If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Jay I took a look at your design concept and your web page. It is a fantastic concept but I would really hate to be in it flying somewhere always looking at where I had been instead of where I was going. I took the liberty to copy a couple some things here for the sake of discussion that you say on your web page which I take exception with and almost find offensive to those of us that take pride in the aircraft we built and fly. -------------------------------------- and economics has a direct effect on public saftey bacause: * Expensive up-keep is more likely to be put off. * Engine replacement will be put off long past when it should be. * Used engines and components (no joke) will be used and reused in active aircraft. * More likely that a broken or worn part will try to be repaired instead of replaced as it should be. * Airframe manufacturers are more likely to underpower their aircraft to reduce cost of goods sold, and increase the proportion of the aircraft that they build. ----------------------------------------- I find fault in just about everything you say in the above sentences, I do not believe that any of it is true and to try to sell a concept on the above statements is wrong IMO. I post this here because I would like you to submit any proof you have that the above is true. don't get me wrong I wish you all the luck in the world with your design but lets keep it real. Jerry I liked his concept of design too Jerry. But I think the guy is either a guy who never built an airplane then maintained it or he's just a statistical outlier. Nobody I know who has an experimental flying machine whether it be a helicopter, balloon or airplan takes the short cuts he proposes. I know YOU don't, and I never have. -- Expensive up-keep is too bad, but it is what it is. If you don't do it, you die. --Engine replacement is usually done long before it's needed. When things start to show significant wear, the engine is rebuilt. I've done it, you've done it. --Used parts that are time proven are better than new parts in many cases. Take a CAM. Once a CAM has proved to you it doesn't have some goofy area in it that wears away in the first 1000 hours, you reprofile it and use it again. It's much safer than a new CAM, casted with some new ****ing alloys that have not been run 1000 hours. Same wtih an engine case. Give me one that's been cycled 2000 times and I'll build you an engine where the case won't crack. -- I dont' get the broken part piece. It depends on the part. For christ's sake, I had a broken NAV light the other day. I bought a new one. I don't get his point there at all. If a part is critical and it's busted...and it can't be fixed to new specs, then no homebuilder I know would want to risk his ass on it. You buy a new one, or you fix the bad one to original or better than new specs. -- I don't see this. What albout the Harmon Rocket? The Glassair? The Lancair. Christ. All of them are like flying a Lycoming strapped to your back. What is this underpowered engine ****? This guy is just writing to see his name show up on the screen. I find fault in just about everthing he says too. He's just a big bag of wind like most of the rest of RAH. It always has been and it will always be...because the idiots and the Galactically stupid muther ****ers can post here and act like the real guys who have done it for real and done it for years...guys like you and guys like me. BWB |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:35:24 -0400, David O
wrote: There have been many posts in recent months by people contemplating their own complicated and even radical designs. Reading between the lines, it appears that many of those people have yet to build their first plane. May I kindly suggest that one's first plane should be a time-proved kit or plans-built plane with no major builder modifications. Build it, fly it, and maintain it for several hundred hours. After you've accomplished this, revisit your fancy schmancy dream machine. I expect that by that time, for most people anyway, reality will have dawned. I look at what I fly...A Debonair (cheap version of the straight tailed Bonanza) I look at what I've been building for a couple of years... glasair-III and I've accumulated almost a whole hour flying one :-)) Were I going to try to utilize all the features I've seen listed, I'd build *at least* two planes. So my go faster, high performance plane lands closer to a hundred than fourty...I don't mind that. So, the STOL will only cruise at 160 to 180 knots...That's a pretty good range even if it does take a pretty good sized engine and drink gas like crazy. So, it takes two planes to do it. That ain't bad. It could take 3 or 4. and...by the time I finish the G-III I'll be too old to build another any way. Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com -- Oshkosh Bound!!! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
A "fancy" designed plane may be somewhat harder to build but not
necessarily any harder to fly. I have seen cases where leaning to fly a super stable forgiving high wing plane seemed to scare pilots from moving onto the plane they truly wanted to fly. The word "scare" may be harsh since learning to fly a plane that virtually flies itself doesn't do a good job of teaching one to fly. Also the "Over Confident Cessna Pilot" syndrome isn't uncommon. Why not just learn to fly the plane you want to fly right away rather than wasting time? I feel virtually anyone can design and build an airplane if they are willing to put in the necessary time. Hasn't virtually all the engineering work been done in the 20s on light planes? As long as one doesn't stride too far from what has worked in the past I'm confident that with enough tinkering anyone should be able to design and build their own airplane. I think I could test fly and learn to fly it at the same time but this would be an unnecessary risk. I have thought about a wire braced biplane design but disliked the slow cruise speed. My dream machine would be an amphibious seaplane, a tail dragger design for good STOL performance. I'd make a mid engine design and put the prop. high on the tail using a stabilator for the necessary powerful elevator. For good cruise (125mph on 50HP) the plane would be sailplane like, I may use retractable wing tip floats. With the use of slats and powerful flaps I would try a stepless or a contoured step. The main reason I want to design my own plane is that I haven't seen a design exactly like this. With the high lift wing and good power to weight getting off the water should be no problem, at least looking at what has worked in the past. I have already spent a lot of time on the project and I would need to spend much more to actually build it. Anyway I like to think of it as "planning" rather than "dreaming". Brock |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Brock" wrote in message
om... I feel virtually anyone can design and build an airplane if they are willing to put in the necessary time. Hasn't virtually all the engineering work been done in the 20s on light planes? As long as one doesn't stride too far from what has worked in the past I'm confident that with enough tinkering anyone should be able to design and build their own airplane. I think I could test fly and learn to fly it at the same time but this would be an unnecessary risk. Your absolutely right on, Brock! I can't believe that all those assholes that tried to design and build airplanes since the discovery of fire tried and failed. They were absolutely so stupid!!!! I encourage you to grab a drill and a saw and build the machine that everyone else is incapable of conceiving - much less building. It's about time that someone with some BRAINS got with the program. You GO girl!!! Rich S. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Rich S. wrote:
"Brock" wrote in message om... Your absolutely right on, Brock! I can't believe that all those assholes that tried to design and build airplanes since the discovery of fire tried and failed. They were absolutely so stupid!!!! No, they weren't stupid. They just didn't have the advantage of a library full of books, a dozen computer simulation programs, college courses, NACA studies printed online. Some of you snot nosed ****ers are so full of yourselves. Anyone with above average intelligence can design a build a plane with the right attitude. Unfortunately, that attitude does not include, "Heh, Bubba. Watch this!!", but there's no reason to believe that someone can't do it just because you can't. -- ----Because I can---- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/ ------------------------ |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On 03 Aug 2003 08:36 PM, Corrie posted the following:
A follow-up. I mentioned some of these to my keeper, and she was quite supportive of the notion. (Finally putting the trim up around the expanded closet doors helped.) I grew so bold as to suggest that the outbuilding should not be called a garage, but a shop. She replied, "So long as I can fit two minivans inside, you can do whatever you want with the rest." Two minivans? Man, you really do have problems. That is just sick. ---------------------------------------------------- Del Rawlins- Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email. Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website: http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/ |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
Smart ass punk, Ernest Christley... If 50 years of flight, all my ratings and many thousands of hours make me a snot nosed ****er, where do you think that places you in the food chain? I was waiting for you to reply with that, Bob. Such a predictable fish. Straight out of college, I started with a Fortune 100 that will rename nameless, except to say that they built business machnines internationally. All smart, green and full of vigor. Got put on the leading feature for the next release. Not to get to technical with something other than aviation, but this product depended upon a hash table as a central data repository. A hash table is a data structure that is designed to make storing and finding sparse data fast and efficient. You take the data you want to store, 'hash' it to get a value, and use that value as an index into a table where the data will go. The central element here is speed. The system was limited by the speed of the hash table, and the speed of the hash table is limited in many ways by the efficiency of the hashing algorithm. My team started to base our hash table off of one used in the product the we were extending. I took a close look at the hashing algorithm used, and it was based on an even earlier product. But the earlier product was a totally different beast that had only a cursory simularity to what we were working on. Did I mention that hashing algorithms should be application specific? For our application, the proposed solution was dog slow. Fortunately, the previous 'engineer' was still around. So, I went to ask why she had used that particular solution. She got huffy and practically screamed that 'it had worked before!!' OK. But this was a different situation. I set up test cases for a head-to-head comparison, and demonstrated a 30% speed increase on live code. But still all she had to say was, "It can't be changed, because it worked before." The team unanimously chose to implement my algorithm over the one chosen by a engineer with 30yrs of service. Why? Because I applied my brain to the actual situation, improved the product, and was able to test and document substantial improvements. All that to say, 50 years of sniffing pesticides while just barely managing to not get decapitated by a powerline doesn't necessarily mean that you have all the answers. In fact, it doesn't mean that you necessarily have ANY answers. From what you post here, I'd have to assume that it means little more than that you're a trained monkey who knows little more than how to handle his own stick. What do you add to the conversation? How have you advanced the state of aviation? Have you ever tried an experiment to improve an airplane's performance? Did you document what you did and what your results were? If you did experiment, how do you justify departing from the safe status quo, and more importantly how did you avoid becoming a statistic? If not why are you such a blow hard dragging down our discussions with your chicken little, "You're gonna die" dead weight? As for food chain... Where the hell do you think you are? There is no food chain. There's just you and me, and we just disagree. -- ----Because I can---- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/ ------------------------ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|