Skycather's not TOO ugly, just needs tailwheel

On Jan 10, 12:06*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Sounds pretty unlikely. Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare. It's not a Cherokee!
He did design plenty of taildraggers, though, And retractable ones. all the
way back to the Alexander Bullet.
Maybe someone with a strong engineering bent modified one but it would have
been unbelievably time consuming.

The owner reported that it took him 300 hours to do the conversion. I
believe he lives in Napa. He may have taken the picture off his
website but it was a hot topic on the Mooney list. The owner later
sold the plane, I'm not sure who owns it now.
-Robert

wrote in news:9a6dc13d-0a34-4154-84ba-
:

* * You can see the structure ending immediately aft of the forward
cabin. There are a couple of brackets attached to the composite shell,
just aft of the windows, where the struts from the cagewill go. The
struts aren't installed in the picture.

* * * * * Dan

So, what happens to these composites when they crash? There are a lot
of composites these days, and a bunch of LSA composites.

I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the passengers
into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really bad.

But maybe they do really well. Anyone got some facts on it?





FRom what I've read, they're not so good in a crash. Wood is supposed to be
even worse, with aluminum considerably better and all bested by good old
fashioned steel tubing.


Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 10, 12:06*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Sounds pretty unlikely. Al Mooney designed everything "all of a
piece" and

moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare. It's not a
Cherokee! He did design plenty of taildraggers, though, And
retractable ones. all th
e
way back to the Alexander Bullet.
Maybe someone with a strong engineering bent modified one but it
would hav
e
been unbelievably time consuming.

The owner reported that it took him 300 hours to do the conversion. I
believe he lives in Napa. He may have taken the picture off his
website but it was a hot topic on the Mooney list. The owner later
sold the plane, I'm not sure who owns it now.


Jesus. It still had retracts? I don't think that's an airplane I'd like to
own... Kind of a pity the factory didn't do one, though.

Bertie

On 2008-01-11, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:9a6dc13d-0a34-4154-84ba-
:
I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the passengers
into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really bad.
FRom what I've read, they're not so good in a crash. Wood is supposed to be
even worse, with aluminum considerably better and all bested by good old
fashioned steel tubing.

I dunno how they are in general, but my roommate's dad crashed his Quickie,
and said that it looked like one of those styrofoam beer coolers that had
been hit ont he freeway: lots and lots of tiny little pieces.

He wasn't hurt too badly, however; biggest problems were fractures to the
left kneecap and heel.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

On 2008-01-11, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:9a6dc13d-0a34-4154-84ba-
:
I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the
passengers into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really
bad.
FRom what I've read, they're not so good in a crash. Wood is supposed
to be even worse, with aluminum considerably better and all bested by
good old fashioned steel tubing.

I dunno how they are in general, but my roommate's dad crashed his
Quickie, and said that it looked like one of those styrofoam beer
coolers that had been hit ont he freeway: lots and lots of tiny little
pieces.

He wasn't hurt too badly, however; biggest problems were fractures to
the left kneecap and heel.

I only know what I've read in Sport Aviation and such about this. Some guys
in RAH would know for sure abou tthe statistics, though. I know someone who
had a bad one in a Long Eze and wlaked away from it. Engine failure and an
off runway landing. He skipped along the ground like a sled shedding pieces
of airplane as he went. He was bruised but OK. Anectdotal stuff doesn't
tell you much though, you have to look at like vs like. Steel tube is way
ahead of everything else, though. It absorbs energy better than
anything.Wood is supposed to be the worst.


Bertie

John Smith wrote in news:jsmith-78B0CD.20190210012008
@news-server.columbus.rr.com:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare.

Why move just the landing gear when you can move the whole, one-piece
Mooney wing?


Oh yeah, that'd solve the problem!
And bring up several hundred others!


Bertie

John Smith wrote in news:jsmith-C04ACE.20235210012008
@news-server.columbus.rr.com:

If the above photo is not enough let me know & I'll hunt for some
more. I have lot's of pictures of various 150s, 152s & 172s with all
the mods but my scanner is inop at the moment.

What I would like to see is the belly skin removed and a before and
after image of the gear relocation.

I think therfe was a nice article of a straight tail 172 Texas taildragger
conversion in a recent Sport Aviation. The owner did it himself, I think .
Put a big engine in it, some STOL mods and had a poor man's 180. looked
pretty cool and he did a real nice job on it.


Bertie

On Jan 10, 5:19*pm, John Smith wrote:
In article ,
*Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare.

Why move just the landing gear when you can move the whole, one-piece
Mooney wing?

I'm still trying to locate the picture. Perhaps he move thed tail
assembly back enough to set the CG aft of the mains?
Unlike a 172, the CG is not close to the mains normally though, its
pretty far forward. In a 172 you have to be careful if a couple big
guys climb in the back that the tail doesn't hit the ground before the
pilot gets in. I"ve never seen this tendancy in my Mooney.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:962c9f34-b1c0-4b4c-8a3d-
:

On Jan 10, 5:19*pm, John Smith wrote:
In article ,
*Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare.

Why move just the landing gear when you can move the whole, one-piece
Mooney wing?

I'm still trying to locate the picture. Perhaps he move thed tail
assembly back enough to set the CG aft of the mains?
Unlike a 172, the CG is not close to the mains normally though, its
pretty far forward. In a 172 you have to be careful if a couple big
guys climb in the back that the tail doesn't hit the ground before the
pilot gets in. I"ve never seen this tendancy in my Mooney.

You've got to give me some clues to finding pics of this thing. So far I've
only found mooneys for sale at soeme site called tailwheel.com and a lot of
irrelevent stuff.
Strangely, no porn sites, though. Guess there aren't any porn stars named
Mooney. You'd have thought the tailwheel bit might have hit a few, though.

Bertie

On Jan 10, 6:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Jan 10, 5:19 pm, John Smith wrote:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare.

Why move just the landing gear when you can move the whole, one-piece
Mooney wing?

I'm still trying to locate the picture. Perhaps he move thed tail
assembly back enough to set the CG aft of the mains?
Unlike a 172, the CG is not close to the mains normally though, its
pretty far forward. In a 172 you have to be careful if a couple big
guys climb in the back that the tail doesn't hit the ground before the
pilot gets in. I"ve never seen this tendancy in my Mooney.

-Robert

Shifting the CG by lengthening the tail or adding weight
will put the airplane's balance in a lethal condition. Main gear
wheels are located with reference to the CG, not the other way 'round.
A taildragger will have its mains roughly 15° ahead of the CG (which,
of course, requires that you know the vertical CG as well as the
longitudinal) in the level flight attitude. The axles will normally be
very close to being directly under the leading edge of the wing, a
long way ahead of the mains on a kiddy-plane--oops, I mean a trike.

Dan