aerobatic kit planes

[[email protected]]

What are the kit or plans built planes that people use for aerobatics?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:44ab21c3-d16f-4704-8d5e-
:

> What are the kit or plans built planes that people use for aerobatics?
>

lots of 'em. You want to go to rec.aviation.homebuilt for some real info,
but it depends on how much $ you got and what you want to do with he
aiplane (sport competition, one or two seat, etc)
Probably the best beginners aerobatic airplane is the EAAs own Acrosport II


Bertie.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 16, 4:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:44ab21c3-d16f-4704-8d5e-
> :
>
> > What are the kit or plans built planes that people use for aerobatics?
>
> lots of 'em. You want to go to rec.aviation.homebuilt for some real info,
> but it depends on how much $ you got and what you want to do with he
> aiplane (sport competition, one or two seat, etc)
> Probably the best beginners aerobatic airplane is the EAAs own Acrosport II
>
> Bertie.

Thanks will check out both.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Dec 16, 4:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:44ab21c3-d16f-4704-8d5e-
>> :
>>
>> > What are the kit or plans built planes that people use for
>> > aerobatics?
>>
>> lots of 'em. You want to go to rec.aviation.homebuilt for some real
>> info, but it depends on how much $ you got and what you want to do
>> with he aiplane (sport competition, one or two seat, etc)
>> Probably the best beginners aerobatic airplane is the EAAs own
>> Acrosport II
>>
>> Bertie.
>
> Thanks will check out both.

I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of money.
A low performance bipe like that makes a good first aerobatic trainer
because it will be easy enough to do the manuevers, yet difficult enough to
do them well, and a well built one should be just about unbreakable.

Bertie

[Lou]

..
>
> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of money.
> A low performance bipe like that makes a good first aerobatic trainer
> because it will be easy enough to do the manuevers, yet difficult enough to
> do them well, and a well built one should be just about unbreakable.
>
> Bertie

Wow Bertie,
You actually gave helpful information without cussing and
making an ass out of yourself. Are you back on the meds?
Lou

[F. Baum]

On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of money.
> A low performance bipe like that makes a good first aerobatic trainer
> because it will be easy enough to do the manuevers, yet difficult enough to
> do them well, and a well built one should be just about unbreakable.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> What are the kit or plans built planes that people use for aerobatics?

The choice of a bipe aerobatic airplane that you can build and the
ramifications involved with the decision on which aircraft to pick is a
subject way too complicated for a simple thread here on the forum.
Without knowing your skill levels both flying wise and as a builder, and
assuming you might be at the novice end of the scale (no offense
implied; just picking the best scenario from which to advise you)
A Pitts can be a real handful for a novice and some others like the
Skybolt can be a handful for a novice builder.
My recommendation would be to consult with EAA initially and possibly
consider building an AcroSport. Paul Poberezny designed this plane and
he did that with the novice builder in mind. The plans are written in
plain English and in easy to understand terms. A lot of beginning
builders have built the AcroSport and were happy with its performance.
I believe you can now build it with either the M6 or a symmetrical wing
if you like inverted stuff.
There are several engine choices as well depending on your pocketbook.
This is just a general answer for you of course, and my suggestion to
contact EAA is a sound one. For someone considering building a plane of
any kind, EAA is a priceless resource whose value can't be calculated.
Lots of luck whatever you do.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Stefan]

Lou schrieb:

> Wow Bertie,
> You actually gave helpful information without cussing and
> making an ass out of yourself.

Now if he only would learn how to properly trim a message...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Lou > wrote in
:

> .
>>
>> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of money.
>> A low performance bipe like that makes a good first aerobatic trainer
>> because it will be easy enough to do the manuevers, yet difficult
>> enough to do them well, and a well built one should be just about
>> unbreakable.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Wow Bertie,
> You actually gave helpful information without cussing and
> making an ass out of yourself. Are you back on the meds?
>


No-ope, always like this you're just too ****ing stupid to see through to
my sensitive side, asshole.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:1bcf7$4766be6e$d9a270c7
:

> Lou schrieb:
>
>> Wow Bertie,
>> You actually gave helpful information without cussing and
>> making an ass out of yourself.
>
> Now if he only would learn how to properly trim a message...
>

Sorry, that's against my code of ethics..



You should just be grateful i'm not still using my old sig file.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in
:

> On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of money.
>> A low performance bipe like that makes a good first aerobatic trainer
>> because it will be easy enough to do the manuevers, yet difficult
>> enough to do them well, and a well built one should be just about
>> unbreakable.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
> How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?
>

Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon years ago. the
Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in aerobatics it's
probably not the best choice unless you're under a steady hand during the
initial, scary bits.
The Decathlon is relatively clean an the entry speeds for some manuevers
are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are inherently stronger ( unless
the airplane is a piece of crap), but th eDecathlon will do in a pinch!
It's nto a kitplane or anything like one, of course! Even a good second
hand Decathlon wil set you back over fifty grand.
The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are both fine
airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

john smith > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "F. Baum" > wrote in
>> news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
>>>> money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
>>>> aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
>>>> manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well built
>>>> one should be just about unbreakable.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>> How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?
>>>
>>
>> Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon years ago.
>> the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in aerobatics
>> it's probably not the best choice unless you're under a steady hand
>> during the initial, scary bits.
>> The Decathlon is relatively clean an the entry speeds for some
>> manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are inherently
>> stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap), but th eDecathlon
>> will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one, of
>> course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back over fifty
>> grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are both
>> fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
>
> Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be a
> fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.
>

Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use one.
Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think I've ever seen
one.
Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a CS prop on an aerobatic
airplane is definitely a plus for a lot of reasons. Better perfromance
and better braking if you screw it up!

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> john smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "F. Baum" > wrote in
>>> news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
> @b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>>>> On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
>>>>> money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
>>>>> aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
>>>>> manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well built
>>>>> one should be just about unbreakable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>> How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?
>>>>
>>> Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon years ago.
>>> the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in aerobatics
>>> it's probably not the best choice unless you're under a steady hand
>>> during the initial, scary bits.
>>> The Decathlon is relatively clean an the entry speeds for some
>>> manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are inherently
>>> stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap), but th eDecathlon
>>> will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one, of
>>> course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back over fifty
>>> grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are both
>>> fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
>> Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be a
>> fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.
>>
>
> Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use one.
> Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think I've ever seen
> one.
> Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a CS prop on an aerobatic
> airplane is definitely a plus for a lot of reasons. Better perfromance
> and better braking if you screw it up!
>
> Bertie
I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a constant
speed Hartzel on it.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> john smith > wrote in
>> :
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "F. Baum" > wrote in
>>>> news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
>> @b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>>>>> On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
>>>>>> money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
>>>>>> aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
>>>>>> manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well built
>>>>>> one should be just about unbreakable.
>>>>>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>> How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?
>>>>>
>>>> Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon years ago.
>>>> the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in aerobatics
>>>> it's probably not the best choice unless you're under a steady hand
>>>> during the initial, scary bits. The Decathlon is relatively clean an
>>>> the entry speeds for some
>>>> manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are inherently
>>>> stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap), but th eDecathlon
>>>> will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one, of
>>>> course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back over fifty
>>>> grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are both
>>>> fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
>>> Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be a
>>> fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.
>>>
>>
>> Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use one.
>> Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think I've ever
>> seen one. Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a CS prop on an
>> aerobatic airplane is definitely a plus for a lot of reasons. Better
>> perfromance and better braking if you screw it up!
>> Bertie
> I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a constant
> speed Hartzel on it.
>
Come to think of it, I do recall seeing something about Decathlons being
available with fixed pitch props but never ran across one. Ours had the
Hartzel.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> john smith > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> "F. Baum" > wrote in
>>>>> news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
>>> @b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>> On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
>>>>>>> money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
>>>>>>> aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
>>>>>>> manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well
built
>>>>>>> one should be just about unbreakable.
>>>>>>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon years
ago.
>>>>> the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in aerobatics
>>>>> it's probably not the best choice unless you're under a steady
hand
>>>>> during the initial, scary bits. The Decathlon is relatively clean
an
>>>>> the entry speeds for some
>>>>> manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are inherently
>>>>> stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap), but th
eDecathlon
>>>>> will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one, of
>>>>> course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back over
fifty
>>>>> grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are
both
>>>>> fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
>>>> Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be a
>>>> fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use one.
>>> Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think I've ever
>>> seen one. Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a CS prop on an
>>> aerobatic airplane is definitely a plus for a lot of reasons. Better
>>> perfromance and better braking if you screw it up!
>>> Bertie
>> I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a constant
>> speed Hartzel on it.
>>
> Come to think of it, I do recall seeing something about Decathlons
being
> available with fixed pitch props but never ran across one. Ours had
the
> Hartzel.
>
>

Yeah, Might have been an option that nearly everyone took up. I think
you could get a Citabria with one IIRC. They're making them again now
and they're slightly different spec to the old ones, I think

Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Dec 17, 3:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>> john smith > wrote in
> :
> >>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>>>> "F. Baum" > wrote in
> >>>>> news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
> >>> @b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>> On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>>>>>> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
> >>>>>>> money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
> >>>>>>> aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
> >>>>>>> manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well
> built
> >>>>>>> one should be just about unbreakable.
> >>>>>>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>> How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?
>
> >>>>> Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon years
> ago.
> >>>>> the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in aerobatics
> >>>>> it's probably not the best choice unless you're under a steady
> hand
> >>>>> during the initial, scary bits. The Decathlon is relatively clean
> an
> >>>>> the entry speeds for some
> >>>>> manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are inherently
> >>>>> stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap), but th
> eDecathlon
> >>>>> will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one, of
> >>>>> course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back over
> fifty
> >>>>> grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are
> both
> >>>>> fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
> >>>> Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be a
> >>>> fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.
>
> >>> Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use one.
> >>> Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think I've ever
> >>> seen one. Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a CS prop on an
> >>> aerobatic airplane is definitely a plus for a lot of reasons. Better
> >>> perfromance and better braking if you screw it up!
> >>> Bertie
> >> I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a constant
> >> speed Hartzel on it.
>
> > Come to think of it, I do recall seeing something about Decathlons
> being
> > available with fixed pitch props but never ran across one. Ours had
> the
> > Hartzel.
>
> Yeah, Might have been an option that nearly everyone took up. I think
> you could get a Citabria with one IIRC. They're making them again now
> and they're slightly different spec to the old ones, I think
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

IIRC in the early days there was a Decathlon with 150 HP fixed pitch
and then the Super Decathlon with C/S prop. There is a late 90s
Decathlon made by ACA that is for sale in my neiborhood for under 100.
I have checked and it will fit in the hangar with my other
plane............. Gonna make an offer after the holidays.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> john smith > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> "F. Baum" > wrote in
>>>>>> news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
>>>> @b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>> On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>>> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
>>>>>>>> money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
>>>>>>>> aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
>>>>>>>> manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well
> built
>>>>>>>> one should be just about unbreakable.
>>>>>>>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon years
> ago.
>>>>>> the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in aerobatics
>>>>>> it's probably not the best choice unless you're under a steady
> hand
>>>>>> during the initial, scary bits. The Decathlon is relatively clean
> an
>>>>>> the entry speeds for some
>>>>>> manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are inherently
>>>>>> stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap), but th
> eDecathlon
>>>>>> will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one, of
>>>>>> course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back over
> fifty
>>>>>> grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are
> both
>>>>>> fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
>>>>> Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be a
>>>>> fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.
>>>>>
>>>> Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use one.
>>>> Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think I've ever
>>>> seen one. Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a CS prop on an
>>>> aerobatic airplane is definitely a plus for a lot of reasons. Better
>>>> perfromance and better braking if you screw it up!
>>>> Bertie
>>> I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a constant
>>> speed Hartzel on it.
>>>
>> Come to think of it, I do recall seeing something about Decathlons
> being
>> available with fixed pitch props but never ran across one. Ours had
> the
>> Hartzel.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, Might have been an option that nearly everyone took up. I think
> you could get a Citabria with one IIRC. They're making them again now
> and they're slightly different spec to the old ones, I think
>
> Bertie
I know I've seen and flown several and never seemed to come across one
with the fixed pitch prop but I'm sure there must have been a few out there.
We leased one back from a guy on the field to use for basic acro
introduction. If I remember right, there was a hefty AD issued on the
wing that cost a damn fortune for the owners.
I liked the airplane for what we did with it.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-12-17, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a constant
> speed Hartzel on it.

I had a '79 with 150HP and a fixed pitch prop.

--
Doug Carter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Doug Carter wrote:
> On 2007-12-17, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a constant
>> speed Hartzel on it.
>
> I had a '79 with 150HP and a fixed pitch prop.
>
> --
> Doug Carter
Solves that question. Thanks!


--
Dudley Henriques

[Kyle Boatright]

> wrote in message
...
> What are the kit or plans built planes that people use for aerobatics?

What kind of aerobatics do you want to do? Simple loop/roll kind of
maneuvers? Harder stuff like gyroscopic maneuvers?

Do you need cross country ability (say >150 mph cruise with at least one
passenger and bags)?

There is a full spectrum of options out there. For a good compromise
aircraft that loops and rolls well and offers good cross country ability,
the RV series is hard to beat. If your need is more biased towards hard
acro, Pitts and One Designs are very capable. If you want to learn acro,
there are several good choices listed elsewhere in the thread.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> What are the kit or plans built planes that people use for aerobatics?
>
> What kind of aerobatics do you want to do? Simple loop/roll kind of
> maneuvers? Harder stuff like gyroscopic maneuvers?
>
> Do you need cross country ability (say >150 mph cruise with at least one
> passenger and bags)?
>
> There is a full spectrum of options out there. For a good compromise
> aircraft that loops and rolls well and offers good cross country ability,
> the RV series is hard to beat. If your need is more biased towards hard
> acro, Pitts and One Designs are very capable. If you want to learn acro,
> there are several good choices listed elsewhere in the thread.
>
>

Not to mention the question that I hope you have asked yourself - but many
don't.

Do you want to fly or do you want to build?

If you want to fly and save a few bucks, by a used homebuilt. If you _want_
to build, great. Forget that I said anything.
Finding a "project" can save you some time if you just want to do "some"
building. But remember - a project that is 90% complete still has about 50%
of the work left to do ;-)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[[email protected]]

> Without knowing your skill levels both flying wise and as a builder, and
> assuming you might be at the novice end of the scale (no offense
> implied; just picking the best scenario from which to advise you)

Novice, novice.

> My recommendation would be to consult with EAA initially and possibly
> consider building an AcroSport. Paul Poberezny designed this plane and
> he did that with the novice builder in mind. The plans are written in
> plain English and in easy to understand terms. A lot of beginning
> builders have built the AcroSport and were happy with its performance.
> I believe you can now build it with either the M6 or a symmetrical wing
> if you like inverted stuff.

I will try all the permitted stuff in our club aerobat 152 before
deciding if I want to build an acrobatic aircraft or just buy
something like an aerobat. Of course an aerobat has only a limited
number of approved acrobatic maneuvers. Do people go nuts in those, or
do they stick to the approved only (which brings up the question of
what it is safe to do, say, in a well constructed acrosport that is
not a certificated plane ...)

I've been a lot more interested in monocoque aircraft for building,
particularly STOL -- a completely different kind of plane.

I'd have to practice a lot of welding with Richard Finch as a guide
and then get some EAA guy who's done that kind of aircraft advise me
the whole way through building the tube fuselage (and everything
else). Depending on that feedback I might hire a welder for the tube
stuff. That's just got to be perfect, and even if a weld looks good on
the outside it might not be so good on the inside. You don't want to
find out about that during a split S.

I've done a little welding but nothing my LIFE depended on!

> There are several engine choices as well depending on your pocketbook.
> This is just a general answer for you of course, and my suggestion to
> contact EAA is a sound one. For someone considering building a plane of
> any kind, EAA is a priceless resource whose value can't be calculated.
> Lots of luck whatever you do.

I'm an EAA member. They keep reminding me to renew, renew,
renew ... ;)

[[email protected]]

> Do you want to fly or do you want to build?

Both, actually. But I'm so new to flying I'm still figuring out what
kind of flying I'm most interested in doing.

I like to build things.

I'm intimidated by tube and fabric, which, though it is of the
earliest aircraft technology, sounds really time consuming in the
extreme. Still I can imagine that it's very rewarding.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
>> Without knowing your skill levels both flying wise and as a builder, and
>> assuming you might be at the novice end of the scale (no offense
>> implied; just picking the best scenario from which to advise you)
>
> Novice, novice.
>
>> My recommendation would be to consult with EAA initially and possibly
>> consider building an AcroSport. Paul Poberezny designed this plane and
>> he did that with the novice builder in mind. The plans are written in
>> plain English and in easy to understand terms. A lot of beginning
>> builders have built the AcroSport and were happy with its performance.
>> I believe you can now build it with either the M6 or a symmetrical wing
>> if you like inverted stuff.
>
> I will try all the permitted stuff in our club aerobat 152 before
> deciding if I want to build an acrobatic aircraft or just buy
> something like an aerobat. Of course an aerobat has only a limited
> number of approved acrobatic maneuvers. Do people go nuts in those, or
> do they stick to the approved only (which brings up the question of
> what it is safe to do, say, in a well constructed acrosport that is
> not a certificated plane ...)
>
> I've been a lot more interested in monocoque aircraft for building,
> particularly STOL -- a completely different kind of plane.
>
> I'd have to practice a lot of welding with Richard Finch as a guide
> and then get some EAA guy who's done that kind of aircraft advise me
> the whole way through building the tube fuselage (and everything
> else). Depending on that feedback I might hire a welder for the tube
> stuff. That's just got to be perfect, and even if a weld looks good on
> the outside it might not be so good on the inside. You don't want to
> find out about that during a split S.
>
> I've done a little welding but nothing my LIFE depended on!
>
>> There are several engine choices as well depending on your pocketbook.
>> This is just a general answer for you of course, and my suggestion to
>> contact EAA is a sound one. For someone considering building a plane of
>> any kind, EAA is a priceless resource whose value can't be calculated.
>> Lots of luck whatever you do.
>
> I'm an EAA member. They keep reminding me to renew, renew,
> renew ... ;)
You know, it's just a suggestion, but if you are a novice builder, I
would strongly suggest talking to EAA about what you would like to do
flying wise. They have a handle on just about every building project and
acro airplane for sale in the entire country.
Perhaps for someone like yourself, buying a well built already made
aircraft is a wise choice.
If there's a good buy out there, you can bet the farm that the EAA guys
will know about it and will steer you in the right direction.
This might be the best and least costly way for you to go.
As for the Aerobat; it's a 150 stressed for basic aerobatics as
placarded and little more. If all you want to do is see the world upside
down, the aerobat would be a perfect choice. God knows it will be a hell
of a lot less expensive than one of the higher performance birds.
I liked the bat for only one reason. If a student could do decent acro
in the bat, they could do it in anything :-)) It wallows, it slews, it
coughs up oil, but it's a safe little trainer for the basic stuff.
I will admidt it does a VERY nice snap roll, and spins are stable in the
Aerobat.
Anyway, it's a crap shoot until you nail down exactly what you want out
of an airplane and how much time and money you are willing to put into
getting there. So make those decisions first, then talk to EAA. Should
be a plan in there somewhere :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in
:

> On Dec 17, 3:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >>> john smith > wrote in
>> :
>> >>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >>>>> "F. Baum" > wrote in
>> >>>>> news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
>> >>> @b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>>> On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >>>>>>> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
>> >>>>>>> money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
>> >>>>>>> aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
>> >>>>>>> manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well
>> built
>> >>>>>>> one should be just about unbreakable.
>> >>>>>>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>>>>> How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?
>>
>> >>>>> Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon
>> >>>>> years
>> ago.
>> >>>>> the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in
>> >>>>> aerobatics it's probably not the best choice unless you're
>> >>>>> under a steady
>> hand
>> >>>>> during the initial, scary bits. The Decathlon is relatively
>> >>>>> clean
>> an
>> >>>>> the entry speeds for some
>> >>>>> manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are
>> >>>>> inherently stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap),
>> >>>>> but th
>> eDecathlon
>> >>>>> will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one,
>> >>>>> of course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back
>> >>>>> over
>> fifty
>> >>>>> grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are
>> both
>> >>>>> fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
>> >>>> Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be
>> >>>> a fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.
>>
>> >>> Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use
>> >>> one. Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think
>> >>> I've ever seen one. Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a
>> >>> CS prop on an aerobatic airplane is definitely a plus for a lot
>> >>> of reasons. Better perfromance and better braking if you screw it
>> >>> up! Bertie
>> >> I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a
>> >> constant speed Hartzel on it.
>>
>> > Come to think of it, I do recall seeing something about Decathlons
>> being
>> > available with fixed pitch props but never ran across one. Ours had
>> the
>> > Hartzel.
>>
>> Yeah, Might have been an option that nearly everyone took up. I think
>> you could get a Citabria with one IIRC. They're making them again now
>> and they're slightly different spec to the old ones, I think
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> IIRC in the early days there was a Decathlon with 150 HP fixed pitch
> and then the Super Decathlon with C/S prop. There is a late 90s
> Decathlon made by ACA that is for sale in my neiborhood for under 100.
> I have checked and it will fit in the hangar with my other
> plane............. Gonna make an offer after the holidays.


Brilliant! I really liked the Decathlon.
The small engined ones I flew all had CS props, though. I never flew the
180 HP version and I flew them from very early on.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> john smith > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> "F. Baum" > wrote in
>>>>>>> news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
>>>>> @b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
>>>>>>>>> money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
>>>>>>>>> aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
>>>>>>>>> manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well
>> built
>>>>>>>>> one should be just about unbreakable.
>>>>>>>>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon years
>> ago.
>>>>>>> the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in
>>>>>>> aerobatics it's probably not the best choice unless you're under
>>>>>>> a steady
>> hand
>>>>>>> during the initial, scary bits. The Decathlon is relatively
>>>>>>> clean
>> an
>>>>>>> the entry speeds for some
>>>>>>> manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are
>>>>>>> inherently stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap),
>>>>>>> but th
>> eDecathlon
>>>>>>> will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one, of
>>>>>>> course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back over
>> fifty
>>>>>>> grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are
>> both
>>>>>>> fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
>>>>>> Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be
>>>>>> a fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use
>>>>> one. Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think I've
>>>>> ever seen one. Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a CS
>>>>> prop on an aerobatic airplane is definitely a plus for a lot of
>>>>> reasons. Better perfromance and better braking if you screw it up!
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a
>>>> constant speed Hartzel on it.
>>>>
>>> Come to think of it, I do recall seeing something about Decathlons
>> being
>>> available with fixed pitch props but never ran across one. Ours had
>> the
>>> Hartzel.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, Might have been an option that nearly everyone took up. I think
>> you could get a Citabria with one IIRC. They're making them again now
>> and they're slightly different spec to the old ones, I think
>>
>> Bertie
> I know I've seen and flown several and never seemed to come across one
> with the fixed pitch prop but I'm sure there must have been a few out
> there. We leased one back from a guy on the field to use for basic
> acro introduction. If I remember right, there was a hefty AD issued on
> the wing that cost a damn fortune for the owners.
> I liked the airplane for what we did with it.
>

Yeah, the wing spar ad is a bit of a problem allright. You can put the
wings fromthe new ones on the old airplanes and they're not too
expensive, and there are several fixes for the spars, but if they're OK
then it just means cutting a few extra inspection holes in the wing to
check them out annually.
The problem with the spars is really down to damage from ground loops
going uninvestigated and compression failures in the spruce causing
further problems during aerobatics!
Only one has come apart this way, AFAIK, (7KCAB) and it should be the
last time since the remainder of the fleet is scrutinised to the nth
degree now.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Doug Carter > wrote in
:

> On 2007-12-17, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a constant
>> speed Hartzel on it.
>
> I had a '79 with 150HP and a fixed pitch prop.
>

Kay! Take your word for it!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> The Super Decathlon had a 180hp with a CS, and the Decathlon had
> 150hp. The big ADs involved the lift strut attachment fittings on the
> wood spars, and the other big one was to insure there was no cracking
> on the seat backs.
>
> The problem wasn't so much the wood spar, but hidden damage and
> cracking.
>
>
>


Yes, there was a strut AD ('78), but there was a seperate AD that came out
in '97 in regards the wood spars. This covered all model 7 Aeroncas,
Champions and Bellancas as well as the Decathlon and the model 11 Chief.
A lot of wings got scrapped because of it. Probably a lot of airplanes too.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> john smith > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> "F. Baum" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
>>>>>> @b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
>>>>>>>>>> money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
>>>>>>>>>> aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
>>>>>>>>>> manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well
>>> built
>>>>>>>>>> one should be just about unbreakable.
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon years
>>> ago.
>>>>>>>> the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in
>>>>>>>> aerobatics it's probably not the best choice unless you're under
>>>>>>>> a steady
>>> hand
>>>>>>>> during the initial, scary bits. The Decathlon is relatively
>>>>>>>> clean
>>> an
>>>>>>>> the entry speeds for some
>>>>>>>> manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are
>>>>>>>> inherently stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap),
>>>>>>>> but th
>>> eDecathlon
>>>>>>>> will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one, of
>>>>>>>> course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back over
>>> fifty
>>>>>>>> grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are
>>> both
>>>>>>>> fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
>>>>>>> Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be
>>>>>>> a fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use
>>>>>> one. Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think I've
>>>>>> ever seen one. Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a CS
>>>>>> prop on an aerobatic airplane is definitely a plus for a lot of
>>>>>> reasons. Better perfromance and better braking if you screw it up!
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a
>>>>> constant speed Hartzel on it.
>>>>>
>>>> Come to think of it, I do recall seeing something about Decathlons
>>> being
>>>> available with fixed pitch props but never ran across one. Ours had
>>> the
>>>> Hartzel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yeah, Might have been an option that nearly everyone took up. I think
>>> you could get a Citabria with one IIRC. They're making them again now
>>> and they're slightly different spec to the old ones, I think
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I know I've seen and flown several and never seemed to come across one
>> with the fixed pitch prop but I'm sure there must have been a few out
>> there. We leased one back from a guy on the field to use for basic
>> acro introduction. If I remember right, there was a hefty AD issued on
>> the wing that cost a damn fortune for the owners.
>> I liked the airplane for what we did with it.
>>
>
> Yeah, the wing spar ad is a bit of a problem allright. You can put the
> wings fromthe new ones on the old airplanes and they're not too
> expensive, and there are several fixes for the spars, but if they're OK
> then it just means cutting a few extra inspection holes in the wing to
> check them out annually.
> The problem with the spars is really down to damage from ground loops
> going uninvestigated and compression failures in the spruce causing
> further problems during aerobatics!
> Only one has come apart this way, AFAIK, (7KCAB) and it should be the
> last time since the remainder of the fleet is scrutinised to the nth
> degree now.
>
> Bertie
>
The guy who owned the one we leased back got a double hit in one day.
He landed on the grass on a field down near the Susquehanna River, tried
to wheel it on and had it nailed until he went over the mound in the
middle of the runway that he didn't know about. The main gear legs
compressed and he caught the prop tips bending the hell out of it.
The next day he called and said he had received the AD on the wing.
He was ONE unhappy camper!!


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:45da95af-e490-4f41-aae7-
:

>> Do you want to fly or do you want to build?
>
> Both, actually. But I'm so new to flying I'm still figuring out what
> kind of flying I'm most interested in doing.
>
> I like to build things.
>
> I'm intimidated by tube and fabric, which, though it is of the
> earliest aircraft technology, sounds really time consuming in the
> extreme. Still I can imagine that it's very rewarding.

Well, you can find half built bipes all over the place. A quick visit to
Barnstormers or trade a plane will reveal dozens of projects for sale. Just
be sure you get a well built one.
It's not so hard. I learned to weld and it's the fastest way glue something
you ever saw! Just like buidling a stick and tissue model. Well, almost.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>>
> The guy who owned the one we leased back got a double hit in one day.
> He landed on the grass on a field down near the Susquehanna River, tried
> to wheel it on and had it nailed until he went over the mound in the
> middle of the runway that he didn't know about. The main gear legs
> compressed and he caught the prop tips bending the hell out of it.
> The next day he called and said he had received the AD on the wing.
> He was ONE unhappy camper!!
>
>

Well, all you had to do was cut some holes and inspect them, though I think
that was settled on eventually after some consultation with the FAA. I
think when it first came out is was replace or nothing.
To be fair, a lot of spars were found to be damaged. We plan to have a
policy of inspecting the spars on ours if the airplane is groundlooped,
even if it doesn't look lke any contact was made with the tips, or if 4.5G
is exceeded, or if the paint is inexplicably marked due hangar rash. It'll
cost us nothing! Our spars are brand new and are significantly beefier than
the originals. The original ribs had slots in them that allow an extra
1/16th of an inch in thickness and another 1/8th inch in depth, which makes
the spar about 15% stronger. There's a guy out in Washington state who does
this mod and he makes a couple of other small detail mods as well, like
wingtip mounting and feathered doubler plates to avoid stress risers.
Probably even better are getting the metal spars, but our's was done when
we got it, so ...

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:a4e90596-4834-48d2-9236-
:

>
> I've done a little welding but nothing my LIFE depended on!
>

You learn,. And you learn how to read the weld so if it looks good, it is
good.
I had the same concern when I started learning to do aircraft welding. I
talked to the guy who dsigned my airplane, Dudley Kelly. He told me to get
some lessons and then weld it up and not worry. In his words "If you get
25% of each joint right it will still exceed design specs"
You should see the welds on old pipers! They're crap!
And Bellanca were using MIG to weld their fuselages for a long time and to
my knowledge, none of them has come apart because of that..
After I learned to do only a passable job ( i'm better at it now) I found
that I could take a piece I'd made, put it in a vice and beat the hell out
of it and the weld and the area around it would be the last thing to fail.
Ask in RAH, though. Plenty of guys building/have built the kinds of
airplanes you might be interested in.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>> The guy who owned the one we leased back got a double hit in one day.
>> He landed on the grass on a field down near the Susquehanna River, tried
>> to wheel it on and had it nailed until he went over the mound in the
>> middle of the runway that he didn't know about. The main gear legs
>> compressed and he caught the prop tips bending the hell out of it.
>> The next day he called and said he had received the AD on the wing.
>> He was ONE unhappy camper!!
>>
>>
>
> Well, all you had to do was cut some holes and inspect them, though I think
> that was settled on eventually after some consultation with the FAA. I
> think when it first came out is was replace or nothing.
> To be fair, a lot of spars were found to be damaged. We plan to have a
> policy of inspecting the spars on ours if the airplane is groundlooped,
> even if it doesn't look lke any contact was made with the tips, or if 4.5G
> is exceeded, or if the paint is inexplicably marked due hangar rash. It'll
> cost us nothing! Our spars are brand new and are significantly beefier than
> the originals. The original ribs had slots in them that allow an extra
> 1/16th of an inch in thickness and another 1/8th inch in depth, which makes
> the spar about 15% stronger. There's a guy out in Washington state who does
> this mod and he makes a couple of other small detail mods as well, like
> wingtip mounting and feathered doubler plates to avoid stress risers.
> Probably even better are getting the metal spars, but our's was done when
> we got it, so ...
>
> Bertie
Sounds like a plan.

--
Dudley Henriques

[F. Baum]

On Dec 17, 8:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> I had the same concern when I started learning to do aircraft welding. I
> talked to the guy who dsigned my airplane, Dudley Kelly. He told me to get
> some lessons and then weld it up and not worry. In his words "If you get
> 25% of each joint right it will still exceed design specs"
> You should see the welds on old pipers! They're crap!

You talkin bout a Kelly D biplane?

[F. Baum]

On Dec 18, 5:37 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>
> The only fatal accident associated with a spar occurred around here, and it
> was the lift strut attach fitting, not the spar itself. I used to have some
> nails back out, and the epoxy/rib nail solution worked pretty well. The
> check for compression fractures on the top of the spar could be done with
> mirrors, without cutting holes in the top of the wing.. Also, it was not
> uncommon to break nose ribs over time.

I used to fly the 8GCBC for a living and IIRC there were 4 inflight
failures resulting in fatalities. I think these were traced back to
inproper repairs after the planes had been groundlooped or blown over.
We had a fleet of 8 of these and found cracks in the spars in all but
one. Me thinks the metal spars, at least in the Scout, was a good
ider.
>
>
> Also, cross wind landings are easier in the Extra due to its higher landing
> speed and lower cross sectional area. The Super D is a great plane and a lot
> of fun.
And the Super D is easier to issure ;)
F Baum

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> wrote in news:a4e90596-4834-48d2-9236-
> :
>
>>
>> I've done a little welding but nothing my LIFE depended on!
>>
>
> You learn,. And you learn how to read the weld so if it looks good, it is
> good.

Very bad information. How a weld "looks" has very if anything to do with
it's effectiveness.


> I had the same concern when I started learning to do aircraft welding. I
> talked to the guy who dsigned my airplane, Dudley Kelly. He told me to get
> some lessons and then weld it up and not worry. In his words "If you get
> 25% of each joint right it will still exceed design specs"

This is going to be entirely load or design dependant. Yes, two sleeved
tubes, laterally loaded can easily survive with just a couple of tack welds,
but if the joint is in tension 25% is seldom even close.

> You should see the welds on old pipers! They're crap!
> And Bellanca were using MIG to weld their fuselages for a long time and to
> my knowledge, none of them has come apart because of that..
> After I learned to do only a passable job ( i'm better at it now) I found
> that I could take a piece I'd made, put it in a vice and beat the hell out
> of it and the weld and the area around it would be the last thing to fail.
> Ask in RAH, though. Plenty of guys building/have built the kinds of
> airplanes you might be interested in.
>

Yes, a lot of good welds look terrible, and yes it is very dependant on the
design and load of the joint. But either statement taken in general context
is very incorrect.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> The metal spar may be over rated. I think a lot of the doom and gloom about
> the wood was perpetuated by ACA, who was in the business of selling metal
> spars. Over time, wood may actually resist fatigue fractures better than
> aluminum. The FAA testing was done with a static load, not cyclic.
>
> The only fatal accident associated with a spar occurred around here, and it
> was the lift strut attach fitting, not the spar itself. I used to have some
> nails back out, and the epoxy/rib nail solution worked pretty well. The
> check for compression fractures on the top of the spar could be done with
> mirrors, without cutting holes in the top of the wing.. Also, it was not
> uncommon to break nose ribs over time.

Interesting.
>
> Flying the Super D does require smooth control inputs- it was in some ways a
> lot harder to fly than the Extra. Energy management was more critical, but
> things happened a lot more slowly and required more inputs. In the monoplane
> there is a temptation to slam the stick from side to side and corner to
> corner since the airplane can take a lot more than most pilots, especially
> me. It's a whole different style of flying.
>
> Also, cross wind landings are easier in the Extra due to its higher landing
> speed and lower cross sectional area. The Super D is a great plane and a lot
> of fun.
>
>
>

Got a ton of time teaching in the Decathlon. :-))

I would agree on the energy management as related to the Extra on the
performance basis. The Ps bleed on the Decathlon vs the Extra and the
control pressure relationships are a huge change.

The tendency to throw the stick around in the higher performance acro
planes is the first thing a good acro instructor takes out of the flying
equation. Taking a student out of the Decathlon into an S2 Pitts or an
Eagle and demonstrating a 4 point roll then letting them try one usually
does the trick. Slamming in the aileron and stopping it with using even
the control pressure used in the Decathlon usually ends up in a knife
edge PIO with the student over controlling to each side out of sync
trying to stabilize the ailerons. One time doing this usually does the
trick and the student learns right then and there that flying something
like a Pitts or an Extra is done with the fingertips and a smooth hand.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Viperdoc wrote:
>> The metal spar may be over rated. I think a lot of the doom and gloom
>> about the wood was perpetuated by ACA, who was in the business of
>> selling metal spars. Over time, wood may actually resist fatigue
>> fractures better than aluminum. The FAA testing was done with a static
>> load, not cyclic.
>>
>> The only fatal accident associated with a spar occurred around here,
>> and it was the lift strut attach fitting, not the spar itself. I used
>> to have some nails back out, and the epoxy/rib nail solution worked
>> pretty well. The check for compression fractures on the top of the
>> spar could be done with mirrors, without cutting holes in the top of
>> the wing.. Also, it was not uncommon to break nose ribs over time.
>
> Interesting.
>>
>> Flying the Super D does require smooth control inputs- it was in some
>> ways a lot harder to fly than the Extra. Energy management was more
>> critical, but things happened a lot more slowly and required more
>> inputs. In the monoplane there is a temptation to slam the stick from
>> side to side and corner to corner since the airplane can take a lot
>> more than most pilots, especially me. It's a whole different style of
>> flying.
>>
>> Also, cross wind landings are easier in the Extra due to its higher
>> landing speed and lower cross sectional area. The Super D is a great
>> plane and a lot of fun.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Got a ton of time teaching in the Decathlon. :-))
>
> I would agree on the energy management as related to the Extra on the
> performance basis. The Ps bleed on the Decathlon vs the Extra and the
> control pressure relationships are a huge change.
>
> The tendency to throw the stick around in the higher performance acro
> planes is the first thing a good acro instructor takes out of the flying
> equation. Taking a student out of the Decathlon into an S2 Pitts or an
> Eagle and demonstrating a 4 point roll then letting them try one usually
> does the trick. Slamming in the aileron and stopping it with using even
> the control pressure used in the Decathlon usually ends up in a knife
> edge PIO with the student over controlling to each side out of sync
> trying to stabilize the ailerons. One time doing this usually does the
> trick and the student learns right then and there that flying something
> like a Pitts or an Extra is done with the fingertips and a smooth hand.
>
>
On that roll it should read "stabilize the ELEVATORS not the ailero
Senior moment there :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> The metal spar may be over rated. I think a lot of the doom and gloom
> about the wood was perpetuated by ACA, who was in the business of
> selling metal spars. Over time, wood may actually resist fatigue
> fractures better than aluminum. The FAA testing was done with a static
> load, not cyclic.
>

That's right, it does. I'm happier with the wood spars from a safety
point of view, if not from an economic point of view.

> The only fatal accident associated with a spar occurred around here,
> and it was the lift strut attach fitting, not the spar itself. I used
> to have some nails back out, and the epoxy/rib nail solution worked
> pretty well. The check for compression fractures on the top of the
> spar could be done with mirrors, without cutting holes in the top of
> the wing.. Also, it was not uncommon to break nose ribs over time.


I think there was one Citabria that lost a wing, but it was due to
concealed damage from a previous incident as well as a suspected
exceedence of limitations.

>
> Flying the Super D does require smooth control inputs- it was in some
> ways a lot harder to fly than the Extra. Energy management was more
> critical, but things happened a lot more slowly and required more
> inputs. In the monoplane there is a temptation to slam the stick from
> side to side and corner to corner since the airplane can take a lot
> more than most pilots, especially me. It's a whole different style of
> flying.
>

Well, goes to my argument that while the new giant model airplanes are
terrific, they probably don't make such good trainers.

> Also, cross wind landings are easier in the Extra due to its higher
> landing speed and lower cross sectional area. The Super D is a great
> plane and a lot of fun.
>
>

Yep!

Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in
:

> On Dec 17, 8:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> I had the same concern when I started learning to do aircraft
>> welding. I talked to the guy who dsigned my airplane, Dudley Kelly.
>> He told me to get some lessons and then weld it up and not worry. In
>> his words "If you get 25% of each joint right it will still exceed
>> design specs" You should see the welds on old pipers! They're crap!
>
> You talkin bout a Kelly D biplane?
>

No, the Hatz.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> wrote in news:a4e90596-4834-48d2-9236-
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> I've done a little welding but nothing my LIFE depended on!
>>>
>>
>> You learn,. And you learn how to read the weld so if it looks good,
>> it is good.
>
> Very bad information. How a weld "looks" has very if anything to do
> with it's effectiveness.
>

Wel, if you're gas welding and it looks good when you;re making it, it's
a good weld. There's no other way to tell short of x-raing it and nobody
does that.

>
>> I had the same concern when I started learning to do aircraft
>> welding. I talked to the guy who dsigned my airplane, Dudley Kelly.
>> He told me to get some lessons and then weld it up and not worry. In
>> his words "If you get 25% of each joint right it will still exceed
>> design specs"
>
> This is going to be entirely load or design dependant. Yes, two
> sleeved tubes, laterally loaded can easily survive with just a couple
> of tack welds, but if the joint is in tension 25% is seldom even
> close.

Well, the thing is overbuilt to the nth degree. It is what Dudley told
me and he was a design engineer for Convair!
You can take it up with him when you die.

>
>> You should see the welds on old pipers! They're crap!
>> And Bellanca were using MIG to weld their fuselages for a long time
>> and to my knowledge, none of them has come apart because of that..
>> After I learned to do only a passable job ( i'm better at it now) I
>> found that I could take a piece I'd made, put it in a vice and beat
>> the hell out of it and the weld and the area around it would be the
>> last thing to fail. Ask in RAH, though. Plenty of guys building/have
>> built the kinds of airplanes you might be interested in.
>>
>
> Yes, a lot of good welds look terrible, and yes it is very dependant
> on the design and load of the joint. But either statement taken in
> general context is very incorrect.
>

You mean out of context.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

john smith > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> I had the same concern when I started learning to do aircraft
>> welding. I talked to the guy who dsigned my airplane, Dudley Kelly.
>> He told me to get some lessons and then weld it up and not worry. In
>> his words "If you get 25% of each joint right it will still exceed
>> design specs"
>
> Bertie, do you have a Kelly D?
>

No, a Hatz.


Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
...
>> Do you want to fly or do you want to build?
>
> Both, actually. But I'm so new to flying I'm still figuring out what
> kind of flying I'm most interested in doing.
>
> I like to build things.
>
> I'm intimidated by tube and fabric, which, though it is of the
> earliest aircraft technology, sounds really time consuming in the
> extreme. Still I can imagine that it's very rewarding.

Welding up the truss is the easy part. Making all the little fittings,
hinges. control parts, EVERYTHING in front of the firewall, making the
canopy parts, blah blah blah is what takes the time.

I wasn't kidding when I said that when you think you are 90% done, 50% of
the work is left to do...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
news:q5WdnXvPVuhO3_XanZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> > wrote in message
> ..
> .
>>> Do you want to fly or do you want to build?
>>
>> Both, actually. But I'm so new to flying I'm still figuring out what
>> kind of flying I'm most interested in doing.
>>
>> I like to build things.
>>
>> I'm intimidated by tube and fabric, which, though it is of the
>> earliest aircraft technology, sounds really time consuming in the
>> extreme. Still I can imagine that it's very rewarding.
>
> Welding up the truss is the easy part. Making all the little
> fittings, hinges. control parts, EVERYTHING in front of the firewall,
> making the canopy parts, blah blah blah is what takes the time.

Easier now with water and laser cutting. all yuo have to do is clean them
up and bend them then. But making them by hand? Yipes!
>
> I wasn't kidding when I said that when you think you are 90% done, 50%
> of the work is left to do...


If anything, you were being conservative!


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Well, the thing is overbuilt to the nth degree. It is what Dudley told
> me and he was a design engineer for Convair!
> You can take it up with him when you die.

I can see it now............................................... ...
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I'd give it about a week before some clown on Usenet chimes in on a
thread somewhere with

" Dudley Henriques is a liar and a phony. I read on one of the forums
that he was an engineer for Convair. I KNOW people at Convair, and they
say Henriques never worked there!!!"

I'll bet you a drink on it :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> Our son Buddy works in the Physics Department of a major university on the
> East Coast of the US. He's teaching a class now in welding. I've always
> found welding extremely interesting but I've never actually tried it. I've
> watched Buddy run a bead on aircraft tubing and marveled at how solid and
> strong the joints looked when finished.
> To me it looks like doing it right is an art form that requires just the
> right touch and the perfect blend of tools and expendables.

Practice, Practice, Practice - I've put more than a few miles driving cars
patched with coat hanger wire... (No - I never used that on an aircraft
structure)

But there are some people that never learn - one guy that I worked with was
always accused of going to the Blue Jay School of Welding - all his work
looked like a splattering of bird sh*t.

Isn't it about time for someone to complain that we are off topic and should
be talking about this over on rec.aviation.homebuilt? ;-)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:52:24 -0600, "Viperdoc" > wrote in
>:

>Bertie:

>Do you build any of those large scale R/C planes? I had a friend build one
>of my Decathlon, starburst pattern and all, hanging from my ceiling. He then
>started on a 12 foot model of my Extra, but unfortunately died. The Extra is
>framed, but needs to be covered and painted.

>Any recomendations?

I'm in the RC hobby:

http://moleski.net/rc/index.htm

Where do you live? There are some folks in my
club who do nice work and may be able to help you.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Bertie:
>
> Do you build any of those large scale R/C planes? I had a friend build
> one of my Decathlon, starburst pattern and all, hanging from my
> ceiling. He then started on a 12 foot model of my Extra, but
> unfortunately died. The Extra is framed, but needs to be covered and
> painted.
>
> Any recomendations?
>
>
>

Nah, I've only built sort of .40 sized things. Most of the sport flyers
seem to be a lot better than scale, though. The Great planes Ultrasport,
for instance.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:59:49 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>>> Do you want to fly or do you want to build?
>>
>> Both, actually. But I'm so new to flying I'm still figuring out what
>> kind of flying I'm most interested in doing.
>>
>> I like to build things.
>>
>> I'm intimidated by tube and fabric, which, though it is of the
>> earliest aircraft technology, sounds really time consuming in the
>> extreme. Still I can imagine that it's very rewarding.
>
>Welding up the truss is the easy part. Making all the little fittings,
>hinges. control parts, EVERYTHING in front of the firewall, making the
>canopy parts, blah blah blah is what takes the time.
>
>I wasn't kidding when I said that when you think you are 90% done, 50% of
>the work is left to do...

That's what I like ... an optimist. I always heard it was 90% done
and 90% to go and I'm still in the first 90% with only 1300 hours
invested in a 4000 hour project (If I'm lucky) and I'm working on a
kit. <:-)) Albeit a Glasair III. After 1300 hours it's almost
beginning to look like it's going to be an airplane.

And it doesn't matter be it rag and tube, wood, or a fiberglass kit,
the little stuff is what takes the time in all of them.

BTW the G-III is a nice aerobatic airplane if you have lots of room in
which to maneuver, but it's definitely not a "starter". It's difficult
to keep under the speed limit at less than 10,000 feet for many
maneuvers. Chip Beck used to do a double loop (one on top of the
other) with an entry speed of 350 MPH.
I used 300 to 325 and 4.5Gs for a single loop, but I don't have much
time in one. Kinda like flying a war bird without the mass or expense
and it's still a great cross country plane. OTOH the wing loading is
only a few points below 30# per sq ft. Glide with power off gives a
rate of descent that is breath taking. <:-)) Definitely not for flying
out of the pasture.

OTOH if you purchase a nice one you could probably get at least 2 to 3
Super Decathlons for the same price and it'll cost about 3 to 4 times
as much to operate.


Roger (K8RI)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> <...>
>> Our son Buddy works in the Physics Department of a major university on the
>> East Coast of the US. He's teaching a class now in welding. I've always
>> found welding extremely interesting but I've never actually tried it. I've
>> watched Buddy run a bead on aircraft tubing and marveled at how solid and
>> strong the joints looked when finished.
>> To me it looks like doing it right is an art form that requires just the
>> right touch and the perfect blend of tools and expendables.
>
> Practice, Practice, Practice - I've put more than a few miles driving cars
> patched with coat hanger wire... (No - I never used that on an aircraft
> structure)
>
> But there are some people that never learn - one guy that I worked with was
> always accused of going to the Blue Jay School of Welding - all his work
> looked like a splattering of bird sh*t.
>
> Isn't it about time for someone to complain that we are off topic and should
> be talking about this over on rec.aviation.homebuilt? ;-)
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
>
>
I know. Where's Mxsmanic when you need him. I'm sure he has probably
written the book on welding :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

> Well what should be done is to make lots of practice welds and break them
> and/or cut them apart to see how your penetration looks - before long you
> either get it or you don't. Gas welding is a bit of an art...

The only welding I've done is gas and by the lords, when I got it
right it was RIGHT.

I think you can tell on gas pretty good because everything around the
bead is molten. Only thing is the cool down, which Finch says can
really screw up a weld.

I was using 4130 tube, can't remember the thickness; made a "luggage"
rack for my Royal Enfield for a trip across the great plains (if you
can figure that on single cylinder bike). I could not break those
welds. The luggage was too ammo cans.

Gas is good. I enjoyed it too, except I made one error: I bought cheap
a$$ regulators and the oxygen flow tended to pop.

Should've spend another 75 to 100, then had something reasonable. If I
build a Acro, and want to use gas, I'll get good equipment. I saw
recently William Wynn talking up a great little Mig welder. That might
be good.

Gas, TIG, or MIG?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

>> Well what should be done is to make lots of practice welds and break
>> them and/or cut them apart to see how your penetration looks - before
>> long you either get it or you don't. Gas welding is a bit of an
>> art...
>
> The only welding I've done is gas and by the lords, when I got it
> right it was RIGHT.
>
> I think you can tell on gas pretty good because everything around the
> bead is molten. Only thing is the cool down, which Finch says can
> really screw up a weld.
>
> I was using 4130 tube, can't remember the thickness; made a "luggage"
> rack for my Royal Enfield for a trip across the great plains (if you
> can figure that on single cylinder bike). I could not break those
> welds. The luggage was too ammo cans.
>
> Gas is good. I enjoyed it too, except I made one error: I bought cheap
> a$$ regulators and the oxygen flow tended to pop.
>
> Should've spend another 75 to 100, then had something reasonable. If I
> build a Acro, and want to use gas, I'll get good equipment. I saw
> recently William Wynn talking up a great little Mig welder. That might
> be good.
>
> Gas, TIG, or MIG?
>


Ever tired one of these?
http://tinmantech.chainreactionweb.com/html/meco_midget_torch.php?cart=
6d2909f2ce99e469d433f5e400a72389


It's sooo much better than the best torch I tried before it.

This guy's site is well worth a browse around..


Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Gas, TIG, or MIG?

Watch'a try'n to do here, start a religous war or sumpin????

:-)

Last airplane I rode in was welded with gas.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
> At the risk of sounding like anthony, though, I don't figure anyone s
> going to go out and get a stick welder and some conduit and mkae an
> airplane out of it on my sayso.

Doubtful, I would say, also. Perhaps we could get anthony to make a
conduit airplane. If it had fatal result, oh well. Some sacrifices must be
made for the

If anyone can weld thinwall conduit with a stick welder, and not burn it
through, I would like to see it.

Stick welders are fine on 1/4" farm equipment, but are mostly useless on
most other thing. Your mileage will vary.

My favorite welder is a good mig unit with gas shielding. I'm convinced a
monkey could make a good weld, once someone shows you how to set the heat
and feed rate. It does take a little practice to get that sorted, though.

I've always heard that the problems with mig is cold weld starts not
penetrating, and the need for normalizing the weld and the area right around
the weld.

The cold start can be cured by going all the way around in one whack, or at
the most two, and go back over the first 1/8th inch to get the penetration
for that first bit right, and the normalizing can be done with a little heat
from a torch, after the welding is done. That is my take on it, anyway. I
know there are a lot of opinions, and much can be debated on the subject,
but all in all, that seems like the basic jist of it, I think.

Still, even with all the above said, I like gas welding, and would probably
use it if I was going to build a tube and fabric plane, because it is such a
proven technique for building airplanes. I have played with it enough to
get fairly good and consistent results, but then I don't do it for a while,
and lose most of it again.

I agree about the idea of gas welding being an art, mostly. Yes, there are
certain facts that have to be followed for the art to have a chance of
working, like the setting of the flame, for one. From there, it becomes
art.

The thing someone said once that make sense for all welding (but especially
gas) is the need to "control the molten puddle". I would say all of my
welding improved 50%, once I heard that, and understood it.

I want to build with wood, being a carpenter and cabinet maker. I have the
tools and the shop for it, and enjoy it too much, to consider anything else.
I realize there still be some metal to melt together, for about any
airplane, though.

So, with flying on the job, and whacking loons, how much time do you get for
building? <g> Do you already have a shop set up?
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>>
>> At the risk of sounding like anthony, though, I don't figure anyone s
>> going to go out and get a stick welder and some conduit and mkae an
>> airplane out of it on my sayso.
>
> Doubtful, I would say, also. Perhaps we could get anthony to make a
> conduit airplane. If it had fatal result, oh well. Some sacrifices
> must be made for the
>
> If anyone can weld thinwall conduit with a stick welder, and not burn
> it through, I would like to see it.


It wouldn't be me! that's for sure!

>
> Stick welders are fine on 1/4" farm equipment, but are mostly useless
> on most other thing. Your mileage will vary.
>
> My favorite welder is a good mig unit with gas shielding. I'm
> convinced a monkey could make a good weld, once someone shows you how
> to set the heat and feed rate. It does take a little practice to get
> that sorted, though.
>
> I've always heard that the problems with mig is cold weld starts not
> penetrating, and the need for normalizing the weld and the area right
> around the weld.

I've heard lots of things about Mig that aen't good, but other guys say
they're untrue. It's academic to me since I do gas.

>
> The cold start can be cured by going all the way around in one whack,
> or at the most two, and go back over the first 1/8th inch to get the
> penetration for that first bit right, and the normalizing can be done
> with a little heat from a torch, after the welding is done. That is
> my take on it, anyway. I know there are a lot of opinions, and much
> can be debated on the subject, but all in all, that seems like the
> basic jist of it, I think.
>
> Still, even with all the above said, I like gas welding, and would
> probably use it if I was going to build a tube and fabric plane,
> because it is such a proven technique for building airplanes. I have
> played with it enough to get fairly good and consistent results, but
> then I don't do it for a while, and lose most of it again.


Yeah ditto.
>
> I agree about the idea of gas welding being an art, mostly. Yes,
> there are certain facts that have to be followed for the art to have a
> chance of working, like the setting of the flame, for one. From
> there, it becomes art.
>
> The thing someone said once that make sense for all welding (but
> especially gas) is the need to "control the molten puddle". I would
> say all of my welding improved 50%, once I heard that, and understood
> it.

Yeah. I'm nopt too bad. Stil the occasional error, and I get rust if I
don't do it quite often, which is frustrating, but I would definitely
fly anything I welded,
>
> I want to build with wood, being a carpenter and cabinet maker. I
> have the tools and the shop for it, and enjoy it too much, to consider
> anything else. I realize there still be some metal to melt together,
> for about any airplane, though.
>
So what are you thinking? Piet? Emeraude? Falco?

> So, with flying on the job, and whacking loons, how much time do you
> get for building? <g> Do you already have a shop set up?

Yeah, but haven't done too much lately. The airplane is pretty well on
now, but the arrival of the other aiplane has help up interest!

[[email protected]]

> Yeah, but haven't done too much lately. The airplane is pretty well on
> now, but the arrival of the other aiplane has help up interest!

Maybe I missed this: what are you building? What have you got?

[[email protected]]

> Ever tired one of these?http://tinmantech.chainreactionweb.com/html/meco_midget_torch.php?cart=
> 6d2909f2ce99e469d433f5e400a72389

Good link. All kinds of good gas stuff. And they've got a video on
there by some EAA technical counselors about welding together a
complete tube airframe.

Thanks!

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Dec 20, 3:03 am, wrote:
> > Ever tired one of these?http://tinmantech.chainreactionweb.com/html/meco_midget_torch.php?cart=
> > 6d2909f2ce99e469d433f5e400a72389
>
> Good link. All kinds of good gas stuff. And they've got a video on
> there by some EAA technical counselors about welding together a
> complete tube airframe.

Yes, I have that video. It´s very expensive, but it is good.
That torch is a marvel, though. It´s a large-ish jewlers torch and it
improved my welding about 500% overnight.


Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>> Gas, TIG, or MIG?
>>
>
>
> Ever tired one of these?
> http://tinmantech.chainreactionweb.com/html/meco_midget_torch.php?cart=
> 6d2909f2ce99e469d433f5e400a72389
>
>
> It's sooo much better than the best torch I tried before it.
>
> This guy's site is well worth a browse around..

That's some coincidence. I was just at this
guy's site 10 minutes ago. I need a new set
of hoses for my Victor J-27 miniature torch
and his site was one of 2 or three that got a
google hit.

Now I'm sorely tempted to just buy the Meco
package.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:6f582ebb-c715-4be6-a94c-0fd98c5acd57
@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

>> Yeah, but haven't done too much lately. The airplane is pretty well on
>> now, but the arrival of the other aiplane has help up interest!
>
> Maybe I missed this: what are you building? What have you got?
>

Building a Hatz, got a KCAB

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>> Gas, TIG, or MIG?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ever tired one of these?
>> http://tinmantech.chainreactionweb.com/html/meco_midget_torch.php?cart=
>> 6d2909f2ce99e469d433f5e400a72389
>>
>>
>> It's sooo much better than the best torch I tried before it.
>>
>> This guy's site is well worth a browse around..
>
> That's some coincidence. I was just at this
> guy's site 10 minutes ago. I need a new set
> of hoses for my Victor J-27 miniature torch
> and his site was one of 2 or three that got a
> google hit.
>
> Now I'm sorely tempted to just buy the Meco
> package.
>

They're very good and I follow his advice about making intermediate sized
by geting two, say #1 tips and drilling one out slightly to have something
between 1 and 2.

The Meco never ever pops. It's as light as a feather so it's like using a
pen. On the minus side your hand isn't too far from the fire so it gets hot
in there and also the tips are a little fat so getting in cose to a tight
spot is a little tough, bu it's not a huge problem.

Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Jim Stewart > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>>> Gas, TIG, or MIG?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ever tired one of these?
>>> http://tinmantech.chainreactionweb.com/html/meco_midget_torch.php?cart=
>>> 6d2909f2ce99e469d433f5e400a72389
>>>
>>>
>>> It's sooo much better than the best torch I tried before it.
>>>
>>> This guy's site is well worth a browse around..
>> That's some coincidence. I was just at this
>> guy's site 10 minutes ago. I need a new set
>> of hoses for my Victor J-27 miniature torch
>> and his site was one of 2 or three that got a
>> google hit.
>>
>> Now I'm sorely tempted to just buy the Meco
>> package.
>>
>
> They're very good and I follow his advice about making intermediate sized
> by geting two, say #1 tips and drilling one out slightly to have something
> between 1 and 2.
>
> The Meco never ever pops. It's as light as a feather so it's like using a
> pen. On the minus side your hand isn't too far from the fire so it gets hot
> in there and also the tips are a little fat so getting in cose to a tight
> spot is a little tough, bu it's not a huge problem.

I went ahead and bought the Meco, along
with 00, 0, 1 (included) and 2 tips and
the lightweight hose. The hose will work
with the Victor, but I have a feeling I'll
be retiring it after I use the Meco. I
like your idea of making a #1.5 tip.

You might try a pair of TIG gloves for the
heat. Very comfortable and thin. I bought
a pair from Indiana Oxygen. They have the
best prices and service I've found anywhere
for generic welding supplies.

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> wrote in news:6f582ebb-c715-4be6-a94c-0fd98c5acd57
> @i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Yeah, but haven't done too much lately. The airplane is pretty well on
>>> now, but the arrival of the other aiplane has help up interest!
>> Maybe I missed this: what are you building? What have you got?
>>
>
> Building a Hatz, got a KCAB

Got any pictures on the web of the Hatz?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Jim Stewart > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Gas, TIG, or MIG?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ever tired one of these?
>>>> http://tinmantech.chainreactionweb.com/html/meco_midget_torch.php?
ca
>>>> rt= 6d2909f2ce99e469d433f5e400a72389
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's sooo much better than the best torch I tried before it.
>>>>
>>>> This guy's site is well worth a browse around..
>>> That's some coincidence. I was just at this
>>> guy's site 10 minutes ago. I need a new set
>>> of hoses for my Victor J-27 miniature torch
>>> and his site was one of 2 or three that got a
>>> google hit.
>>>
>>> Now I'm sorely tempted to just buy the Meco
>>> package.
>>>
>>
>> They're very good and I follow his advice about making intermediate
>> sized by geting two, say #1 tips and drilling one out slightly to
>> have something between 1 and 2.
>>
>> The Meco never ever pops. It's as light as a feather so it's like
>> using a pen. On the minus side your hand isn't too far from the fire
>> so it gets hot in there and also the tips are a little fat so getting
>> in cose to a tight spot is a little tough, bu it's not a huge
>> problem.
>
> I went ahead and bought the Meco, along
> with 00, 0, 1 (included) and 2 tips and
> the lightweight hose. The hose will work
> with the Victor, but I have a feeling I'll
> be retiring it after I use the Meco. I
> like your idea of making a #1.5 tip.
>
> You might try a pair of TIG gloves for the
> heat. Very comfortable and thin. I bought
> a pair from Indiana Oxygen. They have the
> best prices and service I've found anywhere
> for generic welding supplies.
>

Oh OK, I've been using the usual big leather ones. I didn't know the tig
ones even existed. I'll get a pair next tim eI'm in the shop.



Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> wrote in
>> news:6f582ebb-c715-4be6-a94c-0fd98c5acd57
>> @i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> Yeah, but haven't done too much lately. The airplane is pretty well
>>>> on now, but the arrival of the other aiplane has help up interest!
>>> Maybe I missed this: what are you building? What have you got?
>>>
>>
>> Building a Hatz, got a KCAB
>
> Got any pictures on the web of the Hatz?
>

No, and my workshop is too messy to take pics of it!

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Stewart" > wrote

> You might try a pair of TIG gloves for the
> heat. Very comfortable and thin. I bought
> a pair from Indiana Oxygen. They have the
> best prices and service I've found anywhere
> for generic welding supplies.

What were they made of, goatskin, synthetic, or what?
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Stewart]

Morgans wrote:
> "Jim Stewart" > wrote
>
>> You might try a pair of TIG gloves for the
>> heat. Very comfortable and thin. I bought
>> a pair from Indiana Oxygen. They have the
>> best prices and service I've found anywhere
>> for generic welding supplies.
>
> What were they made of, goatskin, synthetic, or what?

Looks like goatskin...

http://www.weldingsuppliesfromioc.com/servlet/the-1285/TILLMAN-24C--TIG/Detail

[[email protected]]

> Got any pictures on the web of the Hatz?

I found this:

http://www.weebeastie.com/hatzcb1/

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Dec 21, 3:05*am, wrote:
> > Got any pictures on the web of the Hatz?
>
> I found this:
>
> http://www.weebeastie.com/hatzcb1/

Yeah that´s the hatz club´s site. Very good club!

There´s loads of them flying. IIt´s a good first timer´s airplane and
the completion rate is good. So´s it´s record in every regard. it´s
aerobatric capability is limited, though. It´ll do loops, barrel rolls
spins etc, about as good as a citabria or clipped cub. plenty strong
and it´s draggy so if you screw up and end up pointed straight down
you won´t end up going too fast.
Easiest taildragger i ever flew, with the possible exception of the
Aeronca 15



Bertie


Bertie