Aerosport LH-10

With the looks of a rocket, and speed ranges between 225mph tops
and 55mph to land, Im thinking this is the plane I want. Going cross
country on mpgs better than my truck and in triple time. They say
its a trainer too with a first class view.

But I'm still not sure what the drive out price is. The monetary
exchange rate of us dollars to english pound puts the dollar up
by about 30 cents. Got any idea what a close ball park is?
Is it about 70k?

And, a lot of kit planes end up under dusty tarps unfinished too.
Do people ever go to "kit build" facilities and pay someone else
to do it? Or at least get team support.

It'd be nice if the price is about 39k. I'm ready to order.

Mark wrote:
With the looks of a rocket, and speed ranges between 225mph tops
and 55mph to land, Im thinking this is the plane I want. Going cross
country on mpgs better than my truck and in triple time. They say
its a trainer too with a first class view.

But I'm still not sure what the drive out price is. The monetary
exchange rate of us dollars to english pound puts the dollar up
by about 30 cents. Got any idea what a close ball park is?
Is it about 70k?

And, a lot of kit planes end up under dusty tarps unfinished too.
Do people ever go to "kit build" facilities and pay someone else
to do it? Or at least get team support.

It'd be nice if the price is about 39k. I'm ready to order.



On 50 or 55 sq st of wing?

http://www.aero-news.net/FullsizeIma...a-659ee8fcfd71


http://www.lhaviation.com/site_frame...ugh2008_en.htm

On Dec 18, 1:20*pm, Richard wrote:

On 50 or 55 sq st of wing?

The tarp can be that much smaller.

"Richard" wrote in message
m...
Mark wrote:
With the looks of a rocket, and speed ranges between 225mph tops


It'd be nice if the price is about 39k. I'm ready to order.




http://www.aero-news.net/FullsizeIma...a-659ee8fcfd71


http://www.lhaviation.com/site_frame...ugh2008_en.htm


Was the craft pictured above flown in to that show or trucked in?

Flash

Flash wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message
m...

Mark wrote:

With the looks of a rocket, and speed ranges between 225mph tops


It'd be nice if the price is about 39k. I'm ready to order.



http://www.aero-news.net/FullsizeIma...a-659ee8fcfd71


http://www.lhaviation.com/site_frame...ugh2008_en.htm



Was the craft pictured above flown in to that show or trucked in?

Flash








Wild guess?

It was trucked in.

In one frame, it doesn't have the wheel pants on.

On Dec 20, 12:53*am, "Flash" wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message

Was the craft pictured above flown in to that show or trucked in?

Flash

ha ha, maybe they pieced it together like a leggo. But
seriously, I have built a database of every image and article
on that bird, including 2 videos of it in flight.

There are numerous reviews from several reputable
sources, and the company also produces a small plane
similar to a little cessna.

The test pilot is an experienced airman from the
military, with an extensive track record.

All indications are, it *will* hit 200 kts, and a cruise
of 120kts is a comfortable rate, using a pittance of
gas.
Considering the alternatives, to get that kind of
performance in a composite plane,you're gonna pay
200 grand for a diamond star, 400k Cirrus SR series,
or 600K for the Lancair/Columbia/Cessna 400.

Heres my criteria:

1) Range- 1000 miles
2) Max speed- 200 kts minimum
3) Low wing profile
4) Modernistic technology
5) 2 leather seats
6) Low spin/stall speed

I just like the way it looks. It takes the concept
of the "Bedee" minijet and brings it beyond the
unrealistic toy to possibly practical transportation.
Some have tagged it for military applications.

Mark

"Mark" wrote

I just like the way it looks. It takes the concept
of the "Bedee" minijet and brings it beyond the
unrealistic toy to possibly practical transportation.
Some have tagged it for military applications.

I just want to see how they deal with the harmonic resonance issues of a
long drive shaft to the propeller (longer than the BD-6, thus with more
complexities present) and how they succeeded where Bede (and others) failed.

Unless they can show you a craft where the same engine, PSRU bearings, and
prop shaft and prop have ALL gone more than 500 hours with all the same
original components still intact, there should be warning flags going off,
there.

People bought the BD-5 after seeing some videos of a flying model, not
knowing that the engine, or speed reducer or bearings or mounting, or
_something_ tore itself apart after every few flights. Those same failures
due to the resonance issues are what eventually killed the concept. They
could not make it work, because when one part was beefed up, another failed,
and so on. It is a subject of such complexity, that few fully understand
it, and even fewer know how to deal with it.

If you have not read up on these problems, you owe it to yourself to get
educated. There are volumes of work on the subject, with some fascinating
reading. Someone else will have to point you to it, because I don't have
the references bookmarked. (I'm sure some do.)

So for now, I'm going to have to be like a person from Okalahoma. Show me.
Convince me.

I would love to see it triumph. It is cool looking. But if it was easy,
there would be a few dozen look a likes buzzing around out there.
--
Jim in NC

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:14:22 -0500, "Morgans" wrote:

If you have not read up on these problems, you owe it to yourself to get
educated. There are volumes of work on the subject, with some fascinating
reading. Someone else will have to point you to it, because I don't have
the references bookmarked. (I'm sure some do.)






So for now, I'm going to have to be like a person from Okalahoma. Show me.
Convince me.

--
Jim in NC

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

OKLAHOMA?

Last I heard...
MISSOURI was the SHOW ME state!
When did it change and who did it?



Baryard BOb - Kansas City, MO.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Mark" wrote

I just like the way it looks. It takes the concept
of the "Bedee" minijet and brings it beyond the
unrealistic toy to possibly practical transportation.
Some have tagged it for military applications.

I just want to see how they deal with the harmonic resonance issues of a
long drive shaft to the propeller (longer than the BD-6, thus with more
complexities present) and how they succeeded where Bede (and others)
failed.

Unless they can show you a craft where the same engine, PSRU bearings, and
prop shaft and prop have ALL gone more than 500 hours with all the same
original components still intact, there should be warning flags going off,
there.

People bought the BD-5 after seeing some videos of a flying model, not
knowing that the engine, or speed reducer or bearings or mounting, or
_something_ tore itself apart after every few flights. Those same
failures due to the resonance issues are what eventually killed the
concept. They could not make it work, because when one part was beefed
up, another failed, and so on. It is a subject of such complexity, that
few fully understand it, and even fewer know how to deal with it.

If you have not read up on these problems, you owe it to yourself to get
educated. There are volumes of work on the subject, with some fascinating
reading. Someone else will have to point you to it, because I don't have
the references bookmarked. (I'm sure some do.)

So for now, I'm going to have to be like a person from Okalahoma. Show
me. Convince me.

I would love to see it triumph. It is cool looking. But if it was easy,
there would be a few dozen look a likes buzzing around out there.
--
Jim in NC

These problems have been solved many times in the past and all of the
successfull solutions add both weight and complexity--although usually only
to a modest degree.

The development of the BD-5 was certainly an excellent cautionary tale of
how things can go wrong, and fail to improve with the wrong solutions
applied. There was an excellent article from Contact! Magazine, which used
to be available on the web and may still be available as a reprint.
Basically, in the case of the original BD-5 prototype, there was a resonance
just below idle speed which affected both the startup and the shutdown of
the engine. I no longer recall whether any other resonant frequencies, or
unusual wear conditions, became evident at a later time.

In any case, to the best of my knowledge, Molt Taylor was successfull in
solving all of these sorts of problems with his AirCar, IMP, and Mini-IMP.
The Leone brothers also solved some interesting bearing wear problems with
the twin-engine power pack in their highly modified Cozy-IV.

IIRC, all of the successfull solutions have involved 3 elements:
1) non linear rates--because resonance requires a linear spring rate,
2) more compliance, and
3) a propeller that is not bolted directly to the engine is NOT a flywheel.

All of those elements of the solution tend to add cost, weight, and
complexity--and then there are also the issues directly related to the
reduction drive.

Really, the more I learn about the alternatives, the more attractive the
"standard" solution becomes.

Peter

Mark wrote:

Do people ever go to "kit build" facilities and pay someone else
to do it?

Sure they do. And it is asshats like that that has the FAA looking at
screwing up the homebuilt rules.