readers, dream on.
>
> That's what P-51 Syndrome is all about.
>

And I think that even old Barnyard would agree that tickling someone's
P-51 dreams is a lot better than than discussing the shape of Bill
Clinton's ******.

(Please, for the sake of aviation, SOMEBODY back me up on this one point!!!)

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

Big John

July 29th 03, 08:17 PM

Richard

You'll have to define the meaning of the word "is" first.

Big John

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:01:18 GMT, Ernest Christley
> wrote:

>Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>> But for the likes of most of our gentle readers, dream on.
>>
>> ----clip----.
>>
>
>And I think that even old Barnyard would agree that tickling someone's
>P-51 dreams "is" a lot better than discussing the shape of Bill
>Clinton's ******.
>
>(Please, for the sake of aviation, SOMEBODY back me up on this one point!!!)

Big John

July 29th 03, 10:44 PM

Richard

Sorry about that. Here is a wet noodle that you may use to get my
attention.

~`~`~`~`~`~`~```~`~`*(o)
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Thats blood dripping from the noodle <g>.

Big John

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:43:58 GMT, Richard Lamb >
wrote:

>Sorry John, that was Earnie ...
>
>
>
>
>Big John wrote:
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> You'll have to define the meaning of the word "is" first.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:01:18 GMT, Ernest Christley
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Richard Lamb wrote:
>> >
>> >> But for the likes of most of our gentle readers, dream on.
>> >>
>> >> ----clip----.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And I think that even old Barnyard would agree that tickling someone's
>> >P-51 dreams "is" a lot better than discussing the shape of Bill
>> >Clinton's ******.
>> >
>> >(Please, for the sake of aviation, SOMEBODY back me up on this one point!!!)

Corrie

July 30th 03, 06:33 PM

I'd love to. But it's probably going to be at least a year, perhaps
three, before I'm able to *begin* construction on an airplane. Y'see,
I have some "home-building" projects queued up ahead of the
"homebuilt" project.

However, please feel free to explain to my wife why I need an airplane
before she gets a garage, or the kids get their own bedrooms. I'll
show her the best of them, and post her responses here.

Corrie - planning ahead

(Daniel) wrote in message >...
> Richard Lamb wrote ...
>
> > ... get started - on something.
>
>
> And THAT is the fundamental difference between a dream machine and a flying machine.
>
> Daniel

Rich S.

July 30th 03, 07:49 PM

"Corrie" > wrote in message
om...
> > Think of Christmas tree lights. Type A puts 'em all in series, lose
> > one and you've lost 'em all, type B puts 'em in parallel, loose one,
> > and you've only lost 2% of your christmas spirit.
>
> (Pet peeve: It's "lose," not "loose": You might *lose* your life if
> your wing-attach bolts come *loose*. I see this error more and more,
> even in the current issue of Custom Planes. It bugs me.)

(Kotter) "Alright, Sweathogs, who's first?"

"Ooo! Oooo! Mista Kotter! Let me! Let me!"

"Since he spelled it 'lose' and 'loose' in the same sentence, he covered all
the bases . No matter which one is right, he can claim a typo on the other
one. You lose! ;o)"

>
> Redundant, fail-safe (or gracefully degrading) systems increase
> confidence, yes.

(Kotter) "Okay, Epstien - how about this one?"

(Epstien) "Well, Merriam-Webster says redundant means, 'exceeding what is
necessary or normal : Superfluous'." "I think he should use a more
descriptive word like, 'backup'."

> The Sport classification seems to be aimed
> at, erm, uh, ok, I'll say it - dilletantes. Folks who want to fly,
> but who don't want to (or can't afford to) spend a whole lot of time
> and money doing it.

(Kotter) Good - last one. Vinnie, your turn.

(Barbarino) "Lessee - dilletantes. Just like 'loose' it ain't even spelled
right. Try 'dilettantes'. And then there's the usage. Merriam- Webster
defines the word as:

1. an admirer or lover of the arts
2. a person having a superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge
: dabbler
Synonym: see Amateur

Suggest the more descriptive term, 'Tightwad."

(Kotter) "Okay, Hogs. One more question before we go to lunch. Anyone here
know the meaning of 'Net Nazi'?"

Corrie - All tongue in cheek. Rich S.

Barnyard BOb --

July 30th 03, 09:10 PM

(Corrie) wrote:

>The Sport classification seems to be aimed
>at, erm, uh, ok, I'll say it - dilletantes. Folks who want to fly,
>but who don't want to (or can't afford to) spend a whole lot of time
>and money doing it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

<<< ? Law of Unintended Consequences ? >>>

Pilots that have lost their medicals may be flying
something beside ultra-lights and sail[planes.

Barnyard BOb --

Richard Lamb

July 30th 03, 11:16 PM

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
> (Corrie) wrote:
>
> >The Sport classification seems to be aimed
> >at, erm, uh, ok, I'll say it - dilletantes. Folks who want to fly,
> >but who don't want to (or can't afford to) spend a whole lot of time
> >and money doing it.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> <<< ? Law of Unintended Consequences ? >>>
>
> Pilots that have lost their medicals may be flying
> something beside ultra-lights and sail[planes.
>
> Barnyard BOb --

Ain't gonna help a blessed bit for my Tailwind.

Corrie

July 31st 03, 12:03 AM

"Rich S." > wrote in message >...

> (Kotter) "Alright, Sweathogs, who's first?"
> (Kotter) "Okay, Hogs. One more question before we go to lunch. Anyone here
> know the meaning of 'Net Nazi'?"
> Corrie - All tongue in cheek. Rich S.

Hey hey hey - I thought you were on MY side! ;-)

And aren't you supposed to be in Wisconsin right now?

Rich S.

July 31st 03, 12:17 AM

"Corrie" > wrote in message
om...
> "Rich S." > wrote in message
>...
>
> > (Kotter) "Alright, Sweathogs, who's first?"
> > (Kotter) "Okay, Hogs. One more question before we go to lunch. Anyone
here
> > know the meaning of 'Net Nazi'?"
> > Corrie - All tongue in cheek. Rich S.
>
> Hey hey hey - I thought you were on MY side! ;-)
>
> And aren't you supposed to be in Wisconsin right now?

Not me, Man. All I kin afford is car gas and I ain't goin' over the Rockies
wif dat.

We blew our wad on vacations last year.

Rich S.

Del Rawlins

July 31st 03, 12:46 AM

On 30 Jul 2003 09:33 AM, Corrie posted the following:
> I'd love to. But it's probably going to be at least a year, perhaps
> three, before I'm able to *begin* construction on an airplane. Y'see,
> I have some "home-building" projects queued up ahead of the
> "homebuilt" project.
>
> However, please feel free to explain to my wife why I need an airplane
> before she gets a garage, or the kids get their own bedrooms. I'll
> show her the best of them, and post her responses here.

I can't help you much with the bedrooms issue, but at some point you are
going to have to explain to your wife that the garage (henceforth to be
known as the "shop") is for building the airplane, and not for storage
of automobiles and/or overflow of household items. You might as well
start prepping her for the idea, rather than hitting her with it all at
once. My own "shop" is not terribly huge, but it works fine for my
purposes since the ground transportation sleeps outside. I don't know
where you live, but it works for me here in Anchorage, so quitcher
bitchin and start building.

Though on second thought, I am reminded of a friend of mine, who grew up
sleeping on the couch in his parents' living room since his dad wasn't
willing to give up the gun room....

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Barnyard BOb --

July 31st 03, 12:49 AM

Richard Lamb wrote:

>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>>
>> (Corrie) wrote:
>>
>> >The Sport classification seems to be aimed
>> >at, erm, uh, ok, I'll say it - dilletantes. Folks who want to fly,
>> >but who don't want to (or can't afford to) spend a whole lot of time
>> >and money doing it.
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> <<< ? Law of Unintended Consequences ? >>>
>>
>> Pilots that have lost their medicals may be flying
>> something beside ultra-lights and sail[planes.
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>Ain't gonna help a blessed bit for my Tailwind.
=====================================

Ain't 'zactly going to save me for my RV-3, either.
BUT, it sure's gonna' beat a cane or a 'walker'.

Barnyard BOb - crystal balling the future

Del Rawlins

July 31st 03, 12:55 AM

On 30 Jul 2003 02:11 PM, Ernest Christley posted the following:
> Corrie wrote:
>> I'd love to. But it's probably going to be at least a year, perhaps
>> three, before I'm able to *begin* construction on an airplane. Y'see,
>> I have some "home-building" projects queued up ahead of the
>> "homebuilt" project.

> Corrie, don't do that. You'll never get a plane by planning ahead.
> There are probably 10,000 pieces of an airplane that you can build
> while sitting around in the evening looking at TV.

That is true. The guy who founded the Bearhawk email list built most of
his wing ribs while living in an apartment. Sure it is not ideal, but
all he really needed was tin snips, a drill, a circle cutter, and a few
other minor items. For whatever it is you want to build, there have to
be a lot of similar tasks which can be done at times when you aren't
able to work on the other projects.

One thing that I did during the time when I was between shops and my
tools/parts were in storage, was draw patterns in a CAD program, so that
when I was able to start again I could just slap paper to metal with
spray adhesive, and start cutting.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Daniel

July 31st 03, 02:40 AM

Corrie wrote ...

> I'd love to. But ... I have some "home-building" projects
> queued up ahead of the "homebuilt" project.

Me too. Floor beams & joists, plumbing, septic, 2 & 1/2 baths, all
wiring, new kitchen, 3.5 tons of ceramic tile, roof, dual heating &
AC, attic insulation, french doors, brick work.... The plus side of
it is that I find a great many new tools and materials are
indispensible for plane building. Ooops, I mean homebuilding.

"Can't put on new roof without a big air compressor."
"Gotta have a big router to duplicate interior trim."
"Yes honey, that's a LOT of sandpaper, but it's cheaper that way."
"Yes, I need a LONG workbench, it's faster to finish 2 doors at once."
"Of course we need a disc/belt sander."
"Spraying gives a better finish"
"That aluminum? I used it to line up the walls. It's straighter than
wood & I'll find another use for it."
"The angle grinder? For cutting off nails & rebar."
"A random orbit sander is a must to refinsih those cabinets."
"My old drill bits were shot."
"You need good bolts or we'll end up redoing it in 4 years."
"You need a high quality paint mask with this varnish."
"You need MEK to clean it before you seal it & 5 gallon pails are much
cheaper."

The possibilities are endless, but you have to be careful. I'm open
to suggestions. Strobe lights to keep kids from falling in the hole
for the septic tank might not fly.

Daniel

Jay

July 31st 03, 05:46 PM

(Corrie) wrote in message >...
> Problem is, there's already a category for inline twin. Cessna beat
> you to the punch. (Actually, Dornier beat Cessna, but the FAA didn't
> type-certify the Do-335.) I wish you well in convincing the Feds that
> an inline twin should be type-certified as a single.

I guess we'd have to pull the 337 and its variants into that same
"like a single" catagory unless you want to impose some restriction
such as not requiring engine 1/2 fuel management to make it simpler
for the guy with already too much to keep track of.

> > If your car brake system didn't have 2 parallel and independant
> > circuits you'd have more regular service required, but since its a
> > cross coupled redundant system, you can get away with all sorts of
> > abuse and neglect and still hardely ever have a total brake failure.
> > Its the same idea here with the in-line twin, since you have a fail
> > soft condition, you can afford to spend less money inspecting and
> > reinspecting your known working system.
> >
> > The way in which the system is arranged has everything to do with its
> > composit reliability.
>
> The comparison to Christmas lights oversimplifies things. We're
> talking engines, not light bulbs. Lots of moving parts, hoses,
> clamps, wires, etc. Two engines means twice the number of things that
> can go kablooey, no matter where they are on the airplane.

I was making an over the top analogy to illustrate my point. What did
ya think of the car brake system analogy though? Brakes are pretty
important in a car, only dual redundant, and everybody ignores them
until they make noise or the car "pulls to the right" (Like when one
hydraulic circuit fails).

> By the "string of lights" argument, the B-36 Peacemaker should have
> been easier to maintain than a Fly Baby. Six recip engines, four jets
> - LOTS of redundancy there! And yes, you could lose several engines
> and still complete the mission. (While the public catch-phrase was,
> "six turning and four burning", the crews were more familiar with,
> "two burning, two turning, two smoking, and two joking.")

Thats a funny saying. Are the 2 joking part of the crew?

Thats overboard redundancy, and they didn't have 2 engines big enough
to do the job. 2 is kind of the magic number in that buisness. I've
seen 4 in my work on the Spirit. 3 dissimilar systems voting in
flight controls for commercial jets. The mission that needs to be
completed in our case is making it back to a real runway to get a
repair.

> Redundancy has a price - the airplane spent 90 hours in maintenance
> for each hour of flight.

Ya, I guess there is a real price required to haul tons of bombs
thousands of miles. Good thing thats nothing like what we're trying
to do here.

> Redundant, fail-safe (or gracefully degrading) systems increase
> confidence, yes. But it's a BAD idea to encourage complacency.
> "Neglect not thy maintenance, lest the ground rise up and smite thee."

Its also a bad idea to discourage people from participating in sport
aviation because its dangerious or too costly. How many people can
afford to fly as much as they'd like to? Instead, many fly just
enough hours to keep current.

> Yes, the laws of physics mean that for a given weight and stall speed,
> there's a limit to the top speed. I expect you could build a
> lightweight 40-to-400kt. variable-geometry wing out of carbon fiber,
> but who could afford it?

So what you're saying is that its not practical with the state of the
art to build a 40-to400kt plane with the other sport limitations, so
why the law then?

> But I suspect there's another reason for the speed limitation, though
> I hesitate to bring it up. The Sport classification seems to be aimed
> at, erm, uh, ok, I'll say it - dilletantes. Folks who want to fly,
> but who don't want to (or can't afford to) spend a whole lot of time
> and money doing it.

That would seem to be an admirable goal if it can be done relatively
safely. (Relative to driving a car to the airport)

> A low-performance pilot in a high-performance
> airplane is an accident looking for a crash site. The speed limit may
> simply be an attempt to save lives.

Its a misguided attempt that restricts innovation. A plane that can
fly 150kts in a straight line but still land at 40kts isn't all that
much more dangerous. You might argue that having a wider speed
evelope is actually safer for the pilot.

Badwater Bill

August 1st 03, 04:49 AM

>Dave:
>Today has been a rare and wonderful one here on RAH.
>
>This post of yours and so many others are
>worthy of the Barnyard Seal of Approval
>that I hardly know where to begin. <g>
>
>OTOH...
>Could be I've finally filtered out the worst
>case lame-o's that cause blood to boil.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- stranger than fiction

Hey Bob...here's a post for you to filter.

Go **** yourself. <g>

BWB

Badwater Bill

August 1st 03, 05:04 AM

>
>Jay I took a look at your design concept and your web page. It is a fantastic
>concept but I would really hate to be in it flying somewhere always looking at
>where I had been instead of where I was going.
>I took the liberty to copy a couple some things here for the sake of discussion
>that you say on your web page which I take exception with and almost find
>offensive to those of us that take pride in the aircraft we built and fly.
>
>--------------------------------------
>
>and economics has a direct effect on public saftey bacause:
>
> * Expensive up-keep is more likely to be put off.
> * Engine replacement will be put off long past when it should be.
> * Used engines and components (no joke) will be used and reused in active
>aircraft.
> * More likely that a broken or worn part will try to be repaired instead of
>replaced as it should be.
> * Airframe manufacturers are more likely to underpower their aircraft to
>reduce cost of goods sold, and increase the proportion of the aircraft that they
>build.
>
>-----------------------------------------
>I find fault in just about everything you say in the above sentences, I do not
>believe that any of it is true and to try to sell a concept on the above
>statements is wrong IMO. I post this here because I would like you to submit any
>proof you have that the above is true. don't get me wrong I wish you all the
>luck in the world with your design but lets keep it real.
>
>Jerry

I liked his concept of design too Jerry. But I think the guy is
either a guy who never built an airplane then maintained it or he's
just a statistical outlier. Nobody I know who has an experimental
flying machine whether it be a helicopter, balloon or airplan takes
the short cuts he proposes. I know YOU don't, and I never have.

-- Expensive up-keep is too bad, but it is what it is. If you don't
do it, you die.

--Engine replacement is usually done long before it's needed. When
things start to show significant wear, the engine is rebuilt. I've
done it, you've done it.

--Used parts that are time proven are better than new parts in many
cases. Take a CAM. Once a CAM has proved to you it doesn't have some
goofy area in it that wears away in the first 1000 hours, you
reprofile it and use it again. It's much safer than a new CAM, casted
with some new ****ing alloys that have not been run 1000 hours. Same
wtih an engine case. Give me one that's been cycled 2000 times and
I'll build you an engine where the case won't crack.

-- I dont' get the broken part piece. It depends on the part. For
christ's sake, I had a broken NAV light the other day. I bought a new
one. I don't get his point there at all. If a part is critical and
it's busted...and it can't be fixed to new specs, then no homebuilder
I know would want to risk his ass on it. You buy a new one, or you
fix the bad one to original or better than new specs.

-- I don't see this. What albout the Harmon Rocket? The Glassair?
The Lancair. Christ. All of them are like flying a Lycoming strapped
to your back. What is this underpowered engine ****? This guy is
just writing to see his name show up on the screen.

I find fault in just about everthing he says too. He's just a big bag
of wind like most of the rest of RAH.

It always has been and it will always be...because the idiots and the
Galactically stupid muther ****ers can post here and act like the real
guys who have done it for real and done it for years...guys like you
and guys like me.

BWB

Roger Halstead

August 1st 03, 07:46 AM

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:35:24 -0400, David O
>> wrote:

>
>
>There have been many posts in recent months by people contemplating
>their own complicated and even radical designs. Reading between the
>lines, it appears that many of those people have yet to build their
>first plane. May I kindly suggest that one's first plane should be a
>time-proved kit or plans-built plane with no major builder
>modifications. Build it, fly it, and maintain it for several hundred
>hours. After you've accomplished this, revisit your fancy schmancy
>dream machine. I expect that by that time, for most people anyway,
>reality will have dawned.

I look at what I fly...A Debonair (cheap version of the straight
tailed Bonanza)

I look at what I've been building for a couple of years... glasair-III
and I've accumulated almost a whole hour flying one <:-))

Were I going to try to utilize all the features I've seen listed, I'd
build *at least* two planes.

So my go faster, high performance plane lands closer to a hundred than
fourty...I don't mind that.

So, the STOL will only cruise at 160 to 180 knots...That's a pretty
good range even if it does take a pretty good sized engine and drink
gas like crazy.

So, it takes two planes to do it. That ain't bad. It could take 3 or
4.

and...by the time I finish the G-III I'll be too old to build another
any way.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>
>David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com -- Oshkosh Bound!!!
>

Brock

August 2nd 03, 11:34 PM

A "fancy" designed plane may be somewhat harder to build but not
necessarily any harder to fly. I have seen cases where leaning to fly
a super stable forgiving high wing plane seemed to scare pilots from
moving onto the plane they truly wanted to fly. The word "scare" may
be harsh since learning to fly a plane that virtually flies itself
doesn't do a good job of teaching one to fly.
Also the "Over Confident Cessna Pilot" syndrome isn't uncommon. Why
not just learn to fly the plane you want to fly right away rather than
wasting time?

I feel virtually anyone can design and build an airplane if they are
willing to put in the necessary time. Hasn't virtually all the
engineering work been done in the 20s on light planes? As long as one
doesn't stride too far from what has worked in the past I'm confident
that with enough tinkering anyone should be able to design and build
their own airplane. I think I could test fly and learn to fly it at
the same time but this would be an unnecessary risk.

I have thought about a wire braced biplane design but disliked the
slow cruise speed. My dream machine would be an amphibious seaplane, a
tail dragger design for good STOL performance. I'd make a mid engine
design and put the prop. high on the tail using a stabilator for the
necessary powerful elevator. For good cruise (125mph on 50HP) the
plane would be sailplane like, I may use retractable wing tip floats.
With the use of slats and powerful flaps I would try a stepless or a
contoured step.

The main reason I want to design my own plane is that I haven't seen a
design exactly like this. With the high lift wing and good power to
weight getting off the water should be no problem, at least looking at
what has worked in the past.

I have already spent a lot of time on the project and I would need to
spend much more to actually build it. Anyway I like to think of it as
"planning" rather than "dreaming".

Brock

Rich S.

August 3rd 03, 12:17 AM

"Brock" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I feel virtually anyone can design and build an airplane if they are
> willing to put in the necessary time. Hasn't virtually all the
> engineering work been done in the 20s on light planes? As long as one
> doesn't stride too far from what has worked in the past I'm confident
> that with enough tinkering anyone should be able to design and build
> their own airplane. I think I could test fly and learn to fly it at
> the same time but this would be an unnecessary risk.

Your absolutely right on, Brock! I can't believe that all those assholes
that tried to design and build airplanes since the discovery of fire tried
and failed. They were absolutely so stupid!!!!

I encourage you to grab a drill and a saw and build the machine that
everyone else is incapable of conceiving - much less building. It's about
time that someone with some BRAINS got with the program.

You GO girl!!!

Rich S.

Jay

August 3rd 03, 05:29 AM

(Brock) wrote in message >...
> A "fancy" designed plane may be somewhat harder to build but not
> necessarily any harder to fly. I have seen cases where leaning to fly
> a super stable forgiving high wing plane seemed to scare pilots from
> moving onto the plane they truly wanted to fly. The word "scare" may
> be harsh since learning to fly a plane that virtually flies itself
> doesn't do a good job of teaching one to fly.
> Also the "Over Confident Cessna Pilot" syndrome isn't uncommon. Why
> not just learn to fly the plane you want to fly right away rather than
> wasting time?
>
> I feel virtually anyone can design and build an airplane if they are
> willing to put in the necessary time. Hasn't virtually all the
> engineering work been done in the 20s on light planes? As long as one
> doesn't stride too far from what has worked in the past I'm confident
> that with enough tinkering anyone should be able to design and build
> their own airplane. I think I could test fly and learn to fly it at
> the same time but this would be an unnecessary risk.

Materials have changed quite a bit since then and so has the
availability of computers. There is still lots to try and learn.

> I have thought about a wire braced biplane design but disliked the
> slow cruise speed. My dream machine would be an amphibious seaplane, a
> tail dragger design for good STOL performance. I'd make a mid engine
> design and put the prop. high on the tail using a stabilator for the
> necessary powerful elevator. For good cruise (125mph on 50HP) the
> plane would be sailplane like, I may use retractable wing tip floats.
> With the use of slats and powerful flaps I would try a stepless or a
> contoured step.

Go ahead and capture your design in X-Plane and see if it'll fly on
50hp. You're going to have to put some wheels on it because I don't
think they're modeling water take-offs (at least not in V5). It won't
tell you if the wings will fall off, and it won't tell you that its
impossible to make a float plane that weights the same as the pilot,
but provided with proper input, it will give you a good run on the
aerodynamics/stability of your model. You know the computer rule:
Garbage in garbage out. People have made some amazing aircraft with
all kinds of weird shapes that really do fly, but usually they would
need the equivalent of something the weight of balsa and the stregth
of steel, or a power plant that puts out 1000hp and weighs 200lbs. Or
the take off speed is over 200mph.

Ernest Christley

August 3rd 03, 07:25 PM

Rich S. wrote:
> "Brock" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> Your absolutely right on, Brock! I can't believe that all those assholes
> that tried to design and build airplanes since the discovery of fire tried
> and failed. They were absolutely so stupid!!!!
>

No, they weren't stupid. They just didn't have the advantage of a
library full of books, a dozen computer simulation programs, college
courses, NACA studies printed online.

Some of you snot nosed ****ers are so full of yourselves. Anyone with
above average intelligence can design a build a plane with the right
attitude. Unfortunately, that attitude does not include, "Heh, Bubba.
Watch this!!", but there's no reason to believe that someone can't do it
just because you can't.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

Corrie

August 4th 03, 05:36 AM

(Corrie) wrote in message >...
> Gentlemen, I am in your debt. :-D

A follow-up. I mentioned some of these to my keeper, and she was
quite supportive of the notion. (Finally putting the trim up around
the expanded closet doors helped.) I grew so bold as to suggest that
the outbuilding should not be called a garage, but a shop. She
replied, "So long as I can fit two minivans inside, you can do
whatever you want with the rest."

I'll keep working on her, fellas. ;-D

Del Rawlins

August 4th 03, 07:02 AM

On 03 Aug 2003 08:36 PM, Corrie posted the following:

> A follow-up. I mentioned some of these to my keeper, and she was
> quite supportive of the notion. (Finally putting the trim up around
> the expanded closet doors helped.) I grew so bold as to suggest that
> the outbuilding should not be called a garage, but a shop. She
> replied, "So long as I can fit two minivans inside, you can do
> whatever you want with the rest."

Two minivans? Man, you really do have problems. That is just sick.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Ernest Christley

August 4th 03, 06:46 PM

B2431 wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Your fancy schmancy dream machine
>>From: Ernest Christley
>>Date: 8/3/2003 1:25 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Rich S. wrote:
>>
>>>"Brock" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>Your absolutely right on, Brock! I can't believe that all those assholes
>>>that tried to design and build airplanes since the discovery of fire tried
>>>and failed. They were absolutely so stupid!!!!
>>>
>>
>>No, they weren't stupid. They just didn't have the advantage of a
>>library full of books, a dozen computer simulation programs, college
>>courses, NACA studies printed online.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>--
>>----Because I can----
>>http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
>>------------------------
>>
>
>
> Ernie, I have no dog in this fight, but what Brock said sure looked like
> sarcasm to me.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Doh!! You're right, Dan. Please accept my apologies, Brock. It really
didn't seem like sarcasm the first time I read it. Just seemed like the
typical attitude that I see a lot of in here.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

Ernest Christley

August 5th 03, 01:21 AM

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

> Smart ass punk, Ernest Christley...
>
> If 50 years of flight, all my ratings and many thousands of
> hours make me a snot nosed ****er, where do you think
> that places you in the food chain?
>

I was waiting for you to reply with that, Bob. Such a predictable fish.

Straight out of college, I started with a Fortune 100 that will rename
nameless, except to say that they built business machnines
internationally. All smart, green and full of vigor. Got put on the
leading feature for the next release.

Not to get to technical with something other than aviation, but this
product depended upon a hash table as a central data repository. A hash
table is a data structure that is designed to make storing and finding
sparse data fast and efficient. You take the data you want to store,
'hash' it to get a value, and use that value as an index into a table
where the data will go. The central element here is speed. The system
was limited by the speed of the hash table, and the speed of the hash
table is limited in many ways by the efficiency of the hashing algorithm.

My team started to base our hash table off of one used in the product
the we were extending. I took a close look at the hashing algorithm
used, and it was based on an even earlier product. But the earlier
product was a totally different beast that had only a cursory simularity
to what we were working on. Did I mention that hashing algorithms
should be application specific? For our application, the proposed
solution was dog slow.

Fortunately, the previous 'engineer' was still around. So, I went to
ask why she had used that particular solution. She got huffy and
practically screamed that 'it had worked before!!'

OK. But this was a different situation. I set up test cases for a
head-to-head comparison, and demonstrated a 30% speed increase on live
code. But still all she had to say was, "It can't be changed, because it
worked before." The team unanimously chose to implement my algorithm
over the one chosen by a engineer with 30yrs of service. Why? Because
I applied my brain to the actual situation, improved the product, and
was able to test and document substantial improvements.

All that to say, 50 years of sniffing pesticides while just barely
managing to not get decapitated by a powerline doesn't necessarily mean
that you have all the answers. In fact, it doesn't mean that you
necessarily have ANY answers. From what you post here, I'd have to
assume that it means little more than that you're a trained monkey who
knows little more than how to handle his own stick.

What do you add to the conversation? How have you advanced the state of
aviation? Have you ever tried an experiment to improve an airplane's
performance? Did you document what you did and what your results were?
If you did experiment, how do you justify departing from the safe
status quo, and more importantly how did you avoid becoming a statistic?
If not why are you such a blow hard dragging down our discussions with
your chicken little, "You're gonna die" dead weight?

As for food chain...

Where the hell do you think you are? There is no food chain. There's
just you and me, and we just disagree.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

Barnyard BOb --

August 5th 03, 01:39 AM

Ernest Christley > wrote:

>Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
>> Smart ass punk, Ernest Christley...
>>
>> If 50 years of flight, all my ratings and many thousands of
>> hours make me a snot nosed ****er, where do you think
>> that places you in the food chain?
>>
>
>I was waiting for you to reply with that, Bob. Such a predictable fish.

Thank you for the compliment, foolish one.
Being a predictable 'fish' is what I have strived for all my life.
Anything less would fit your adolescent 'suit'.

>Where the hell do you think you are?

I'm here in RAH with 50 years of aviation experience
and knowledge... attempting to keep you from killing yourself.

>There is no food chain. There's
>just you and me, and we just disagree.

No ****, Sherlock.
Shows that you're at greater risk than first thought.
What kind of flowers do you like?

Barnyard BOb --

Barnyard BOb --

August 5th 03, 02:49 PM

Ernest Christley wrote:

>> Smart ass punk, Ernest Christley...
>>
>> If 50 years of flight, all my ratings and many thousands of
>> hours make me a snot nosed ****er, where do you think
>> that places you in the food chain?
>>
>
>I was waiting for you to reply with that, Bob. Such a predictable fish.
>
>Straight out of college, I started with a Fortune 100 that will rename
>nameless, except to say that they built business machnines
>internationally. All smart, green and full of vigor. Got put on the
>leading feature for the next release.

Straight out of college with a Fortune 50 company, my son from
one of the nation's most prestigious engineering colleges was
an accident going somewhere to happen with his PPL. All it
took was a moonless hazy night over the Everglades and he was
well on his way to playing lawn dart, like Value Jet, in that swamp.
As good fortune would have it, I was along for the ride. I made
a difference. He would have been as dead as JFK, Jr and his
passengers - without a doubt. His membership in MENSA was
not about to save his youthful, cocky, brilliant, inexperienced ass.

What that young man came away with in that one experience
was respect. Something you have yet to learn. Gone is his
contempt and cockiness. He now has his Commercial,
Instrument, multi-engine, CFI rating, TWO Masters degrees
and several patents with his Fortune 50 company....yet when
it comes to GA flying , guess who he still consults?

Your contempt is your worst enemy and it can kill you as surely
as any brilliant surgeon that has gotten in over his head playing
God in his Bonanza.

>Not to get to technical with something other than aviation, but this
>product depended upon a hash table as a central data repository.

Who gives a rat's ass? All it appears to be worth here, is generating
deadly contempt between your very green ears that will at some
point get you snuffed! Wake up and get a clue!!!!

> A hash
>table is a data structure that is designed to make storing and finding
>sparse data fast and efficient. You take the data you want to store,
>'hash' it to get a value, and use that value as an index into a table
>where the data will go. The central element here is speed. The system
>was limited by the speed of the hash table, and the speed of the hash
>table is limited in many ways by the efficiency of the hashing algorithm.

And what does this have to do with surviving as test pilot in a one of
a kind computer designed potential coffin?

>My team started to base our hash table off of one used in the product
>the we were extending. I took a close look at the hashing algorithm
>used, and it was based on an even earlier product. But the earlier
>product was a totally different beast that had only a cursory simularity
>to what we were working on. Did I mention that hashing algorithms
>should be application specific? For our application, the proposed
>solution was dog slow.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Christ, not only are you are as lame as they come in RAH...
nobody is more full of themselves than you.

>All that to say, 50 years of sniffing pesticides while just barely
>managing to not get decapitated by a powerline doesn't necessarily mean
>that you have all the answers. In fact, it doesn't mean that you
>necessarily have ANY answers. From what you post here, I'd have to
>assume that it means little more than that you're a trained monkey who
>knows little more than how to handle his own stick.

Talk about a 'predictable fish'. <g>
You are the mutha of al trophies...
and a spoiled brat, regardless of your chronological age.

FWIW...
I'm not here to post a resume. I will just say that my training
extends far beyond crop dusting. However, your resume has
made a buffoon of u and very much a 'fish' out of water,
if you want to relate it to airplane training and experience.

>What do you add to the conversation? How have you advanced the state of
>aviation? Have you ever tried an experiment to improve an airplane's
>performance? Did you document what you did and what your results were?
> If you did experiment, how do you justify departing from the safe
>status quo, and more importantly how did you avoid becoming a statistic?
>If not why are you such a blow hard dragging down our discussions with
>your chicken little, "You're gonna die" dead weight?

LIke I initially stated -- You're a smart ass
and an accident going somewhere to happen.
Unless you get very lucky like my son did....
you're a dead man walking.
Mark my word.

The last word.is yours.
I don't suffer mouthy fools like you for long.

Barnyard BOb - 50 years of flight

Bill Taylor

August 5th 03, 06:21 PM

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:25:51 GMT, Ernest Christley
> wrote:

>Some of you snot nosed ****ers are so full of yourselves.

I must say, of all the posters in this thread, you seem the most "snot
nosed and full of yourself".

>Anyone with above average intelligence can design a build a plane with the right
>attitude.

One need only look to the early ultralight years to see the carnage
wrought by the designs of those of "above average intelligence" who
*thought* they had the "right attitude". Many of those designers
lacked experience with time proven airplane designs and building
techniques.

Go build your Delta Dyke, Ernest, and stop bull ****ting about
"advancing the state of aviation" - something of which you clearly
haven't a clue. The original poster suggested that you dreamers
build, fly, and maintain a time proven design first, that's all. If
after that you still want to design and build your dream machine then
have at it. You may still kill yourself in the process but your
chances of building something that doesn't kill you will be better
than if you hadn't built that first time proven design. A simple
concept but, apparently, not simple enough for some.

OldCop

August 5th 03, 07:45 PM

Woof, Woof, was all the olddog could mutter. It seems he was comfortable on
the the porch even if the letters on the mat were well worn. But, he felt
safe there watching as all the big dogs growled and snapped at each other in
playful glee on the busy street.

He knew his place,

Woof, Woof

OldCop

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ernest Christley wrote:
>
> >> Smart ass punk, Ernest Christley...
> >>
> >> If 50 years of flight, all my ratings and many thousands of
> >> hours make me a snot nosed ****er, where do you think
> >> that places you in the food chain?
> >>
> >
> >I was waiting for you to reply with that, Bob. Such a predictable fish.
> >
> >Straight out of college, I started with a Fortune 100 that will rename
> >nameless, except to say that they built business machnines
> >internationally. All smart, green and full of vigor. Got put on the
> >leading feature for the next release.
>
> Straight out of college with a Fortune 50 company, my son from
> one of the nation's most prestigious engineering colleges was
> an accident going somewhere to happen with his PPL. All it
> took was a moonless hazy night over the Everglades and he was
> well on his way to playing lawn dart, like Value Jet, in that swamp.
> As good fortune would have it, I was along for the ride. I made
> a difference. He would have been as dead as JFK, Jr and his
> passengers - without a doubt. His membership in MENSA was
> not about to save his youthful, cocky, brilliant, inexperienced ass.
>
> What that young man came away with in that one experience
> was respect. Something you have yet to learn. Gone is his
> contempt and cockiness. He now has his Commercial,
> Instrument, multi-engine, CFI rating, TWO Masters degrees
> and several patents with his Fortune 50 company....yet when
> it comes to GA flying , guess who he still consults?
>
> Your contempt is your worst enemy and it can kill you as surely
> as any brilliant surgeon that has gotten in over his head playing
> God in his Bonanza.
>
> >Not to get to technical with something other than aviation, but this
> >product depended upon a hash table as a central data repository.
>
> Who gives a rat's ass? All it appears to be worth here, is generating
> deadly contempt between your very green ears that will at some
> point get you snuffed! Wake up and get a clue!!!!
>
> > A hash
> >table is a data structure that is designed to make storing and finding
> >sparse data fast and efficient. You take the data you want to store,
> >'hash' it to get a value, and use that value as an index into a table
> >where the data will go. The central element here is speed. The system
> >was limited by the speed of the hash table, and the speed of the hash
> >table is limited in many ways by the efficiency of the hashing algorithm.
>
> And what does this have to do with surviving as test pilot in a one of
> a kind computer designed potential coffin?
>
> >My team started to base our hash table off of one used in the product
> >the we were extending. I took a close look at the hashing algorithm
> >used, and it was based on an even earlier product. But the earlier
> >product was a totally different beast that had only a cursory simularity
> >to what we were working on. Did I mention that hashing algorithms
> >should be application specific? For our application, the proposed
> >solution was dog slow.
>
> Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
> Christ, not only are you are as lame as they come in RAH...
> nobody is more full of themselves than you.
>
> >All that to say, 50 years of sniffing pesticides while just barely
> >managing to not get decapitated by a powerline doesn't necessarily mean
> >that you have all the answers. In fact, it doesn't mean that you
> >necessarily have ANY answers. From what you post here, I'd have to
> >assume that it means little more than that you're a trained monkey who
> >knows little more than how to handle his own stick.
>
> Talk about a 'predictable fish'. <g>
> You are the mutha of al trophies...
> and a spoiled brat, regardless of your chronological age.
>
> FWIW...
> I'm not here to post a resume. I will just say that my training
> extends far beyond crop dusting. However, your resume has
> made a buffoon of u and very much a 'fish' out of water,
> if you want to relate it to airplane training and experience.
>
> >What do you add to the conversation? How have you advanced the state of
> >aviation? Have you ever tried an experiment to improve an airplane's
> >performance? Did you document what you did and what your results were?
> > If you did experiment, how do you justify departing from the safe
> >status quo, and more importantly how did you avoid becoming a statistic?
> >If not why are you such a blow hard dragging down our discussions with
> >your chicken little, "You're gonna die" dead weight?
>
> LIke I initially stated -- You're a smart ass
> and an accident going somewhere to happen.
> Unless you get very lucky like my son did....
> you're a dead man walking.
> Mark my word.
>
> The last word.is yours.
> I don't suffer mouthy fools like you for long.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - 50 years of flight

Barnyard BOb --

August 6th 03, 12:25 AM

>Bob,
>
>Why are you letting yourself get so worked up over that ****? We are
>getting to the age when we need to evaluate the risk of stroke, etc.
>
>You are still my hero.
>
>O-ring
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Shucks, O-ring....
Being a hero to a man of your stature stresses me out
far more than any of this lightweight wannabee crap.

P.S.
Did you fly that gorgeous C-310 to OSH this year?

Barnyard BOb - 50 years of flight

B2431

August 6th 03, 02:09 AM

>
>Del Rawlins > wrote in message
>> Two minivans? Man, you really do have problems. That is just sick.
>
>I know, I know. Even worse, my house in the suburbs has a picket
>fence. Not a white picket fence - low-maintenance cedar - but it's a
>picket fence nonetheless. No dog or cat - allergies - but we make up
>for it by having 4 kids. As the song says, who woulda thunk it? In
>my defense, my lawn looks really lousy.
>
>Two minivans is the wife's idea. One is fine by me - personally, I
>want a pickup as a second vehicle. But the notion of having two
>vehicles that the whole fandamly can fit in does make some sense - if
>the one (current) van goes down, somebody has to stay home. My wife
>doesn't fly, but she does understand redundancy. ;-D
>
Lawn flamingoes or gnomes?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Roger Halstead

August 6th 03, 02:43 AM

On 5 Aug 2003 11:29:02 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:

>Del Rawlins > wrote in message
>> Two minivans? Man, you really do have problems. That is just sick.
>
>I know, I know. Even worse, my house in the suburbs has a picket
>fence. Not a white picket fence - low-maintenance cedar - but it's a
>picket fence nonetheless. No dog or cat - allergies - but we make up
>for it by having 4 kids. As the song says, who woulda thunk it? In
>my defense, my lawn looks really lousy.
>
>Two minivans is the wife's idea. One is fine by me - personally, I
>want a pickup as a second vehicle. But the notion of having two

For me an SUV works out better than the truck. Course any thing I
drive, including the Transam gets used like a truck. I used to haul a
bundle of 10 foot lengths of steel conduit in the TA and actually get
the hatch shut. 4 X 8 foot sheets of plywood and I couldn't quite
get the hatch closed...close, but not quite.

With the 4-Runner I can slip a K1-A5 300 HP Lycombing right in back
with room to spare. (I have a plastic liner for the back)

What you need in place of the truck is one of those huge SUVs in the
"Snickers" candy bar add. <:-)) Then you can tell her the whole
family, the neighbors, and the local soccer team can ride in it...all
at the same time. I mean, if you got 4 kids then they are going to
have to show up at some kind of sports event all at the same time, on
opposite sides of town. Better get a spare SUV and Pickup.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>vehicles that the whole fandamly can fit in does make some sense - if
>the one (current) van goes down, somebody has to stay home. My wife
>doesn't fly, but she does understand redundancy. ;-D

Del Rawlins

August 6th 03, 03:18 AM

On 05 Aug 2003 05:43 PM, Roger Halstead posted the following:
> On 5 Aug 2003 11:29:02 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:

>>Two minivans is the wife's idea. One is fine by me - personally, I
>>want a pickup as a second vehicle. But the notion of having two
>
> For me an SUV works out better than the truck. Course any thing I
> drive, including the Transam gets used like a truck. I used to haul a
> bundle of 10 foot lengths of steel conduit in the TA and actually get
> the hatch shut. 4 X 8 foot sheets of plywood and I couldn't quite
> get the hatch closed...close, but not quite.
>
> With the 4-Runner I can slip a K1-A5 300 HP Lycombing right in back
> with room to spare. (I have a plastic liner for the back)

Though we don't have any kids (yet), my solution was to recondition my
old '73 3/4 ton pickup (which my dad bought new). It will tow or haul
just about anything I need moved, and allows me to have a nice Jeep (but
honey, it's a 4 passenger vehicle...) as my daily transportation. The
truck rebuild did cost more than I would have liked (mostly cosmetic
work), but I'm still financially ahead of where I would have been had I
bought a 3/4 ton, extended cab pickup. And instead of driving that
monstrosity around everywhere, I have a lot of fun with my Jeep. Wife
drives a 4 door Subaru (which may yet lose its engine for a "higher"
purpose).

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

pac plyer

August 6th 03, 03:25 AM

"OldCop" > wrote

> Woof, Woof, was all the olddog could mutter. It seems he was comfortable on
> the the porch even if the letters on the mat were well worn. But, he felt
> safe there watching as all the big dogs growled and snapped at each other in
> playful glee on the busy street.
>
> He knew his place,
>
> Woof, Woof
>
> OldCop
>

Pac sez:

Major, you would have made a great cargo dog. :-) Good luck on you project.

pacplyer

Ernest Christley

August 6th 03, 03:51 AM

Bill Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:25:51 GMT, Ernest Christley
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Some of you snot nosed ****ers are so full of yourselves.
>
>
> I must say, of all the posters in this thread, you seem the most "snot
> nosed and full of yourself".
>
>
>>Anyone with above average intelligence can design a build a plane with the right
>>attitude.
>
>
> One need only look to the early ultralight years to see the carnage
> wrought by the designs of those of "above average intelligence" who
> *thought* they had the "right attitude". Many of those designers
> lacked experience with time proven airplane designs and building
> techniques.

Were they asking questions and running careful experiments? Or were
they throwing a bed sheet over some bamboo and yelling, "Heh, Bubba,
watch what the FAA says I can do!"

>
> Go build your Delta Dyke, Ernest, and stop bull ****ting about
> "advancing the state of aviation" - something of which you clearly
> haven't a clue. The original poster suggested that you dreamers
> build, fly, and maintain a time proven design first, that's all. If
> after that you still want to design and build your dream machine then
> have at it. You may still kill yourself in the process but your
> chances of building something that doesn't kill you will be better
> than if you hadn't built that first time proven design. A simple
> concept but, apparently, not simple enough for some.
>
>
>

So you would set a poll tax upon asking questions here in RAH? What if
the plans for that time proven design aren't complete? How long must I
to fly that time proven design before I can ask questions? And just how
many accident reports list asking questions in RAH as a contributing cause?

It is a simple concept. Learning before doing. But is building a plane
the only way to learn how to build a plane?

I've learned a hundred things from post on this group that sprung from
some newbie asking a 'dream' question. Things that have improved my
Delta. Some things were completely new information. Some things were
just a better way of looking at the same old stuff. Often a simple
question has lead to a warning to do/not do something that I may have
been completely oblivious to. Why should I stop asking, learning or
experimenting just because I haven't built an airplane? Why should I do
anything that would chill anyone else's desire to do the same? Why
should I stop doing the one thing that seperates humans from trained
monkeys? Especially when one question can lead to saving hours in
building (because I don't have to redo something).

Because it's dangerous? Isn't that the point of experimenting, BEFORE
you fly it? Even then, isn't it better than sitting in your own
excrement until the nurse comes while you wait to die at the end of a
boring life. (Yes, it is a horribly mangled attempt to paraphrase a very
good sentiment.)

And as a final statement, try a thought experiment. Assume all the
dreamers dissappear. Given that people who participate here represent
an extreme wealth of knowledge, what will happen to that knowledge?
Will Jim Weir just randomly drop pearls of wisdom (I know he does in
Kitplanes, but I mean here for free)? Will Veedubber just mindlessly
throw out information on why you can't get 2,000hp out of 50cu. in.?
What will be the sounding board?

I say let the dreamers share what they're thinking. And let the rest of
us try to keep up.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

Corrie

August 6th 03, 08:42 AM

> Lawn flamingoes or gnomes?
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

I want a plywood yardbutt, but She Who Must Be Obeyed nixes it every
time I suggest it.

Corrie

August 6th 03, 08:47 AM

> With the 4-Runner I can slip a K1-A5 300 HP Lycombing right in back
> with room to spare. (I have a plastic liner for the back)

Hey - you can drop that baby by ANYTIME.

> What you need in place of the truck is one of those huge SUVs in the
> "Snickers" candy bar add. <:-)) Then you can tell her the whole
> family, the neighbors, and the local soccer team can ride in it...all
> at the same time. I mean, if you got 4 kids then they are going to
> have to show up at some kind of sports event all at the same time, on
> opposite sides of town. Better get a spare SUV and Pickup.

Not that I particularly want an SUV, mind you, but I might have do it.
Haven't seen the Snickers ad, but there's another one that looks
interesting. A Chevy somethingerother, IIRC. Something about seating
seven and having room for gear - and they call it midsize! Sheesh.

Badwater Bill

August 6th 03, 11:53 AM

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:25:51 GMT, Ernest Christley
> wrote:

>Rich S. wrote:
>> "Brock" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>> Your absolutely right on, Brock! I can't believe that all those assholes
>> that tried to design and build airplanes since the discovery of fire tried
>> and failed. They were absolutely so stupid!!!!
>>
>
>No, they weren't stupid. They just didn't have the advantage of a
>library full of books, a dozen computer simulation programs, college
>courses, NACA studies printed online.

Well put.

>
>Some of you snot nosed ****ers are so full of yourselves. Anyone with
>above average intelligence can design a build a plane with the right
>attitude. Unfortunately, that attitude does not include, "Heh, Bubba.
>Watch this!!", but there's no reason to believe that someone can't do it
>just because you can't.

Some of these ****ers are not only so full of themselves, they don't
know **** to boot. Most haven't even soloed by the way they write.
They are the Kitplanes subscribers of the world who have 3 hours in
their logbook mostly. Then they get in here and try to talk the talk
and walk the walk. It's hillarious at times.

Or you have the old ****ers who think they know it all and who've been
flying for40 years but been screwing it up for that 40 years...doing
the same **** wrong over and over, yet, somehow surviving.

RAH, collectively has a mean aviation IQ of about 50. Expect that and
you might get some entertainment out of the place.

Badwater Bill

Badwater Bill

August 6th 03, 11:58 AM

>Because it's dangerous? Isn't that the point of experimenting, BEFORE
>you fly it? Even then, isn't it better than sitting in your own
>excrement until the nurse comes while you wait to die at the end of a
>boring life. (Yes, it is a horribly mangled attempt to paraphrase a very
>good sentiment.)

I liked it. You have the right perspective. My motto from Heinlin is
to Take Big Bites of Life, Moderation is for Monks.

>
>And as a final statement, try a thought experiment. Assume all the
>dreamers dissappear. Given that people who participate here represent
>an extreme wealth of knowledge, what will happen to that knowledge?
>Will Jim Weir just randomly drop pearls of wisdom (I know he does in
>Kitplanes, but I mean here for free)? Will Veedubber just mindlessly
>throw out information on why you can't get 2,000hp out of 50cu. in.?
>What will be the sounding board?

Good points...all.

>
>I say let the dreamers share what they're thinking. And let the rest of
>us try to keep up.

You see, your in the wrong place for this, for the most part. Be
careful. I've seen a lot of information passed on here over the years
that's actually directed people to do dangerous things, especially
some of the maintenance comments.

BWB

Richard Lamb

August 6th 03, 12:50 PM

Brock wrote:
>
> It still seems people are a wee bit mystic and dreamy about airplane
> design, construction and flight.
>
> Brock

yeah...

http://home.flash.net/~lamb01/dreams.htm

O-ring Seals

August 6th 03, 06:38 PM

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:25:42 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>P.S.
>Did you fly that gorgeous C-310 to OSH this year?
>
>
>Barnyard BOb - 50 years of flight

No Bob, but I did go to Arlington. The old bird won a Champion award
in the contemporary category there for the second year in a row.

O

Capt. Doug

August 7th 03, 05:06 AM

>pac plyer wrote in message > Now that I
> think about it, the go fast arg makes sense, cuz the first 2 degree
> position is almost all lift, no drag. (BTW My email is current inop)

The 727 wing is still the most awesome wing Boeing designed. It will do
decent short-field work (at reasonable weights) and still cruise M.88 (Mmo
is .90). Then computers replaced slide-rules.

Dragging the flaps wasn't done for speed. It was done for altitude. There is
a current STC that resets the LED and flap settings for optimizing cruise at
M.77 instead of M.84. The LEDs droop slightly, the flaps hang down 2
degrees, and winglets are installed. That allows the 727 to climb from FL290
to FL330 while weighing 8000# more.

D.

OldCop

August 7th 03, 02:01 PM

Thanks Pac, I almost choose that direction. I used to go along on some
frieght trips years ago, hauling kidneys for transplants and checks to ATL
in a 310. I was along for the ride and experience. The guy I used to be
facinated with flew either a Beech 18 or Loadstar into SDF with his black
lab as his copilot. I think he had pt6's on it if my memory serves me
correct. I thought that was kind of cool. Oh well, my life has turned out
pretty well sticking with the cop shop but I am really tired of it after 29
years.
My son just graduated from Purdue and is instructing at JVY so I might get
off my rusty dusty and do it yet, become a freight dog. I enjoy your post,
keep your sense of humor,

Dirtyside Down

OldCop
"pac plyer" > wrote in message
om...
> "OldCop" > wrote
>
> > Woof, Woof, was all the olddog could mutter. It seems he was comfortable
on
> > the the porch even if the letters on the mat were well worn. But, he
felt
> > safe there watching as all the big dogs growled and snapped at each
other in
> > playful glee on the busy street.
> >
> > He knew his place,
> >
> > Woof, Woof
> >
> > OldCop
> >
>
> Pac sez:
>
> Major, you would have made a great cargo dog. :-) Good luck on you
project.
>
> pacplyer