Paul Lamar

On Monday, August 30, 2010 at 8:51:19 AM UTC+12, stol wrote:
Just to keep this refreshed and as a warning to other experimental
builders to aviod this 'person'. He seems to be able to delete this
topic from the archives to lessen his exposure of looking "less then
honest".... For all the guys who have seen this just pass right on
by..

Tailwinds.
Ben.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------hii vhhv------------------------------------------------------------

To keep this thing fair I will post the hatchet job Mr Lamar posted on
the net. Before this I had never heard of him. The same time this
happened I got over 1000 hits on my website, the thing that bothered
me was I have a "contact me" page on my website.. A decent person
would have opened up a dialog to ask me reasons and debate me on how
I got to the end result of my plane. For whatever reason he didn't
want my side to be told,,, only his.... Bizarre for sure.

Ben.

This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
friends.......

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Â*---------------------------------------------------------------

On the "801"

“This is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is
incorrectly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during
landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over designed to begin with having very
thin skins.

"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
5.9 0 -6.3 gallons an hour."

The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC
is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
cruise.

Something is seriously wrong.

"The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in
most
airframes."

What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.

This person is totally clueless.

I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.

Paul Lamar�

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Â*----------------------------------------------------------------

Ben's response."""""""""""""

I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are
but..

I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.

My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.

I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.

My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hours.
Been flown in air from 97f to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been
flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5
g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
display their creations.

My responses..

1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??

2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
site and look at the pics.

3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean
crap.

4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
it is less then his "estimation"

5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
shot.

6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine has twice the
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.

7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a
simple
conclusion.

8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
dream about.

9- BSFC of .45 ??? Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that
rich.

10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.

11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
sure doen not need any more power.

12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # from ? I turn the motor alot
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
prop.

13- """ Totally Clueless""" Ya wanna bet..

And in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "

Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.


Ben Haas
www.haaspowerair.com.

Mr. Haas passed away due to natural causes about a year ago. He
actively flew his CH-801 as long as he was medically fit.

Ron Wanttaja