Folding wing for Ercoupes?

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

A Crusader was accidentally launched with folding wings once: it was
actually able to recover.

A fellow in our church group is a retired naval captain who flew A-7 Corsair
II's during Nam. His CAG took off one night on a "lights out" training
mission from a Naval Air Station runway. The Corsair II would barely climb,
so he aborted the mission and circled around for landing. He really had to
keep a lot of power on during the approach, but made a successful touchdown
and roll out.

Back on the ramp, he went through his shutdown checklist until he got to the
item "Fold Wings". The switch was in the folded position already. De-assing
the aircraft, he noticed that the wings were more than folded. They were
bent so the tips almost touched.

The wing lift had sprung both wings inward. The aircraft was beyond
practical repair and was scrapped.

Rich S.

Richard Riley wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 01:52:31 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
wrote:

:Newps wrote:
:
:
: Bret Ludwig wrote:
:
: EVERY naval carrier aircraft except the A-4 Scooter has folding wings.
: They hold up well in naval service,
:
:
: Of course they do. The Navy can throw unlimited resources at an
: airplane for maintenence. Just look at what it takes to keep an F14 in
: the air for an hour.
:
: Certainly, the F-14 is an extremely complicated piece of equipment.
:The problem with your example is the Navy doesn't spend a penny on the
:F-14 for folding wing systems since the wings don't fold, they sweep.

And they almost always sweep symmetrically.

But they don't mop or do windows.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

snip

The F-8 that launched with wings folded was not a writeoff-in fact the
wing on that airplane is a variable incidence affair that can be
removed and replaced. On the A-7, it is not, although I can't imagine
the fuselage structure being irreparably damaged-if the a/c was still
in production a new wing would probably have been ordered. Perhaps
someone more familiar with the structure of that airplane can comment.

There are folding-wing designs available; most of them I see tied
down at airports. I can't recall ever seeing a folded-wing airplane in
anyone's driveway.
To fly an airplane you keep at home, you need:
1. A place to put it. Lots of modern houses have tiny yards,
tiny garages or carports, and tiny driveways. No room between the
houses to get an airplane to the back yard. And there's the risk of
damage by kids or other yahoos. People in apartments or condos are out
of luck.
2. A vehicle capable of towing it, and maybe a trailer.
3. The time to drag it out, unfold the wings, fly, fold it back
up, tow it home. I used to own a boat, and the time to hook it up,
fuel it up, tow it to the launch, get it in the water, and then all the
reverse steps to get it home again, usually outweighed the time in the
water. Most of us are short of time. I have noticed that most people
have money or time, but never both.

I don't think folding wings are going to be a big seller of
airplanes. Most people who fly know the secret: do without other things
like big-screen TVs, expensive vacations, big houses, a new car every
year or two. Go to the airport and look at the cars in the parking lot.

Dan

wrote:
There are folding-wing designs available; most of them I see tied
down at airports. I can't recall ever seeing a folded-wing airplane in
anyone's driveway.
To fly an airplane you keep at home, you need:
1. A place to put it. Lots of modern houses have tiny yards,
tiny garages or carports, and tiny driveways. No room between the
houses to get an airplane to the back yard. And there's the risk of
damage by kids or other yahoos. People in apartments or condos are out
of luck.
2. A vehicle capable of towing it, and maybe a trailer.
3. The time to drag it out, unfold the wings, fly, fold it back
up, tow it home. I used to own a boat, and the time to hook it up,
fuel it up, tow it to the launch, get it in the water, and then all the
reverse steps to get it home again, usually outweighed the time in the
water. Most of us are short of time. I have noticed that most people
have money or time, but never both.

I don't think folding wings are going to be a big seller of
airplanes. Most people who fly know the secret: do without other things
like big-screen TVs, expensive vacations, big houses, a new car every
year or two. Go to the airport and look at the cars in the parking lot.

The real "big secret" is have the energy, intelligence, emotional
ruggedness and luck-there is always that element-to be really
successful in business, or inherit, marry or sue for big money. Most of
the airplane owners I know are businessmen or profssionals, and most of
them go broke and lose said airplane sooner or later.

But should airplane ownership be only for the wealthy? When I was a
kid there were a lot of factory workers who owned airplanes, teachers,
car mechanics, TV repairmen, you name it. No more.

I see the guys who are 'building' Lancairs and RVs aroumd here and
most of them DO have late model nice cars, home theaters and high-end
audio, Perazzi shotguns, swimming pools. I always ask them why they
just don't buy a warbird or aerobatic mount, or both, and a Bell 47
Soloy conversion to boot-usually it's because the homebuilt (sic) is
the currently trendy "project." 80% of the work is done by hired
guns-we have a lot of A&Ps on layoff around here glad to work for $20
an hour cash. In fact I paid for the tires on my car bucking rivets a
couple of Sunday afternoons this June. As far as I'm concerned anyone
with serious money is an idiot to fool with homebuilts-restore an
antique or warbird if you want to wrench, though few really do.


Anyway, the folding wings aren't primarily for roadability, but to
reduce hangarage costs.

Dan

Bret

Beg to differ.

Spent a year on exchange with VF-23 (Big Banshee) tail hook Squadron.

We had a bird that one wing folded as pilot rotated for take off. Bird
rolled inverted and ground him off down to the sides of cockpit (.

All the normal operation and safeties failed. I'd have flown the bird.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````

On 7 Oct 2005 21:31:03 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


Newps wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:

EVERY naval carrier aircraft except the A-4 Scooter has folding wings.
They hold up well in naval service,

Of course they do. The Navy can throw unlimited resources at an
airplane for maintenence. Just look at what it takes to keep an F14 in
the air for an hour.

The wing folding systems are not maintenance hogs and are not a
prevailing cause of crashes: in fact i don't think one has ever
happened.

A Crusader was accidentally launched with folding wings once: it was
actually able to recover.

Big John wrote:
Bret

Beg to differ.

Spent a year on exchange with VF-23 (Big Banshee) tail hook Squadron.

We had a bird that one wing folded as pilot rotated for take off. Bird
rolled inverted and ground him off down to the sides of cockpit (.

All the normal operation and safeties failed. I'd have flown the bird.

What did VF-23 fly then?

In article . com,
"Bret Ludwig" wrote:

As far as I'm concerned anyone
with serious money is an idiot to fool with homebuilts

Uh, I hope I can disagree without being disagreeable. This is RAH, isn't
it? I'm probably the poorest guy around here, but if I had buckets of
money, I'd still be building - I'd just have a bigger workshop. My fifty
square feet is a little tight even for the emp.

If you view building solely as a means to an end, you'd be an idiot to
undertake it no matter what your financial picture. If you enjoy
building, you'd be an idiot not to build, no matter your financial
picture.

So I believe the decision to build *ought* to be made without regard for
one's wealth or lack thereof. It may well be true that some will
undertake it as an attempt to reduce the expense of ownership, but if
they don't enjoy the process, the damn plane will never be finished.

Even well fed cats love to hunt. Why? Because hunting and eating are two
different activities that nurture different parts of the soul. Likewise
with building and flying, says I.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article . com,
"Bret Ludwig" wrote:

As far as I'm concerned anyone
with serious money is an idiot to fool with homebuilts

Uh, I hope I can disagree without being disagreeable. This is RAH, isn't
it? I'm probably the poorest guy around here, but if I had buckets of
money, I'd still be building - I'd just have a bigger workshop. My fifty
square feet is a little tight even for the emp.

If you view building solely as a means to an end, you'd be an idiot to
undertake it no matter what your financial picture. If you enjoy
building, you'd be an idiot not to build, no matter your financial
picture.

So I believe the decision to build *ought* to be made without regard for
one's wealth or lack thereof. It may well be true that some will
undertake it as an attempt to reduce the expense of ownership, but if
they don't enjoy the process, the damn plane will never be finished.

If I had the money I might still build, but the basic homebuilt of
today is nothing I would build. In fact, I would probably restore a
fairly large antique airplane. Or take on non-aircraft projects-and buy
a T-38 off Chuck Thornton to fly. Let's face it, a homebuilt is a
serious compromise, because as a homebuilder you just can't do a lot of
things easily that a factory with tooling and workers that do difficult
tasks every day do.

Consider the Falco. Excellent airplane, poor homebuilt-unless perhaps
you are a master cabinetmaker or wood boatwright. The flip side are
aircraft like the traditional Pietenpols and Wittman
Tailwinds-excellent homebuilts, easily built from plans-but not
particularly desireable as airplanes in their own right.

The best question you can ask yourself about being an aircraft
homebuilder is, "What besides an airplane would I build myself?" A car?
A boat? A powerful radio transmitter? Model airplanes? Nothing?

A lot of times the answer is ,"Nothing". I suggest in those cases,
often as not, Experimental Amateur-Built is the perceived cheap
path-and it is, because it's become a dodge around type certification.

Type certification is good, or it's bad. Let's make up our minds and
act accordingly.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Consider the Falco. Excellent airplane, poor homebuilt-unless perhaps
you are a master cabinetmaker or wood boatwright. The flip side are
aircraft like the traditional Pietenpols and Wittman
Tailwinds-excellent homebuilts, easily built from plans-but not
particularly desireable as airplanes in their own right.
snip similar stuff

Trying to disagree politely, like Smitty, the above opinions are not facts.

One: The Falco is an excellent homebuilt. I can think of few aircraft that
fulfill the "education and recreation" aim of the Amateur-built Experimental
category. One does not select this project *because* he is a master of the
art. One selects it in order to learn the craft.

Two: Desirable is a personal preference, not shared with all. I can think of
few greater joys than flying at treetop height over the cornfields of
Minnesota in a Piet, goggles keeping the breeze from my eyes, pulling up
into a chandelle just for the coordination practice.

Rich S.