If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Modifying Vision plans for retractable gear...
Dear All:
I am researching various options for a homebuilt aircraft. I am located in Thailand, and over here labor is significantly more obtainable than money, so cost is definitely a primary concern. Build time can always be compensated for by enlisting help. Based on what I want, it appears that the plans built Vision is the best option, but I wanted to get some feedback on the plane itself and also the difficulty involved in modifying it to fit my requirements. I have the following requirements: Seats: minimum of 2 Cruise speed = 200 kts. Landing speed: 50 kts. Construction: composite Aesthetics: conventional low wing tractor preferred/don't like high wings Engine: Diesel I really want retractable gear. I have heard all the arguments both for and against. I've heard the fixed evangelists say that the extra lbs. outweigh the 5% speed gain, and I've heard the opposite extreme with the retract guys saying it's more like 10%, and extra weight of fuel is more than the weight of the gear. I don't know who is correct, and the real story is probably somewhere in the middle. Bottom line: I like the look of retractables. I'm willing to accept the risk of a gear up. Since this is my dream, I want an RG plane. This is my dilemma. I really want an RG, and I think I've found the perfect combination minus this problem. I'm looking at building a plans built Vision (http://www.visionaircraft.com). It fits within my budget. The engine I'm considering for it is the 160HP inverted turbo diesel from deltahawk. While this isn't shipping in quantity yet, I don't need it for about 2 years. Besides, if this engine falls through there are several other diesels to choose from, but the deltahawk seems to be the best choice for now. (This is actually 327 lbs, and the Vision specifies a maximum of 300, but I'll do what I have to in order to make it work.) Based on numbers from people flying a 160 HP vision w/ an O-320, I should easily be able to pull 210 KTAS from a turbo diesel version at 16,000 ft. I would appreciate any comments anyone has on this plane (or the engine if you have them) and issues which I might not be aware of. Does anyone have something better that I haven't seen? (Remember the price issue. I can't afford the Glasair/Lancair kits) A more pressing concern I have is the gear. As I said above, I really want RG, but the Vision plans only come for a fixed tricycle or taildragger. Can anyone comment on how difficult (or hopefully, not difficult) it might be to modify the Vision plans to accomodate an RG config? I like the plane, it's in my budget, I think I can do it. I haven't seen anything else that comes close. I have concerns about my ability to safely modify the plans for an RG given my lack of experience. I am an electrical engineer by trade. Never done any mechanical design. If anyone has done this before, how difficult is it, and where should I begin? Thanks for any help or comments. Chris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 1 | November 24th 03 02:46 PM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 2 | November 24th 03 05:23 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 24th 03 03:52 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart D. Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 22nd 03 06:24 AM |