Info on the Polliwagen

Anybody know where I can find more information about the Polliwagen? I've
Googled on the name but it didn't provide much. I think it's a neat looking
plane and wonder why you don't see more of them.

Anybody know where I can find more information about the Polliwagen? I've
Googled on the name but it didn't provide much. I think it's a neat looking
plane and wonder why you don't see more of them.

For one the company is defunct. I recall that performance of the few that were
built did not measure up to the claims.

John Dupre'

The second thing that caused its demise was the death of the designer in his
plane. I.E. no support.

"JDupre5762" wrote in message
...
Anybody know where I can find more information about the Polliwagen?
I've
Googled on the name but it didn't provide much. I think it's a neat
looking
plane and wonder why you don't see more of them.

For one the company is defunct. I recall that performance of the few that
were
built did not measure up to the claims.

John Dupre'

what do you need to know?

I know a fellow with a half built pollywagen in his rafters, and all the
documentation.

The only thing I need to know is that if this fellow (a master craftsman if
ever there was one) never finished it, then I don't want anything to do with
it. There HAD to be major problems somewhere.


Ron Webb


"AKAVIE" wrote in message
...
Anybody know where I can find more information about the Polliwagen? I've
Googled on the name but it didn't provide much. I think it's a neat
looking
plane and wonder why you don't see more of them.

I have a set of Polliwagen plans ... both the originals and the later plans
for the premoulded kit. I am also an aero engineer.

It is a poorly designed airplane - many details are poorly thought out and
do not follow good aeronautical engineering practise .....

The use or urethane foam and some of the other composite construction
details also leave a lot to be desired.

The airplane is also poorly proportioned and I suspect that it probably
handles poorly ... particularly longitudinal and directional stability. I
have spoken with a few people who have flown the prototypes but these were
only short flights and they could not conform or deny this suspicion.

I would not build one ... the #1 rule of homebuilt airplanes applies. If the
design is old (in the case of the Polliwagen circa 79 I think) and there are
not many flying don't waste your money on it. Better build Sonerai (assuming
you are after a VW powered aircraft) or something that is a proven airplane.

If you want to know more email me at .


"Ron Webb" wrote in message
...
what do you need to know?

I know a fellow with a half built pollywagen in his rafters, and all the
documentation.

The only thing I need to know is that if this fellow (a master craftsman
if
ever there was one) never finished it, then I don't want anything to do
with
it. There HAD to be major problems somewhere.


Ron Webb


"AKAVIE" wrote in message
...
Anybody know where I can find more information about the Polliwagen?
I've
Googled on the name but it didn't provide much. I think it's a neat
looking
plane and wonder why you don't see more of them.

"Stephen Mitchell" wrote in message . au...
I would not build one ... the #1 rule of homebuilt airplanes applies. If the
design is old (in the case of the Polliwagen circa 79 I think) and there are
not many flying don't waste your money on it.

Hi, all

I'm just getting into this (in the process of picking a plane), and
though I had not heard the #1 rule of homebuild aiplanes, it certainly
makes sense. I have a question very much in spirit of that rule.

I'm leaning towards one of the smaller Jodel models (or the Falconar
derivatives - supposedly they may be easier to build) or something
called the CA-61 Mini Ace which is supposedly very similar to
Wanttaja's beloved Bower's Fly Baby though slightly smaller.

I'm finding plenty of info on the net regarding the Jodel variants,
and the general consensus seems to be that they are truly wonderful
airplanes. People who've owned them and sold them really seem to miss
them. There have been plenty of them built all over the world, though
oddly apparently relatively few here in the US.

Info on the Mini Ace is much more elusive. It was designed in the
early sixties and instructions for building it were published in the
Nov 1965 Mechanics Illustrated. The full size plans still appear to
be available. The NTSB accident reports show only a couple incidents
for this plane (all non-fatal). The type designation for the plane
(CA61) seems to show up in a lot of different government documents, so
one might think that at some point there were quite a few of these out
there. In looking the FAA registration database, there only seem to
be eleven of them, though. That seems like a very tiny number, and
perhaps that says all that needs to be said about the design.

The designer is still alive though apparently splits his time between
the US and Europe, and right now he's across the pond. Anyway, I
guess I'd prefer to hear from people who've built them & flown them
(parents sometimes have a somewhat less than objective view of their
children, you know).

Is it possible the Mini Ace is a good design that history more or less
forgot, or should I stick with the road more traveled and go with a
Jodel? Any body out there with any experience with either of these
types of planes?

Rob

"Rob Schneider" wrote in message
om...

Is it possible the Mini Ace is a good design that history more or less
forgot, or should I stick with the road more traveled and go with a
Jodel? Any body out there with any experience with either of these
types of planes?

Our Emerauders Yahoo mail list
http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/Emerauders/ , 200 strong, has many
members in Europe who are familiar with the types you describe. I'm sure no
one would mind a question on the subject.

Rich S.

I have not built a CA 61 but do have the plans and construction manual
and with my new garage (room for the 1 piece spar) am considering it
as a project. The plans are detailed and the plane is well engineered
according to my research. It is all wood with ply covered fuselage
and partial ply covered wing, leading edge D tube and inboard area to
the rear spar. The plans include info on installing a VW or small
Cont. It is a real scratch built design including a homemade
tailwheel if one wants.

For a cantilever wing it is reasonably simple with a design that
allows the ribs to be buillt complete and slipped over the spar rather
than 3 piece ribs and full depth spars requiring carefully formed spar
caps. It is a one piece spar so about 30 feet of room is needed for
building, full span spar plus some wiggle room. I can jig up
diagonally in my shop and the spar and wing will fit my double garage.
There are no flaps and it uses the NACA 4415 airfoil.

The plane is small but I talked to a local elderly gent who owned one
and he loved it. Good speed for low horses and handled well in the
air. It was fairly slick on final and airspeed control and side
slipping worked well for approach. He said it had no bad habits and a
gentle stall below 45mph with good buffet.

Tony Bingelis' book, The Sportplane Builder, has a chart for the
dimensions of some homebuilt cockpits. The firewall to bulkhead
dimension is 54 inches. The Jodel D-11 is listed as 46 inches. The
single seat Jodels are also quite small.

The Jodel range all models are all professionally designed and good,
reliable easy to build designs. The have one common problem though - the one
piece wing. Most builders simply don't have a work shop big enough.

The D-18 is a good choise for a low lowered, low cost, two seater (VW
powered and built from Douglas Fir). It is mostly unknown in North America
though.


"Rob Schneider" wrote in message
om...
"Stephen Mitchell" wrote in message
. au...
I would not build one ... the #1 rule of homebuilt airplanes applies. If
the
design is old (in the case of the Polliwagen circa 79 I think) and there
are
not many flying don't waste your money on it.

Hi, all

I'm just getting into this (in the process of picking a plane), and
though I had not heard the #1 rule of homebuild aiplanes, it certainly
makes sense. I have a question very much in spirit of that rule.

I'm leaning towards one of the smaller Jodel models (or the Falconar
derivatives - supposedly they may be easier to build) or something
called the CA-61 Mini Ace which is supposedly very similar to
Wanttaja's beloved Bower's Fly Baby though slightly smaller.

I'm finding plenty of info on the net regarding the Jodel variants,
and the general consensus seems to be that they are truly wonderful
airplanes. People who've owned them and sold them really seem to miss
them. There have been plenty of them built all over the world, though
oddly apparently relatively few here in the US.

Info on the Mini Ace is much more elusive. It was designed in the
early sixties and instructions for building it were published in the
Nov 1965 Mechanics Illustrated. The full size plans still appear to
be available. The NTSB accident reports show only a couple incidents
for this plane (all non-fatal). The type designation for the plane
(CA61) seems to show up in a lot of different government documents, so
one might think that at some point there were quite a few of these out
there. In looking the FAA registration database, there only seem to
be eleven of them, though. That seems like a very tiny number, and
perhaps that says all that needs to be said about the design.

The designer is still alive though apparently splits his time between
the US and Europe, and right now he's across the pond. Anyway, I
guess I'd prefer to hear from people who've built them & flown them
(parents sometimes have a somewhat less than objective view of their
children, you know).

Is it possible the Mini Ace is a good design that history more or less
forgot, or should I stick with the road more traveled and go with a
Jodel? Any body out there with any experience with either of these
types of planes?

Rob