Metal vs Wood or T2 vs VP (Part II)

[[email protected]]

I'm still getting LOTS of messages from guys who just Don't Get It.

So let me try it again.

It is NOT a question of an RV vs a Falco. The most basic factor is
COST which means we can rule out such high-priced examples. Right now
I've been making comparisons between the VP-I as the 'all wood'
example and Calvin Parker's 'Teenie Two' as the all-metal example.
That will change in the IMMEDIATE FUTURE as more Thatcher CX4's and
Bruce King's BK-1.3 come flying out the door of garages across the
country.

In virtually all cases the ENGINE is the most expensive component.
(The exception is a few ultra-lights.) But ALL of the examples
presented under this 'Metal vs Wood' comparison use a converted
Volkswagen engine. In this comparison I am advocating the use of a
conversion in which the propeller is mounted on the CLUTCH-end of the
crankshaft AND a dynamo coaxially-mounted on the PULLEY-end of the
crankshaft. The induction system uses an updraft carburetor from a
Model A (Tillotson Model X is one example) or from an industrial
engine (various models of Bendix and Zenith).

The ignition system is either stock Volkswagen but using a distributor
having mechanical advance (ie, centrifugal advance). This system may
be upgraded by replacing various components with their electronic
equivalents, such as using an electronic switch instead of the
mechanical breaker points. The best-case would be the CompuFire DS-IX
or similar, in which the single coil is replaced with a dual-coil,
waste-spark system that is electronically triggered. The lower body
of a distributor having mechanical advance would be retained, allowing
the engine to be hand-propped yet able to run efficiently at speeds
above 3000rpm.

As for the airframe, the selection is based on the availability of the
required TOOLS and before we get into the issue of tools too deeply it
must be understood that regardless of your choice SOME tools will be
required.

All of the METAL airframes mentioned mentioned above can be built
using ONLY hand tools, whereas for the 'wooden' airframes, a table saw
is a virtual necessity. Fortunately a portable electric saw may be
pressed into service as a TABLE SAW at a very small price, allowing
accurate production of the required longerons and, in the case of a
'Chugger' type wing, of the sticks needed for ribs.

Performance on the whole is left for future posts but one aspect of
performance must be addressed at the outset and that is the
relationship between flying and safety. To be a good airman, in my
opinion, DEMANDS a given number of landings per month. Ideally, a
group of airmen would keep one or more airframes available to all.
I'm not strong on clubs, having found most degenerate fairly quickly
by non-flying types who see the club as a SOCIAL activity and who tend
to lean their financial shoulder rather heavily on those who are
primarily interested in FLYING rather then dunking their donuts. Yet
it's difficult to define the needed group without making it sound like
a club.

As for doing all of the flying in just one or two airframes, this
reflects the COST of hangars and tie-downs. All of the airplanes
discussed here can be road-towable but in a growing number of cases
the folks running our airports are AGAINST someone flying out of
'their' field unless they pay certain fees. I've nothing against
that; we've all got to eat. But I AM against being forced to pay
hundreds of dollars a month simply to maintain my proficiency. My
suggested solution is to base one or two airplanes at such airport but
to allow those airplanes to be flown by OTHER-THAN their registered
owner.

A couple of people have said it sounds as if I am AGAINST the social
aspects of grass roots aviation. Actually, I'm just the opposite.
What I'm against is some ground hog trying to run us through the
financial wringer simply because we happen to own an airplane.

But what I'm also against is the pilot whose only flight experience is
gained to and from an airshow. Or having them look like duffers when
they are told to land long, or to put it on the green or whatever.
Toward that end I would like to see them practicing precision landings
at some low-traffic field... or at ANY field, when it comes right down
to it. (It is the organization needed for this type of practice that
leads to the 'club-like' definition.)

While none of the planes mentioned here are especially hot STOL
performers, neither do they need a mile of concrete. Without
exception, all can do a full-stop in less than a thousand feet... and
the touch-and-go needed for a spot landing can be done in much less.

Finally (with regard to commonality) all of the planes mentioned here
use a converted Volkswagen engine and, within that frame, a VW engine
using MY methods of conversion, which means the prop is hung on the
clutch-end of the crankshaft, there is a dynamo installed on the
pulley-end of the crank, and the ignition system is an automotive
unit, meaning the Compu-Fire DS-IX or similar. This method of
conversion is not only the least expensive, it is the lightest in
weight AND the most reliable.

Hopefully, that has brought us back to the main theme which is wood
versus metal. Ever bent a LONG flange in metal? Most who haven't are
convinced they can't, unless they use an equally long metal brake.
Long metal brakes are hellishly expensive and if one is needed it
would pretty well blow my argument out of the water. But the fact is,
one is NOT needed. In a similar vein we run into non-metal users who
are convinced using real rivets is either difficult or expensive when
in fact, it is neither.

Over on the other side of the hangar all of the metal-smiths are
pointing fingers at our TABLE SAW, insisting the fact one is required
is proof that it costs MORE to build from wood than from metal. They
have a pretty good point in that a table saw IS needed to achieve the
accuracy required in long cuts, but they've overlooked the fact that a
portable electric saw can be made to serve as a table saw.

Then comes the 'Yabut' arguments: 'Yeah, but if I gotta make a table
saw...' from the metals group being bounced off the 'Yeah, but if I
need an air compressor...' The truth is, you can do rivets using the
SMALLEST of the available air compressors, which leaves both groups
milling around looking for another argument to throw at the other.

While I'm over here laughing :-)

Because the tools you'll need to convert and MAINTAIN your VW
engine exceed by at least an order of magnitude those needed to build
EITHER type of airframe.

Herez why:
Head-plate. Needed to establish the volumetric balance of the engine.
Exhaust valve tool: Needed to determine valve stem-seat wear.
Adjustable push-rod. Needed when setting valve-train geometry.
Chamber volume tools. Needed to measure the volume of your combustion
chambers.
Timing Wheel: Needed to adjust your valve timing.
Valve Spring Tool: Needed to determine valve spring compression
height.
Connecting-rod Tool: Needed when adjusting rod balance.

Shall I get into the tools specific to making your propeller? I think
not. (In fact, I already have... but they are specific to the prop
and listed in the section on propellers.)

The point here is that your decision to build a 'wooden' or a metal
airplane depends largely on what TOOLS you have. But the wood vs
metal argument has no merit because because when it comes to tools --
and that's what it boils down to -- the ENGINE requires more tools
than either type of airframe.

-R.S.Hoover

[dpilot]

On Mar 28, 3:59*pm, " > wrote:
> I'm still getting LOTS of messages from guys who just Don't Get It.
>
> So let me try it again.
>
> It is NOT a question of an RV vs a Falco. *The most basic factor is
> COST which means we can rule out such high-priced examples. *Right now
> I've been making comparisons between the VP-I as the 'all wood'
> example and Calvin Parker's 'Teenie Two' as the all-metal example.
> That will change in the IMMEDIATE FUTURE as *more Thatcher CX4's and
> Bruce King's BK-1.3 come flying out the door of garages across the
> country.
>
> In virtually all cases the ENGINE is the most expensive component.
> (The exception is a few ultra-lights.) *But ALL of the examples
> presented under this 'Metal vs Wood' comparison use a converted
> Volkswagen engine. *In this comparison I am advocating the use of a
> conversion in which the propeller is mounted on the CLUTCH-end of the
> crankshaft AND a dynamo coaxially-mounted on the PULLEY-end of the
> crankshaft. *The induction system uses an updraft carburetor from a
> Model A (Tillotson Model X is one example) or from an industrial
> engine (various models of Bendix and Zenith).
>
> The ignition system is either stock Volkswagen but using a distributor
> having mechanical advance (ie, centrifugal advance). *This system may
> be upgraded by replacing various components with their electronic
> equivalents, such as using an electronic switch instead of the
> mechanical breaker points. *The best-case would be the CompuFire DS-IX
> or similar, in which the single coil is replaced with a dual-coil,
> waste-spark system that is electronically triggered. *The lower body
> of a distributor having mechanical advance would be retained, allowing
> the engine to be hand-propped yet able to run efficiently at speeds
> above 3000rpm.
>
> As for the airframe, the selection is based on the availability of the
> required TOOLS and before we get into the issue of tools too deeply it
> must be understood that regardless of your choice SOME tools will be
> required.
>
> All of the METAL airframes mentioned mentioned above can be built
> using ONLY hand tools, whereas for the 'wooden' airframes, a table saw
> is a virtual necessity. *Fortunately a portable electric saw may be
> pressed into service as a TABLE SAW at a very small price, allowing
> accurate production of the required longerons and, in the case of a
> 'Chugger' type wing, of the sticks needed for ribs.
>
> Performance on the whole is left for future posts but one aspect of
> performance must be addressed at the outset and that is the
> relationship between flying and safety. *To be a good airman, in my
> opinion, DEMANDS a given number of landings per month. *Ideally, a
> group of airmen would keep one or more airframes available to all.
> I'm not strong on clubs, having found most degenerate fairly quickly
> by non-flying types who see the club as a SOCIAL activity and who tend
> to lean their financial shoulder rather heavily on those who are
> primarily interested in FLYING rather then dunking their donuts. *Yet
> it's difficult to define the needed group without making it sound like
> a club.
>
> As for doing all of the flying in just one or two airframes, this
> reflects the COST of hangars and tie-downs. *All of the airplanes
> discussed here can be road-towable but in a growing number of cases
> the folks running our airports are AGAINST someone flying out of
> 'their' field unless they pay certain fees. *I've nothing against
> that; we've all got to eat. *But I AM against being forced to pay
> hundreds of dollars a month simply to maintain my proficiency. *My
> suggested solution is to base one or two airplanes at such airport but
> to allow those airplanes to be flown by OTHER-THAN their registered
> owner.
>
> A couple of people have said it sounds as if I am AGAINST the social
> aspects of grass roots aviation. *Actually, I'm just the opposite.
> What I'm against is some ground hog trying to run us through the
> financial wringer simply because we happen to own an airplane.
>
> But what I'm also against is the pilot whose only flight experience is
> gained to and from an airshow. *Or having them look like duffers when
> they are told to land long, or to put it on the green or whatever.
> Toward that end I would like to see them practicing precision landings
> at some low-traffic field... or at ANY field, when it comes right down
> to it. (It is the organization needed for this type of practice that
> leads to the 'club-like' definition.)
>
> While none of the planes mentioned here are especially hot STOL
> performers, neither do they need a mile of concrete. *Without
> exception, all can do a full-stop in less than a thousand feet... and
> the touch-and-go needed for a spot landing can be done in much less.
>
> Finally (with regard to commonality) all of the planes mentioned here
> use a converted Volkswagen engine and, within that frame, a VW engine
> using MY methods of conversion, which means the prop is hung on the
> clutch-end of the crankshaft, there is a dynamo installed on the
> pulley-end of the crank, and the ignition system is an automotive
> unit, meaning the Compu-Fire DS-IX or similar. *This method of
> conversion is not only the least expensive, it is the lightest in
> weight AND the most reliable.
>
> Hopefully, that has brought us back to the main theme which is wood
> versus metal. Ever bent a LONG flange in metal? *Most who haven't are
> convinced they can't, unless they use an equally long metal brake.
> Long metal brakes are hellishly expensive and if one is needed it
> would pretty well blow my argument out of the water. *But the fact is,
> one is NOT needed. *In a similar vein we run into non-metal users who
> are convinced using real rivets is either difficult or expensive when
> in fact, it is neither.
>
> Over on the other side of the hangar all of the metal-smiths are
> pointing fingers at our TABLE SAW, insisting the fact one is required
> is proof that it costs MORE to build from wood than from metal. They
> have a pretty good point in that a table saw IS needed to achieve the
> accuracy required in long cuts, but they've overlooked the fact that a
> portable electric saw can be made to serve as a table saw.
>
> Then comes the 'Yabut' arguments: *'Yeah, but if I gotta make a table
> saw...' from the metals group being bounced off the 'Yeah, but if I
> need an air compressor...' *The truth is, you can do rivets using the
> SMALLEST of the available air compressors, which leaves both groups
> milling around looking for another argument to throw at the other.
>
> While I'm over here laughing :-)
>
> Because the *tools *you'll need to convert and MAINTAIN your VW
> engine exceed by at least an order of magnitude those needed to build
> EITHER type of airframe.
>
> Herez why:
> Head-plate. *Needed to establish the volumetric balance of the engine.
> Exhaust valve tool: *Needed to determine valve stem-seat wear.
> Adjustable push-rod. *Needed when setting valve-train geometry.
> Chamber volume tools. Needed to measure the volume of your combustion
> chambers.
> Timing Wheel: *Needed to adjust your valve timing.
> Valve Spring Tool: *Needed to determine valve spring compression
> height.
> Connecting-rod Tool: *Needed when adjusting rod balance.
>
> Shall I get into the tools specific to making your propeller? *I think
> not. *(In fact, I already have... but they are specific to the prop
> and listed in the section on propellers.)
>
> The point here is that your decision to build a 'wooden' or a metal
> airplane depends largely on what TOOLS you have. *But the wood vs
> metal argument has no merit because because when it comes to tools --
> and that's what it boils down to -- the ENGINE requires more tools
> than either type of airframe.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Have you ever thought of a Pietenpol?
Corvair engine is good with a very few mods.
I built one and finished it itn 1975, and still have it and it will
perform good.
Flew it to Mr. Pietenpols' strip several times and Oshkosh and
Brodhead WS from
southern Ohio.
JimV.

[Bob Hoover]

On Mar 28, 5:28*pm, dpilot > wrote:

> Have you ever thought of a Pietenpol?
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Jim,

It's not that it hasn't been thought of but more that a Piet is
addressing an entirely different 'mission.'

The VP1 is a single-place, VW-powered machine that can be built for a
fraction of the price of a Piet. The Pietenpohl is a two-place
battleship (1" sq longerons!) designed to be powered by an engine from
a Model A Ford. Even when powered by something else it is a LONG way
from a minimum-cost machine.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

wrote:
> I'm still getting LOTS of messages from guys who just Don't Get It.
>
> So let me try it again.
>
> It is NOT a question of an RV vs a Falco. The most basic factor is
> COST which means we can rule out such high-priced examples. Right now
> I've been making comparisons between the VP-I as the 'all wood'
> example and Calvin Parker's 'Teenie Two' as the all-metal example.
> That will change in the IMMEDIATE FUTURE as more Thatcher CX4's and
> Bruce King's BK-1.3 come flying out the door of garages across the
> country.
>

In the way of "for what it's worth", I'll drop two cents here...

Bruce's airplanes fly well. and they are very straight forward easy to build
machines.

His Hummel was way too heavy with the full VW and the tiny Hummel wing.
He had one wing stall on takeoff one day early in the game- horsing it off.
He said he saw the runway 90 degrees to where is should be - and only 10 feet
away. Scared him pretty good. But he got back on it and rode it again - all
the way to Sun-N-Fun and back, and to Oshkosh and back.
This is, to my mind, one of the most successful VW airplanes ever.
But it turned out it was not for kids (or ham handed low time pilots!)

The BK-1 was a bit weak kneed - gear nearly collapsed on landing one day.
But I'm sure he has addressed that since then. I suspect that's what the
1.3 is all about.

Do *not* use the simple and inexpensive flat wrap canopy!
Too much buffeting around the windshield - could possibly affect the stab.
The bubble was something like $600, but it's money well spent.

I can't evaluate the CX4, as I've never seen one in the flesh.
But they say if it looks good it will fly good.
(not great grammar , but you get the gist of it?)
It's a beauty all right!



The VP-1 does *NOT* fly well at all, being way too heavy and light on power.
Besides that the control harmony sucks. Ailerons are too heavy, pitch too
light. The two I am familiar with have a service ceiling of 600 feet.
This is not something I'd even consider. Nor recommend to anyone else.



The Teeny Too flies some better - at least from the aspect of handling.
But lands at damned near 65 mph(!) - and the nose gear is not really
up to anything but a smooth runway. (and it NEEDS runway for takeoff).
Controls are very light - really easy to over control.
It would cost about the same as a BK, take about as long to build, and
not perform or handle as well.



Of the examples you are discussing, the only one I'd consider is the King.

The CX4 may prove capable. I'd like to fly one and see!






Richard

[cavelamb[_2_]]

You are recommending a corvair?
To Veedubber????

[Copperhead]

On Mar 28, 2:59*pm, " > wrote:
> I'm still getting LOTS of messages from guys who just Don't Get It.
>
> So let me try it again.
>
> It is NOT a question of an RV vs a Falco. *The most basic factor is
> COST which means we can rule out such high-priced examples. *Right now
> I've been making comparisons between the VP-I as the 'all wood'
> example and Calvin Parker's 'Teenie Two' as the all-metal example.
> That will change in the IMMEDIATE FUTURE as *more Thatcher CX4's and
> Bruce King's BK-1.3 come flying out the door of garages across the
> country.
>
> In virtually all cases the ENGINE is the most expensive component.
> (The exception is a few ultra-lights.) *But ALL of the examples
> presented under this 'Metal vs Wood' comparison use a converted
> Volkswagen engine. *In this comparison I am advocating the use of a
> conversion in which the propeller is mounted on the CLUTCH-end of the
> crankshaft AND a dynamo coaxially-mounted on the PULLEY-end of the
> crankshaft. *The induction system uses an updraft carburetor from a
> Model A (Tillotson Model X is one example) or from an industrial
> engine (various models of Bendix and Zenith).
>
> The ignition system is either stock Volkswagen but using a distributor
> having mechanical advance (ie, centrifugal advance). *This system may
> be upgraded by replacing various components with their electronic
> equivalents, such as using an electronic switch instead of the
> mechanical breaker points. *The best-case would be the CompuFire DS-IX
> or similar, in which the single coil is replaced with a dual-coil,
> waste-spark system that is electronically triggered. *The lower body
> of a distributor having mechanical advance would be retained, allowing
> the engine to be hand-propped yet able to run efficiently at speeds
> above 3000rpm.
>
> As for the airframe, the selection is based on the availability of the
> required TOOLS and before we get into the issue of tools too deeply it
> must be understood that regardless of your choice SOME tools will be
> required.
>
> All of the METAL airframes mentioned mentioned above can be built
> using ONLY hand tools, whereas for the 'wooden' airframes, a table saw
> is a virtual necessity. *Fortunately a portable electric saw may be
> pressed into service as a TABLE SAW at a very small price, allowing
> accurate production of the required longerons and, in the case of a
> 'Chugger' type wing, of the sticks needed for ribs.
>
> Performance on the whole is left for future posts but one aspect of
> performance must be addressed at the outset and that is the
> relationship between flying and safety. *To be a good airman, in my
> opinion, DEMANDS a given number of landings per month. *Ideally, a
> group of airmen would keep one or more airframes available to all.
> I'm not strong on clubs, having found most degenerate fairly quickly
> by non-flying types who see the club as a SOCIAL activity and who tend
> to lean their financial shoulder rather heavily on those who are
> primarily interested in FLYING rather then dunking their donuts. *Yet
> it's difficult to define the needed group without making it sound like
> a club.
>
> As for doing all of the flying in just one or two airframes, this
> reflects the COST of hangars and tie-downs. *All of the airplanes
> discussed here can be road-towable but in a growing number of cases
> the folks running our airports are AGAINST someone flying out of
> 'their' field unless they pay certain fees. *I've nothing against
> that; we've all got to eat. *But I AM against being forced to pay
> hundreds of dollars a month simply to maintain my proficiency. *My
> suggested solution is to base one or two airplanes at such airport but
> to allow those airplanes to be flown by OTHER-THAN their registered
> owner.
>
> A couple of people have said it sounds as if I am AGAINST the social
> aspects of grass roots aviation. *Actually, I'm just the opposite.
> What I'm against is some ground hog trying to run us through the
> financial wringer simply because we happen to own an airplane.
>
> But what I'm also against is the pilot whose only flight experience is
> gained to and from an airshow. *Or having them look like duffers when
> they are told to land long, or to put it on the green or whatever.
> Toward that end I would like to see them practicing precision landings
> at some low-traffic field... or at ANY field, when it comes right down
> to it. (It is the organization needed for this type of practice that
> leads to the 'club-like' definition.)
>
> While none of the planes mentioned here are especially hot STOL
> performers, neither do they need a mile of concrete. *Without
> exception, all can do a full-stop in less than a thousand feet... and
> the touch-and-go needed for a spot landing can be done in much less.
>
> Finally (with regard to commonality) all of the planes mentioned here
> use a converted Volkswagen engine and, within that frame, a VW engine
> using MY methods of conversion, which means the prop is hung on the
> clutch-end of the crankshaft, there is a dynamo installed on the
> pulley-end of the crank, and the ignition system is an automotive
> unit, meaning the Compu-Fire DS-IX or similar. *This method of
> conversion is not only the least expensive, it is the lightest in
> weight AND the most reliable.
>
> Hopefully, that has brought us back to the main theme which is wood
> versus metal. Ever bent a LONG flange in metal? *Most who haven't are
> convinced they can't, unless they use an equally long metal brake.
> Long metal brakes are hellishly expensive and if one is needed it
> would pretty well blow my argument out of the water. *But the fact is,
> one is NOT needed. *In a similar vein we run into non-metal users who
> are convinced using real rivets is either difficult or expensive when
> in fact, it is neither.
>
> Over on the other side of the hangar all of the metal-smiths are
> pointing fingers at our TABLE SAW, insisting the fact one is required
> is proof that it costs MORE to build from wood than from metal. They
> have a pretty good point in that a table saw IS needed to achieve the
> accuracy required in long cuts, but they've overlooked the fact that a
> portable electric saw can be made to serve as a table saw.
>
> Then comes the 'Yabut' arguments: *'Yeah, but if I gotta make a table
> saw...' from the metals group being bounced off the 'Yeah, but if I
> need an air compressor...' *The truth is, you can do rivets using the
> SMALLEST of the available air compressors, which leaves both groups
> milling around looking for another argument to throw at the other.
>
> While I'm over here laughing :-)
>
> Because the *tools *you'll need to convert and MAINTAIN your VW
> engine exceed by at least an order of magnitude those needed to build
> EITHER type of airframe.
>
> Herez why:
> Head-plate. *Needed to establish the volumetric balance of the engine.
> Exhaust valve tool: *Needed to determine valve stem-seat wear.
> Adjustable push-rod. *Needed when setting valve-train geometry.
> Chamber volume tools. Needed to measure the volume of your combustion
> chambers.
> Timing Wheel: *Needed to adjust your valve timing.
> Valve Spring Tool: *Needed to determine valve spring compression
> height.
> Connecting-rod Tool: *Needed when adjusting rod balance.
>
> Shall I get into the tools specific to making your propeller? *I think
> not. *(In fact, I already have... but they are specific to the prop
> and listed in the section on propellers.)
>
> The point here is that your decision to build a 'wooden' or a metal
> airplane depends largely on what TOOLS you have. *But the wood vs
> metal argument has no merit because because when it comes to tools --
> and that's what it boils down to -- the ENGINE requires more tools
> than either type of airframe.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Nice read Bob and as always makes alot of sense. I looked at the VP
and used the plans as a means of determining if I could build the ribs
and bulkheads with store front or scrap lumber. I could and did, but
my height and weight pretty much ruled out the VP for me. Other all
wood possibilities exist though, just as the metal planes you've
mentioned.

Your information about the rear shaft VW engine was much appreciated
as I've purchased the Great Planes Type 1 Engine Assy Manual and found
it to be every bit as good as you'd told me it was. W/O a doubt any VW
engine I build will be a rear drive, if for nothing else due to the
weight savings and lesser amount of money involved.

I'd intended to send you an e-mail asking about the "mission"
differences of the front vs rear drive VW engines but was unable to do
so. Regardless the 1835 cc and 1915cc R/D VW engines are remarkably
affordable looking to me, with the difference between them and the
2180cc cost wise being considerable. HP does indeed cost money as
you've written quite often.

Regards

Joe S.

[Bob Hoover]

On Mar 28, 9:20*pm, Copperhead > wrote:

> ... I looked at the VP
> and used the plans as a means of determining if I could build the ribs
> and bulkheads with store front or scrap lumber. I could and did, but
> my height and weight pretty much ruled out the VP for me.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Joe,

Agreed, sadly. The design is such a tumbleweed it limits its market.
Unfortunately, in most cases it doesn't do that until time for that
all-important first flight rolls around. Based on the Volksplane
Group, the exact same features that limit the plane's practicality for
one group of pilots turns out to be one of the most critical factors
for another, in that smaller/lighter pilots often acquire their bird
as a bargain, already built. (But I gotta tell you pard, There is some
BIG people flying Volksplanes. [See their Photos archive. They've got
some wizard videos].)

Since the short-coming (ie, excessive drag) is largely a function of
its design I suspect there are a few examples of cleaned-up copies.
On the other hand, I weighed about 190 when I had my first flight in a
VP1 and found it an enjoyable experience. I was especially impressed
by the coordination of the tail. But the take-off was best described
as leisurely. (I was six feet tall back then. Now, I'm exactly one
vertebrae shorter :-)

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

> Your information about the rear shaft VW engine was much appreciated
> as I've purchased the Great Planes Type 1 Engine Assy Manual and found
> it to be every bit as good as you'd told me it was. W/O a doubt any VW
> engine I build will be a rear drive, if for nothing else due to the
> weight savings and lesser amount of money involved.
>
> I'd intended to send you an e-mail asking about the "mission"
> differences of the front vs rear drive VW engines but was unable to do
> so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, Steve's manual is pretty good. I think he's also got a video
now. As for tracking me down...

Try:

I've a hunch Steve spends a good part of his life on the
telephone :-) (Steve produces a really beautiful flywheel-mount.
There are some pictures of it in my blog.)

As for the 'mission' business it might help if you couch the question
differently. For example, name all the automobile engine conversions
in which the propeller was attached to the pulley-hub of the
crankshaft?

Then ask yourself 'why?' Because the truth is, putting the prop as
close to the thrust-bearing as possible makes the best kind of sense.
In effect, the typical VW with its prop on the pulley-hub is an
EXCEPTION to the standard practice of auto engine conversions.

As for any reference to the clutch-end of the crankshaft as being the
REAR, it is actually located on the FRONT of the VW engine. At least
it is to those with any experience with Volkswagen vehicles. ( ALL
references for Volkswagen are relative to the driver or the front
bumper.)

I've explained how the first flying VW's used the pulley hub and how
those advantages were lost by the time the engine's displacement
surpassed 1200cc. The sad part of the tale is that everyone continued
to try and emulate the success of the 1000cc engine with its 'built-
in' engine mount.

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

> Regardless the 1835 cc and 1915cc R/D VW engines are remarkably
> affordable looking to me, with the difference between them and the
> 2180cc cost wise being considerable. HP does indeed cost money as
> you've written quite often.

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

The reason for the big difference is that you don't need the special
crankshaft nor the 'Force 1' prop-hub. But depending on which
airframe you're interested in, there may be even LESS COSTLY
alternatives.

In the above you've mentioned 'horsepower.' I understand what you
meant but it would be far more accurate to refer to TORQUE and more
specifically to THRUST. In fact, when it comes to homebuilts, we'd
probably all be better off if we referred to our engines in UNITS OF
FLYABILITY or UF's. It certainly wouldn't be any crazier than the
situation we have now, where some fellow tells you his engine produces
80 horsepower then in the next breath sez it burns only three gallons
per hour. The tricky bit here is that both statements may be
correct.. but it would be impossible for them to be correct AT THE
SAME TIME.

Three gallons of fuel is about 18 pounds One of the most critical
specifications for an engine is its Specific Fuel Consumption, which
is how many POUNDS of fuel it burns PER HOUR to produce ONE
horsepower. Normally aspirated air-cooled engines are clustered near
the .500 mark, meaning they burn about half a pound of fuel per hour
for each horsepower. Economy of scale applies so you'll find a big
radial down near the bottom of the curve and your lawn-mower up near
the top, but your flying Volkswagen will be found clustered with the
small (ie less than 500cid) Lycomings and Continentals.

The best SFC EVER for a spark-ignited, gasoline-fueled aircraft engine
was for those humongous turbo-compound radials like the ones used in
the B-36. Their SFC was under four-tenths of a pound of fuel per
hour. (!!)

Then comes this expert with his converted VW that has an SFC of .225!
By every engineering measure in the world the man should be given the
Nobel prize... right after they give him the Harmon Trophy. I mean,
an SFC of .225! The guy has got to be the best engineering GENIUS of
all time!

(What's that? You're saying he FIBBED a little? Well... okay. But
did he cross his fingers at the same time? Because if he DIDN'T it
means we get to call him 'Liar Liar pants on fi..' What? Ah! He DID
cross his fingers. Ah! You're saying he DID cross his fingers. I
see. Thanks for clearing that up for us.)

Well shucks. I was really looking forward to the Awards Ceremony.

So maybe we should lay horsepower aside for the moment and stick with
just the engine and the prop. Including the prop is the honest way to
do it because you need to figure-in your prop's efficiency. If you're
lucky your prop's efficiency will be between 60% and 70%. That's
because we're using a fixed-pitch prop, which has to be a compromise
between take-off and cruise. If you carve your prop for its optimum
climb (or take-off) performance you're going to have to give away a
lot of fuel during cruise. But if you carve a prop for maximum cruise
performance you're liable to need a mile of concrete to get that puppy
into the air.

Of course, what you'll do is try to find a good compromise between the
two.

But having said all that, you're probably still wondering about this
less expensive option I mentioned, which is to leave your heads and
the crankcase alone -- don't machine them for bigger jugs. Then
install a crankshaft having a longer throw... and a set of longer
connecting rods.

Odds are, you'll stick with a stroke of about 78mm the longest set of
rods you can afford. The savings comes in because you don't have to
do any machining on the crankcase or heads; you use the stock items.
You WILL have to clearance the case because the longer throw is now
going to hit the webs inside the crankcase -- exactly as they would if
you opted for a 2180 -- but clearancing is a minor chore and something
you can do for yourself. So you end up buying a new crank, new rods
and a set of SPACERS that allows all this stuff to bolt together.

What you GET is an engine that develops its torque 'way down near the
bottom of the rpm curve. That means you can carve a more efficient
PROP because it will be spinning a lot SLOWER. Slow means low rpm's
and low rpm's means low wear.

Bottom line is that you get an engine that provides all the TORQUE you
can use. How big is it? Umm lesssee... 78mm crank and stock jugs is
1791cc. You can call it 1800 if you wish.

How many 'horsepower?' Well.... spin it up to about 5000 rpm on the
dyno, you'll probably see about 100hp. For mebbe a minute :-)

-Bob

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:44:22 -0700 (PDT), Bob Hoover
> wrote:



>
>Three gallons of fuel is about 18 pounds One of the most critical
>specifications for an engine is its Specific Fuel Consumption, which
>is how many POUNDS of fuel it burns PER HOUR to produce ONE
>horsepower. Normally aspirated air-cooled engines are clustered near
>the .500 mark, meaning they burn about half a pound of fuel per hour
>for each horsepower. Economy of scale applies so you'll find a big
>radial down near the bottom of the curve and your lawn-mower up near
>the top, but your flying Volkswagen will be found clustered with the
>small (ie less than 500cid) Lycomings and Continentals.
>

just recently I came across the fuel consumption figures for the
English Pobjoy Niagra radial of the mid 1930's.
it was quoted in those wierd english dimensions of lbs/hp/hour.
converting the figures into the litres per hour I use and corrected
for horsepower differences the Pobjoy Niagra radial has exactly the
same fuel burn efficiency as the Continental O-200.

Stealth Pilot

[Copperhead]

On Mar 29, 2:44*am, Bob Hoover > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 9:20*pm, Copperhead > wrote:
>
> > ... I looked at the VP
> > and used the plans as a means of determining if I could build the ribs
> > and bulkheads with store front or scrap lumber. I could and did, but
> > my height and weight pretty much ruled out the VP for me.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Joe,
>
> Agreed, sadly. *The design is such a tumbleweed it limits its market.
> Unfortunately, in most cases it doesn't do that until time for that
> all-important first flight rolls around. *Based on the Volksplane
> Group, the exact same features that limit the plane's practicality for
> one group of pilots turns out to be one of the most critical factors
> for another, in that smaller/lighter pilots often acquire their bird
> as a bargain, already built. (But I gotta tell you pard, There is some
> BIG people flying Volksplanes. [See their Photos archive. *They've got
> some wizard videos].)
>
> Since the short-coming (ie, excessive drag) is largely a function of
> its design I suspect there are a few examples of cleaned-up copies.
> On the other hand, I weighed about 190 when I had my first flight in a
> VP1 and found it an enjoyable experience. *I was especially impressed
> by the coordination of the tail. *But the take-off was best described
> as leisurely. (I was six feet tall back then. *Now, I'm exactly one
> vertebrae shorter :-)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Your information about the rear shaft VW engine was much appreciated
> > as I've purchased the Great Planes Type 1 Engine Assy Manual and found
> > it to be every bit as good as you'd told me it was. W/O a doubt any VW
> > engine I build will be a rear drive, if for nothing else due to the
> > weight savings and lesser amount of money involved.
>
> > I'd intended to send you an e-mail asking about the "mission"
> > differences of the front vs rear drive VW engines but was unable to do
> > so.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--
>
> Yeah, Steve's manual is pretty good. *I think he's also got a video
> now. *As for tracking me down...
>
> *Try:
>
> I've a hunch Steve spends a good part of his life on the
> telephone :-) *(Steve produces a really beautiful flywheel-mount.
> There are some pictures of it in my blog.)
>
> As for the 'mission' business it might help if you couch the question
> differently. *For example, name all the automobile engine conversions
> in which the propeller was attached to the pulley-hub of the
> crankshaft?
>
> Then ask yourself 'why?' *Because the truth is, putting the prop as
> close to the thrust-bearing as possible makes the best kind of sense.
> In effect, the typical VW with its prop on the pulley-hub is an
> EXCEPTION to the standard practice of auto engine conversions.
>
> As for any reference to the clutch-end of the crankshaft as being the
> REAR, it is actually located on the FRONT of the VW engine. *At least
> it is to those with any experience with Volkswagen vehicles. ( ALL
> references for Volkswagen are relative to the driver or the front
> bumper.)
>
> I've explained how the first flying VW's used the pulley hub and how
> those advantages were lost by the time the engine's displacement
> surpassed 1200cc. *The sad part of the tale is that everyone continued
> to try and emulate the success of the 1000cc engine with its 'built-
> in' engine mount.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*---------
>
> > Regardless the 1835 cc and 1915cc R/D VW engines are remarkably
> > affordable looking to me, with the difference between them and the
> > 2180cc cost wise being considerable. HP does indeed cost money as
> > you've written quite often.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*---------
>
> The reason for the big difference is that you don't need the special
> crankshaft nor the 'Force 1' prop-hub. *But depending on which
> airframe you're interested in, there may be even LESS COSTLY
> alternatives.
>
> In the above you've mentioned 'horsepower.' *I understand what you
> meant but it would be far more accurate to refer to TORQUE and more
> specifically to THRUST. *In fact, when it comes to homebuilts, we'd
> probably all be better off if we referred to our engines in UNITS OF
> FLYABILITY or UF's. *It certainly wouldn't be any crazier than the
> situation we have now, where some fellow tells you his engine produces
> 80 horsepower then in the next breath sez it burns only three gallons
> per hour. *The tricky bit here is that both statements may be
> correct.. but it would be impossible for them to be correct AT THE
> SAME TIME.
>
> Three gallons of fuel is about 18 pounds *One of the most critical
> specifications for an engine is its Specific Fuel Consumption, which
> is how many POUNDS of fuel it burns PER HOUR to produce ONE
> horsepower. *Normally aspirated air-cooled engines are clustered near
> the .500 mark, meaning they burn about half a pound of fuel per hour
> for each horsepower. *Economy of scale applies so you'll find a big
> radial down near the bottom of the curve and your lawn-mower up near
> the top, but your flying Volkswagen will be found clustered with the
> small (ie less than 500cid) Lycomings and Continentals.
>
> The best SFC EVER for a spark-ignited, gasoline-fueled aircraft engine
> was for those humongous *turbo-compound radials like the ones used in
> the B-36. *Their SFC was under four-tenths of a pound of fuel per
> hour. *(!!)
>
> Then comes this expert with his converted VW that has an SFC of .225!
> By every engineering measure in the world the man should be given the
> Nobel prize... right after they give him the Harmon Trophy. *I mean,
> an SFC of .225! *The guy has got to be the best engineering GENIUS of
> all time!
>
> (What's that? *You're saying he FIBBED a little? *Well... okay. *But
> did he cross his fingers at the same time? Because if he DIDN'T it
> means we get to call him 'Liar Liar pants on fi..' What? *Ah! *He DID
> cross his fingers. *Ah! *You're saying he DID cross his fingers. *I
> see. *Thanks for clearing that up for us.)
>
> Well shucks. *I was really looking forward to the Awards Ceremony.
>
> So maybe we should lay horsepower aside for the moment and stick with
> just the engine and the prop. *Including the prop is the honest way to
> do it because you need to figure-in your prop's efficiency. *If you're
> lucky your prop's efficiency will be between 60% and 70%. *That's
> because we're using a fixed-pitch prop, which has to be a compromise
> between take-off and cruise. *If you carve your prop for its optimum
> climb (or take-off) performance you're going to have to give away a
> lot of fuel during cruise. *But if you carve a prop for maximum cruise
> performance you're liable to need a mile of concrete to get that puppy
> into the air.
>
> Of course, what you'll do is try to find a good compromise between the
> two.
>
> But having said all that, you're probably still wondering about this
> less expensive option I mentioned, which is to leave your heads and
> the crankcase alone -- don't machine them for bigger jugs. *Then
> install a crankshaft having a longer throw... and a set of longer
> connecting rods.
>
> Odds are, you'll stick with a stroke of about 78mm the longest set of
> rods you can afford. *The savings comes in because you don't have to
> do any machining on the crankcase or heads; you use the stock items.
> You WILL have to clearance the case because the longer throw is now
> going to hit the webs inside the crankcase -- exactly as they would if
> you opted for a 2180 -- but clearancing is a minor chore and something
> you can do for yourself. *So you end up buying a new crank, new rods
> and a set of SPACERS that allows all this stuff to bolt together.
>
> What you GET is an engine that develops its torque 'way down near the
> bottom of the rpm curve. *That means you can carve a more efficient
> PROP because it will be spinning a lot SLOWER. *Slow means low rpm's
> and low rpm's means low wear.
>
> Bottom line is that you get an engine that provides all the TORQUE you
> can use. *How big is it? Umm lesssee... 78mm crank and stock jugs is
> 1791cc. You can call it 1800 if you wish.
>
> How many 'horsepower?' *Well.... spin *it up to about 5000 rpm on the
> dyno, you'll probably see about 100hp. *For mebbe a minute :-)
>
> -Bob

"Bottom line is that you get an engine that provides all the TORQUE
you
can use. How big is it? Umm lesssee... 78mm crank and stock jugs is
1791cc. You can call it 1800 if you wish." BH

Now that's just the information I was wanting Bob as I'm looking at
the M-19 Flying Squirrel or the Rag a Bond. It would sure be nice if
the BK 1.3 plans were out, but the Beta testing he's having done is a
positive indication of his intent to do right by others.

Oddly enough I've had more fun researching and experimenting with
plans and parts building then I'd ever have thought possible and have
spent very little money so far. Mostly this has been due to the fact I
already have most of my woodworking power tools as well as a lot of
metal cutting and bending tools.

Regards

Joe S.

[Bob Hoover]

On Mar 29, 9:17*am, Copperhead > wrote:

> Oddly enough I've had more fun researching and experimenting with
> plans and parts building then I'd ever have thought possible and have
> spent very little money so far. Mostly this has been due to the fact I
> already have most of my woodworking power tools as well as a lot of
> metal cutting and bending tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Joe,

Normally, when you have the option of building from either aluminum or
wood, you would opt for metal but there are a few cases where wood may
prove to be the better choice. In the mid-1930's Virginias Clark, the
fellow who gave us the Clark-Y airfoil, patented a process of making
plywood called 'Duramold' that was superior to aluminum in several
ways, but especially with regard to compound curves. Howard Hughes
acquired the rights to the process (I believe through Fairchild
Camera) and used it to produce the HK-1 'Hercules' -- which we
generally know as 'the Spruce Goose,' even though it is mostly birch.
The 'K' part of 'HK' referred to Henry J. Kaiser, who was supposed to
assemble the giant flying boat, Hughes to fabricate the parts.

One reason we've never heard much about Dura-mold is because of
fiberglas.... and a small Swiss company that came up with epoxy.
Combine the two and even a back-yard craftsman has the ability to
produce complex parts stronger than steel but weighing as much as two-
thirds less.

-Bob

PS -- I've got a hunch that threads such as this often turn into
something useful.

[Copperhead]

On Mar 29, 12:54*pm, Bob Hoover > wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:17*am, Copperhead > wrote:
>
> > Oddly enough I've had more fun researching and experimenting with
> > plans and parts building then I'd ever have thought possible and have
> > spent very little money so far. Mostly this has been due to the fact I
> > already have most of my woodworking power tools as well as a lot of
> > metal cutting and bending tools.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*------------------------------
>
> Dear Joe,
>
> Normally, when you have the option of building from either aluminum or
> wood, you would opt for metal but there are a few cases where wood may
> prove to be the better choice. *In the mid-1930's Virginias Clark, the
> fellow who gave us the Clark-Y airfoil, patented a process of making
> plywood called 'Duramold' that was superior to aluminum in several
> ways, but especially with regard to compound curves. *Howard Hughes
> acquired the rights to the process (I believe through Fairchild
> Camera) and used it to produce the HK-1 'Hercules' *-- *which we
> generally know as 'the Spruce Goose,' even though it is mostly birch.
> The 'K' part of 'HK' referred to Henry J. Kaiser, who was supposed to
> assemble the giant flying boat, Hughes to fabricate the parts.
>
> One reason we've never heard much about Dura-mold is because of
> fiberglas.... and a small Swiss company that came up with epoxy.
> Combine the two and even a back-yard craftsman has the ability to
> produce complex parts stronger than steel but weighing as much as two-
> thirds less.
>
> -Bob
>
> PS -- I've got a hunch that threads such as this often turn into
> something useful.

Bob,

I’d read about the composite construction techniques of the ill named
“Spruce Goose”, but never made a correlation with respect current
fiberglass composite aircraft. Merely at a guess, it would appear that
one would need to make they’re own “duramold” ply (glass) wood while
constructing an airframe.

I certainly agree that such a practice would eliminate the need for
applying fiberglass to foam for panels or coverings. Current vacuum
bagging practices used on KR’s with hand made mold would most
certainly work. Now I’m going to have to do some research and
experimentation to see what epoxy and wood veneer bond together best.

For this, I believe the local boat builder’s and marine plywood supply
distributors are going to be a good information source. I think your
right about the weight savings coupled with enhanced strength of such
a project. It also looks like it would eliminate a lot of glass cloth
as well as grinding and sanding. Very interesting and informational,
thanks.

Regards

Joe S.

[Bob Hoover]

On Mar 29, 11:45*am, Copperhead > wrote:
>
> I’d read about the composite construction techniques of the ill named
> “Spruce Goose”, but never made a correlation with respect current
> fiberglass composite aircraft. Merely at a guess, it would appear that
> one would need to make they’re own “duramold” ply (glass) wood while
> constructing an airframe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dura-mold used a 'resin' similar to Plastic Resin Resorcinol in
APPEARANCE (or so I'm told; second-hand information coming at you
here). That is, there was a powder and a liquid which had to be mixed
according to a critical ratio. The wood was then impregnated with the
resin using a lay-up process similar to doing a boat hull. cabin tops
or what-have-you... with one critical exception. It was a CLOSED mold
-- you had to get the lid on the thing -- and the cure was done using
HEAT. In this case, steam or hot water.

The molds could be concrete & hot water -- and most of them were --
but some parts used ALUMINUM molds and electrical or steam heat.

Hughes ponied up an incredible amount of cash to resolve a lot of
unforseen problems relating to serial production, producing panels of
larger size, attaching panels together ...ever heard of FPL-16a
(HUGHES GLUE) ? Once all the bugs were out of the production process
you start popping HK-1's out of ship yards on both coasts at a
guesstimated rate of thirty PER DAY. And of those eight humongous
engines, it took only FOUR to FLY the thing... but all EIGHT were
needed for a fully-laden take-off

The deal with fiberglas & epoxy was that it weighed less and was
stronger than Dura-mold, plus you could formulate it for room-
temperature curing. All of that development work -- and all of that
MONEY -- had been overtaken by events.

(So what was the big flap between Hughes and the government? Hughes
had a piece of paper signed by 'the government' that said they would
pay ALL COSTS incidental to production of the HK-1, which the Hughes
lawyers read to mean all those bucks spent in development work. The
Government disagreed, saying they meant the cost of setting up
production facilities, NOT costs associated with basic research. Plus
there were more than a few Congressmen who kept pointing out that the
thing had not actually FLOWN... that it might be nothing more than a
bogus scheme to screw the American tax payer, yada yada yada...

Hughes won, by the way. But it was often said that he spent more on
legal fees than he recovered.)

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

> I certainly agree that such a practice would eliminate the need for
> applying fiberglass to foam for panels or coverings.

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

I'm not sure why it is, but a lot of people seem to think that mold-
less composite work was something new; that Kenny had come up with a
better mouse trap. In fact, that method of fabrication has been in
use for literally THOUSANDS of years. Although I wasn't around back
then (despite what you may have heard...) they have found numerous
examples of PLYWOOD in Egyptian tombs and the re-curve bow used by
Genghis Khan's mounted troops was of mold-less composite structure.
Closer to home, when tasked with producing 1200 sets of Roman-era
armor for the movie 'Ben Hur,' the set designers cranked them out
using paper mache. But of more practical use, it was fairly common
for fishermen to re-enforce spars and booms using canvas & varnish.

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

> Current vacuum
> bagging practices used on KR’s with hand made mold would most
> certainly work. Now I’m going to have to do some research and
> experimentation to see what epoxy and wood veneer bond together best.

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

Homebuilders could turn out some damn good airplanes on the cheap if
we can come up with a mini-production line for vacuum bagging leading-
edge sections for a couple of standard airfoils, such as 4412, 4415 or
the M6, in lengths of about 48 inches. Properly done, the section
gets peel-ply'd on the interior and the edges get stepped. It locks
you into a rectangular plan-form but you can come up with a good D-
cell, allowing you to produce a really good wing.

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

> For this, I believe the local boat builder’s and marine plywood supply
> distributors are going to be a good information source. I think your
> right about the weight savings coupled with enhanced strength of such
> a project. It also looks like it would eliminate a lot of glass cloth
> as well as grinding and sanding.

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

The information everybody wants is out there but it's fragmented.
Unfortunately the only body that claims to speak for the lowest level
of aviation in America -- logically the organization that should
concern itself with such matters -- has not.

-Bob

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 29, 7:04*pm, Bob Hoover > wrote:

> Homebuilders could turn out some damn good airplanes on the cheap if
> we can come up with a mini-production line for vacuum bagging leading-
> edge sections for a couple of standard airfoils, such as 4412, 4415 or
> the M6, in lengths of about 48 inches. *Properly done, the section
> gets peel-ply'd on the interior and the edges get stepped. *It locks
> you into a rectangular plan-form but you can come up with a good D-
> cell, allowing you to produce a really good wing.

I've had similar thoughts and have done some small experiments with
the TPG process. Haven't yet found the right core material. High
density PVC foam looks promising in place of Taylors paper. I have
some to play with but started projects must be completed first.

As for being "locked" into a rectangular plan-form, I'm not so sure.
There seems to be enough flexibility in the formed leading edges to
squish them down a bit after cure. The leading edge radius stays
larger then a full scaling down but that might work out to be an
advantage when it comes to tip stall?

While I'm thinking about it - vacuum sources. Mine is a water bed
drain tool. Works great and cost little. Set it up on the lid of a
Rubbermaid type tub of water with a small recirculating pump and you
have an inexpensive and reliable source of vacuum. When your finished
everything stores in the tub for the next use. Just remember to put a
check valve on the outlet or you risk sucking in water if the power or
pumps prime gets interrupted. A good source of check valves ... power
brake hose from about any salvage auto. For vacuum control a fish
tank air valve works well enough.
==============================
Leon McAtee

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:59:11 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

<snip>
>
>As for the airframe, the selection is based on the availability of the
>required TOOLS and before we get into the issue of tools too deeply it
>must be understood that regardless of your choice SOME tools will be
>required.
>
Bob...I wish it were that simple. I do well with metal, but I am the
world's worst carpenter. I'd need a shop full of precision tools just
to cut a board straight.

I had to route one 3/4" groove 1/8" deep and three 1/2" wide by 1/8"
deep. It took three pieces of good Oak plywood to get it right...OK,
there apparently isn't any such thing as good plywood any more, but it
still took 3 pieces.

>All of the METAL airframes mentioned mentioned above can be built
>using ONLY hand tools, whereas for the 'wooden' airframes, a table saw
>is a virtual necessity.

Using a fence and guide carefully set to square and I'm still off by
over an 1/8" in 16"

> Fortunately a portable electric saw may be
>pressed into service as a TABLE SAW at a very small price, allowing
>accurate production of the required longerons and, in the case of a

If I'm off by an 1/8" in 16" with a table saw you can imagine what
happens with a portable...<:-)) OTOH, the wandering back and forth
might "average out" to much less.

>'Chugger' type wing, of the sticks needed for ribs.
>
>Performance on the whole is left for future posts but one aspect of
>performance must be addressed at the outset and that is the
>relationship between flying and safety. To be a good airman, in my
>opinion, DEMANDS a given number of landings per month. Ideally, a
>group of airmen would keep one or more airframes available to all.
>I'm not strong on clubs, having found most degenerate fairly quickly
>by non-flying types who see the club as a SOCIAL activity and who tend
>to lean their financial shoulder rather heavily on those who are
>primarily interested in FLYING rather then dunking their donuts. Yet
>it's difficult to define the needed group without making it sound like
>a club.

In the two groups I've been in as well as on other locally the non
flying members end up footing a good portion of the bill so the more
we have who don't fly the cheaper it is for those of us who do. IOW
there is a Membership charge, monthly charge, and hourly charge with
the occasional special charge. These were all "up front" so any who
join are made well aware of what they will be asked to support.

>
>As for doing all of the flying in just one or two airframes, this
>reflects the COST of hangars and tie-downs. All of the airplanes
>discussed here can be road-towable but in a growing number of cases
>the folks running our airports are AGAINST someone flying out of
>'their' field unless they pay certain fees. I've nothing against
>that; we've all got to eat. But I AM against being forced to pay
>hundreds of dollars a month simply to maintain my proficiency. My
>suggested solution is to base one or two airplanes at such airport but
>to allow those airplanes to be flown by OTHER-THAN their registered
>owner.
>
>A couple of people have said it sounds as if I am AGAINST the social
>aspects of grass roots aviation. Actually, I'm just the opposite.
>What I'm against is some ground hog trying to run us through the
>financial wringer simply because we happen to own an airplane.
>
>But what I'm also against is the pilot whose only flight experience is
>gained to and from an airshow. Or having them look like duffers when
>they are told to land long, or to put it on the green or whatever.

You just listed about 90% of the private pilots. Of course I've not
been flying for the past two years (do hope to get the medical back
soon and flying even sooner), but when my flying was only 20 hours a
year for a couple of years, all of that 20 hours was spent in
practice. To me, proficient means "flexible". As you say, being able
to spot land with what ever I'm flying, or fly an "Oshkosh pattern"
where they tell you what to do, when and where as well as to be able
to "keep the speed up" following the G-III or S-turn behind a Cub
while close to minimum *safe* airspeed.

I have to admit that I like to practice "hanging on the edge" be it
stall, MCA, 60 degree steep turns, turns on, or around a point, or
having some one tell me "turn base now and land on a specific spot be
it the numbers, or where ever.

Actually I have to admit there's a bit of ego in landing a Bo in way
less space than the other guys use for 172s, 150's, and Cherokees.
OTOH I don't add 10 MPH for a cushion, another 10 for mother and the
kids, and maybe another 10 for what ever reason. The ASF made us
calculate the speed for every landing based on weight and we were
given IIRC +/- 2 MPH.

>Toward that end I would like to see them practicing precision landings
>at some low-traffic field... or at ANY field, when it comes right down
>to it. (It is the organization needed for this type of practice that
>leads to the 'club-like' definition.)

I do them just for personal satisfaction.

>
>While none of the planes mentioned here are especially hot STOL
>performers, neither do they need a mile of concrete. Without
>exception, all can do a full-stop in less than a thousand feet... and
>the touch-and-go needed for a spot landing can be done in much less.

You can do that in a Bonanza as long as you don't try to pull the
power and glide in. It takes a lot more runway when you do that. BUT
all that practice paid off when the old Deb had a complete engine
failure on climb out. Bout 50 feet or so and 100 MPH when it got real
quiet. On a 3800 foot runway I barely had enough energy left in the
old gal to make the turn off at the terminal building and there was
1200 feet of runway left. If you have the power, come in steep, don't
drag it in. The F33s and Debs and easily land over the 50 foot
obstacle in less than 1000. Actually if there is any breeze at all
it'll be less than 900 feet. That big wing has the same loading as a
Cherokee 180 and more drag with those big flaps. Actually with gear
and flaps down it flies like a big, heavy, expensive Cherokee 180 that
uses a lot of gas. Well, it's not nearly as forgiving with stalls in
that configuration either. <:-))

BTW I *enjoy* practicing and doing all those maneuvers, but I may have
to start looking for something that uses a bit less gas for just
playing.<sigh>


>

>
>The point here is that your decision to build a 'wooden' or a metal
>airplane depends largely on what TOOLS you have. But the wood vs

For me, lack of skill might have to be factored in when it comes to
wood.

Which reminds me, it's time to get back to the router out there in the
shop.
>metal argument has no merit because because when it comes to tools --
>and that's what it boils down to -- the ENGINE requires more tools
>than either type of airframe.

Tools, I can use...but you use tools other than wrenches on an engine?
<:-))

>
>-R.S.Hoover