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