1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Tater Schuld" wrote

heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
would tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?

sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
up. make sure to sandbag for CG!

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
Is there no limit to what some *don't* know?

yeah, I'll admit it. I'm interested in flying, in too remote of a place to
get a mentor, and too cheap to afford instruction.

I also looked at the prices of buying a certified plane, and the prices of
renting one, and was disheartened.

one of my biggest complaints is that there is no possible flying potential
for someone who works at minimum wage. EAA wants bigger and bigger
memberships, and wonders why it is so hard. I believe that if they could get
the price of flying down so that a minimum wage a afford it (minimum wage
income, not minimum wage IQ), you could get a LOT more people interested. a
plane in every garage and that sort of thing.

so I am looking at homebuilt plans, trying to see what would fit that
criteria. still looking for the perfect one plane. might still be looking 5
years from now.

ok, back on the topic. tow the plane, use sandbags to simulate the pilot,
and you eliminate what percentage of first flight failures? wrong control
throws, broken or stuck cables, improper wing incidence, incorrect control
surface areas, improper structural load theories..

and you KNOW that plane can get airborne. a big confidence builder for the
first time builder/flyer

Tater Schuld wrote:

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Tater Schuld" wrote


heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
would tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?

sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
up. make sure to sandbag for CG!

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
Is there no limit to what some *don't* know?


yeah, I'll admit it. I'm interested in flying, in too remote of a place to
get a mentor, and too cheap to afford instruction.

I also looked at the prices of buying a certified plane, and the prices of
renting one, and was disheartened.

one of my biggest complaints is that there is no possible flying potential
for someone who works at minimum wage. EAA wants bigger and bigger
memberships, and wonders why it is so hard. I believe that if they could get
the price of flying down so that a minimum wage a afford it (minimum wage
income, not minimum wage IQ), you could get a LOT more people interested. a
plane in every garage and that sort of thing.

so I am looking at homebuilt plans, trying to see what would fit that
criteria. still looking for the perfect one plane. might still be looking 5
years from now.

ok, back on the topic. tow the plane, use sandbags to simulate the pilot,
and you eliminate what percentage of first flight failures? wrong control
throws, broken or stuck cables, improper wing incidence, incorrect control
surface areas, improper structural load theories..

and you KNOW that plane can get airborne. a big confidence builder for the
first time builder/flyer


Sorry Tater, old boy, that's just not going to work.

Or, do you have some way of controlling said towed aircraft that we haven't
heard of yet?

There are two schools of thought on first flights.
Both have merit.

One is to "go for it!". Take off and climb to altitude where you can become
safely aquatinted with her "personality" safely.

The other is to make several short hops down the runway to get the feel first.

The latter, at first, scared the dickens out of me - just on principle.
Going from low and slow lift off to low and slow landing *seemed* like a bad
idea. But in the end, I've come to think this is safer than I originally
thought, and had become my standard approach to testing a new plane.

I like it because 1) we are low and slow and if anything does go wrong, at
least we are low and slow. And 2) we are expecting to "abort" the take off
soon after lift off. We will not have the danger of the engine possibly
quitting on climb out, and the attendant difficulties that presents.

And 3!) it let's you skip the first flight! When you finally are comfortable
with the plane and take it around the pattern for the first time, it's really
not the first flight! (how 'bout that for a plan!)

And, frankly, this turned out not to be the pilot challenge that I first
thought it would be. Although YMMV?


One other thing, Tater. If you can't afford lessons, wait until you can.
I know people who have tried. Most of them got smarter after dinging a
few airplanes (and themselves!). My own opinion is that teaching yourself
to fly is dumber than going into a Tiajuana whore house without a condom.
You are just begging to get hurt.

So, until then?

richard

--------snip---------
There are two schools of thought on first flights.
Both have merit.

One is to "go for it!". Take off and climb to altitude where you can
become
safely aquatinted with her "personality" safely.

The other is to make several short hops down the runway to get the feel
first.

The latter, at first, scared the dickens out of me - just on principle.
Going from low and slow lift off to low and slow landing *seemed* like a
bad
idea. But in the end, I've come to think this is safer than I originally
thought, and had become my standard approach to testing a new plane.

I like it because 1) we are low and slow and if anything does go wrong, at
least we are low and slow. And 2) we are expecting to "abort" the take off
soon after lift off. We will not have the danger of the engine possibly
quitting on climb out, and the attendant difficulties that presents.

And 3!) it let's you skip the first flight! When you finally are
comfortable
with the plane and take it around the pattern for the first time, it's
really
not the first flight! (how 'bout that for a plan!)

And, frankly, this turned out not to be the pilot challenge that I first
thought it would be. Although YMMV?

-------snip---------

Personally, I agree and plan to use the aborted take-off method as well.
Actually, the plan has had many well known and respected advocates--IIRC,
Molt Taylor was among them.

Also, if the plan is to test a "custom built", or if there is any other
reason to question the weight and balance envelope, I plan to first test a
thrown model--prior to investing time in actual construction of a "real"
airplane. I would first re-read all of part 23 to glean any insight to
accumulated experience in defining the balance envelope. (I know, I really
have no intention to follow everything in part 23 either--for example, there
are specifications for the undercarriage and/or prop clearance that I may
find inappropriate for my application--experimental really is where we plow
the new ground!) Next, would construct a model of the wing only (with
dihedral, and a handle) and throw it with various weights and CG positions.
An excessive variation of airspeed and altitude due to fugoid oscillation,
as subjectively observed, would initially define the "natural" aft CG limit
of the wing by itself. The forward limit would be even more subjective--but
the basic objective of initial testing with something safe, light, simple,
and cheap should be fairly obvious. That should give some indication
whether the design actually has promise. If so, I would add a stick
fuselage and an empennage, and continue my subjective testing. If
satisfied, I could proceed with the main project; otherwise it might be time
to change the design and/or seek assistance.

The reason for this treatise is that I believe a lot really can be gained
from unmanned testing, and that it can be accomplished inexpensively and
with negligible risk of collateral damage.

However, (warning ... warning) the above applied only to conventional
aircraft, and even then does not address the required size of tail surfaces.
I am still looking for a "cheap and dirty" way to accept or reject a design
with regard to the tail's contribution to pitch and yaw stability. Also, I
also have NO intention of designing or building a canard aircraft because I
don't feel that I understand their principals well enough!

Peter

I am still looking for a "cheap and dirty" way to accept or reject a design
with regard to the tail's contribution to pitch and yaw stability.

www.X-plane.com

Also, I
also have NO intention of designing or building a canard aircraft
because I
don't feel that I understand their principals well enough!

Other than making sure that the "elevator" stalls before the main wing
the principals are the same. The final pitch/yaw stability derivative
doesn't care if the numbers came from a canard, a conventional plane ,
or a flying wing.

IMHO the stall resistance of a canard doesn't offset it's other
disadvantages so your not going to miss too much.
==============
Leon McAtee
Quickie builder ........... former Q-2 builder

"Tater Schuld" wrote in message
...
ok, back on the topic. tow the plane, use sandbags to simulate the pilot, and
you eliminate what percentage of first flight failures? wrong control throws,
broken or stuck cables, improper wing incidence, incorrect control surface
areas, improper structural load theories..

Aerial tow is hard even when you have an experienced pilot at each end of
the rope. Take a couple of glider lessons (at a field where they use aerial tow
for launch) and you will quickly see what I mean. Hint: the glider does not
willingly follow the tow plane like a trailer follows a car; you gotta fly it
every second , and it is a learned skill.

Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

Aerial tow is hard even when you have an experienced pilot at each
end of
the rope. Take a couple of glider lessons (at a field where they use
aerial tow
for launch) and you will quickly see what I mean. Hint: the glider does
not
willingly follow the tow plane like a trailer follows a car; you gotta fly
it
every second , and it is a learned skill.

Vaughn


As Vaughn mentioned, "it is a learned skill." From the gliders viewpoint it
is a type of formation flying, or wing-matching-tail-chase. The low tow
position (flying below the tow plane's wake) gives a look and feel similar
to the U.S Naval aviation version of air-to-air refueling.

When you tie two aircraft together both are at an increased risk when the
other aircraft has a problem. The tow plane is at a much higher risk than
the glider. The glider getting out of position close to the ground can
easily put the tow plane in a position from which it can not recover. If
the tow plane has a power failure shortly after becoming airborne, again the
glider is less at risk. An experienced pilot flying a glider with 35 to 1
or better glide ratio shouldn't have a problem doing a 180 and landing
down-wind. (I've done it from 250 feet with room to spare.)

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com