Which Model

On 2 Apr 2004 21:51:50 GMT, Del Rawlins
wrote:

In
wrote:
Dale,

Who's Dale?

It's nice to have a airplane up to the Supercub or even a C180/185.
But for a new comer, I'd like to stay with the less type like a 150HP
150/152 and the rest of those Kitfox class.

Well, the Patrol is designed to work well with smaller engines, not that
it matters if you want to build from a kit. If you are interested in a
certified plane, a 150/152 would be my absolute last choice in a 150hp
plane. They are cramped and don't have a lot of useful load with the
heavier engine. In a certified plane I would want a Citabria, which has
a more comfortable cockpit than the Cub which you didn't like, and is
faster at the cost of a small amount of STOL performance.

I want to have something
that I can build with less than 1000hrs and less than $50k. And
definitely not plan built.

Understood. Be aware that you may spend more time that that even if you
build from a kit, since build times vary a LOT depending on experience.
I don't know what their prices are like these days, but consider the
Murphy Rebel.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

It would be fairly easy to build a rebel for under50K but 1K build
time is pushing it for a first time builder.
Drew Dalgleish
Centralia ont
Murphy rebel C-FYHO

Del Rawlins wrote...

True, but when you bought an expensive Lycoming engine you didn't put it
in a 150/152.

I hear you. There's a 150/152 at my home field with a
stormscope and an autopilot.

Dave 'ISYN' Hyde

That looks pretty impressive. OTOH, the web page is not the most
informative. It did not say how long it will take. But it looks simple
enough. Not sure it can take the floats though.

Jizhong
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:56:59 -0600, Darrel Toepfer
wrote:

wrote:

Shelly,

Very cool plane, and so is the one posted by Corky. But this is not
what I'm after at this moment. I'm looking for a beginner type.
1000hrs less, $50 less, easy built, easy care and easy fly.

Try he
http://www.greenlandings.com
The SkyRanger meets your specs and is quite affordable and has a quick
build time and has a decent cabin width...

On TAP, O-320 is advertised cheaper than O-235.

On 2 Apr 2004 21:38:41 GMT, Del Rawlins
wrote:

In
wrote:

Thanks about the info and links. Very cool. I like your tall gear
feature with the larger prop. 150hp is nice for a 150/152.

Waste of an O-320.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

An O-235 is literally a waste of parts. If you have an airplane that
can be upgraded to an O-320 (like a 7ECA Citabria) it isn't really any
more expensive to do so than to overhaul the 235. Just don't bother
with a 150/152. 8^)

In
wrote:
On TAP, O-320 is advertised cheaper than O-235.

On 2 Apr 2004 21:38:41 GMT, Del Rawlins
wrote:

In
wrote:

Thanks about the info and links. Very cool. I like your tall gear
feature with the larger prop. 150hp is nice for a 150/152.

Waste of an O-320.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

OK, Del,

Let me give you a little bit more background of where I come from. I
fly a Skylane but I'm planning to move back to China either this year
or next. I need something to fly there. It seems that the rules are
quite loose for ultralight and homebuilts in China. I've alway liked a
bush plan.

I really like to fly 150/152 and it's much cheaper (half the cost).
You might be able to get a good project plane for under $10k and a mid
time o-320 for similar amount. (I'm talking about treating it as a
homebuilt in China.) But it's not a good bush plane. I'm wondering
why.How can we shrink the T/O distance shrink by a factor of two?
Compared with a Cub, I think the wing area is similar. I figure it
must be the gross or the lack of power. So if I get a 150hp at the
front, what will be the T/O at the gross of 1600#?

Jizhong
On 2 Apr 2004 21:51:50 GMT, Del Rawlins
wrote:

In
wrote:
Dale,

Who's Dale?

It's nice to have a airplane up to the Supercub or even a C180/185.
But for a new comer, I'd like to stay with the less type like a 150HP
150/152 and the rest of those Kitfox class.

Well, the Patrol is designed to work well with smaller engines, not that
it matters if you want to build from a kit. If you are interested in a
certified plane, a 150/152 would be my absolute last choice in a 150hp
plane. They are cramped and don't have a lot of useful load with the
heavier engine. In a certified plane I would want a Citabria, which has
a more comfortable cockpit than the Cub which you didn't like, and is
faster at the cost of a small amount of STOL performance.

I want to have something
that I can build with less than 1000hrs and less than $50k. And
definitely not plan built.

Understood. Be aware that you may spend more time that that even if you
build from a kit, since build times vary a LOT depending on experience.
I don't know what their prices are like these days, but consider the
Murphy Rebel.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

I might rip off all the gyros, the vac lines, radios, etc. Humm, maybe
I'll make it hand prop plane. It's not going to be trainer and I have
my handheld radio and GPS.

Jizhong

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 01:29:47 GMT, "nauga" wrote:

Del Rawlins wrote...

True, but when you bought an expensive Lycoming engine you didn't put it
in a 150/152.

I hear you. There's a 150/152 at my home field with a
stormscope and an autopilot.

Dave 'ISYN' Hyde

In
wrote:

I really like to fly 150/152 and it's much cheaper (half the cost).
You might be able to get a good project plane for under $10k and a mid
time o-320 for similar amount.

Another thing to consider is that one reason 150s are often so cheap is
that they usually have a ton of hours on them and are suffering from
neglect. I have recently been working on a 150 belonging to a friend
who bought it last summer and used it to get his private license. This
was a basically safe, flying aircraft when we started digging into it
but I have been amazed at the number of problems we found and are having
to repair before he can fly it again. I guess what I am saying is go
this route if you want to, but don't expect it to necessarily be as
cheap as you hope.

(I'm talking about treating it as a
homebuilt in China.) But it's not a good bush plane. I'm wondering
why.How can we shrink the T/O distance shrink by a factor of two?
Compared with a Cub, I think the wing area is similar. I figure it
must be the gross or the lack of power. So if I get a 150hp at the
front, what will be the T/O at the gross of 1600#?

The 150 just isn't designed for the bush mission. As for the wing area,
the Cub has more at 178.5sq ft while the 150 only has 159.5. Combined
with the lower empty weight (even with a larger engine) of the Cub, this
gives it a lower wing loading and way better short field performance.
The stock gross weight of the cub is also higher at 1750 pounds, and can
be upgraded to 2000 pounds with a spar mod kit.

One aspect I think you would do well to ponder is that of repairability
in the field. I don't know what the parts situation is like in China,
but I suspect that getting parts for a Cessna isn't going to be all that
easy. The Cub, and many homebuilts for that matter, can be readily
repaired in the field using basic shop equipment. You can just about
roll a steel tube fuselage cage into a ball and still make it as good as
new with simple tools and an oxyacetylene welding torch. A dentist of
my acquaintance has wrecked the his cub over a half dozen times and is
still flying that same airplane (no, I don't fly with him). If you
prang the 150 over there good luck getting some of the fancy formed
aluminum parts to fix it. It may not be a bad idea to buy a spare
airframe to take with you for parts.

If it were me, I would strongly consider buying a kit for something like
the Zenith STOL 701 2 seater and an engine. That airplane is known for
a fast build time, good STOL performance, and simple flight
characteristics. You will lose some baggage capacity and top speed, but
you will have an airplane with ZERO operating time (think: no student
landings) on it which is repairable in the field with simple tools. You
know this is true because people build the same airplane from plans that
way.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

I did a quick dirty linear analysis of a couple dosen similar
airplanes (Cessnas, Pipers, and Citabria). I found the T/O(over 50')
is roughtly equal to 120*WingLoad + 60*PowerLoad - 1000. WingLoad is
Weight/Area and PowerLoad is Weight/HP. So for a Cessna 150, if I'm
10% undergross, T/O will shrink by about 250' and 40% increase in
power will reduce another 250'. So that will just make it about 850'
with a full fuel useful load of me with one of my kids for a fishing
trip.

Is this very true that the T/F type is going to be about 1/4 lighter
than a similar all metal one in terms of empty weight?

The other question: how serious are the performance numbers for those
advertised homebuilts? I really believe the numbers for the certified
ones.

Jizhong

On 3 Apr 2004 18:48:20 GMT, Del Rawlins
wrote:

In
wrote:

I really like to fly 150/152 and it's much cheaper (half the cost).
You might be able to get a good project plane for under $10k and a mid
time o-320 for similar amount.

Another thing to consider is that one reason 150s are often so cheap is
that they usually have a ton of hours on them and are suffering from
neglect. I have recently been working on a 150 belonging to a friend
who bought it last summer and used it to get his private license. This
was a basically safe, flying aircraft when we started digging into it
but I have been amazed at the number of problems we found and are having
to repair before he can fly it again. I guess what I am saying is go
this route if you want to, but don't expect it to necessarily be as
cheap as you hope.

(I'm talking about treating it as a
homebuilt in China.) But it's not a good bush plane. I'm wondering
why.How can we shrink the T/O distance shrink by a factor of two?
Compared with a Cub, I think the wing area is similar. I figure it
must be the gross or the lack of power. So if I get a 150hp at the
front, what will be the T/O at the gross of 1600#?

The 150 just isn't designed for the bush mission. As for the wing area,
the Cub has more at 178.5sq ft while the 150 only has 159.5. Combined
with the lower empty weight (even with a larger engine) of the Cub, this
gives it a lower wing loading and way better short field performance.
The stock gross weight of the cub is also higher at 1750 pounds, and can
be upgraded to 2000 pounds with a spar mod kit.

One aspect I think you would do well to ponder is that of repairability
in the field. I don't know what the parts situation is like in China,
but I suspect that getting parts for a Cessna isn't going to be all that
easy. The Cub, and many homebuilts for that matter, can be readily
repaired in the field using basic shop equipment. You can just about
roll a steel tube fuselage cage into a ball and still make it as good as
new with simple tools and an oxyacetylene welding torch. A dentist of
my acquaintance has wrecked the his cub over a half dozen times and is
still flying that same airplane (no, I don't fly with him). If you
prang the 150 over there good luck getting some of the fancy formed
aluminum parts to fix it. It may not be a bad idea to buy a spare
airframe to take with you for parts.

If it were me, I would strongly consider buying a kit for something like
the Zenith STOL 701 2 seater and an engine. That airplane is known for
a fast build time, good STOL performance, and simple flight
characteristics. You will lose some baggage capacity and top speed, but
you will have an airplane with ZERO operating time (think: no student
landings) on it which is repairable in the field with simple tools. You
know this is true because people build the same airplane from plans that
way.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Check out the Taylorcraft.

A 100hp F-19 gets off the ground in about 350' and will climb at 1000' per
minute on a cool day. I've seen mine climb around 700 fpm at 70 degrees
with two of us on board. There are lots of them on floats. The 65 and 85
hp models perform very well too.

The factory is spinning up to make new birds: www.taylorcraft.com.

They will be available with engines from the O-235 to O-360.