1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?

Highflyer wrote:

snipped

Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead was
best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was best.
And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither "turnback" nor
"straight ahead" would work and I had to do something creative! :-)

Hi, my name is HF, and I'm an airplane adict...



Come on, Confess!
It's "I learned about flying from that" time.



Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )


BTW, where ya been?


Richard

"Richard Lamb" wrote

I put some new pics up this evening.
2a.jpg - 2h.jpg are the latest of my parasol. Doc named her "Betty Boop".
tank(xxx).jpg are pics of beating out the fuel tank parts.
therapy.jpg - well, it's just that - excellent therapy...
\
Nice looking plane. And that is a nice ..... hammer, too! g
--
Jim in NC

Richard Riley wrote:
There's a difference between a glider with a 30:1 L/D and a Cessna with
9:1. Doing a 180 in a glider from 400' is like doing it in a Cessna
from 1200'.

Yeah. Forget about turnbacks, a high performance glider can complete an
abbreviated circuit from 400 ft. Even lower performance gliders can
safely complete a 180 after a rope break from 200ft if you are react
promptly. In fact if you're lucky you may find some lift while doing
the 180 and who knows you may be able dump the rope and climb out of
your emergency and go soaring! (just kidding) The main problem with
gliders on 180s from rope breaks is not making the turn in time, it's
avoiding overrunning the field in the subsequent downwind landing.

For powerplanes, it would be prudent to go to a safe altitude and
practice 180s upon chopping power and noting the altitude loss with
optimum technique (although it's murder on the poor cylinders, best to
use a renter...). The least loss is with a hard 45 deg banked turn. If
with some practice you can confidently complete a 180 with say a 400 ft
altitude loss you can set a defined go-nogo limit of say 500 ft for
turnbacks and you've removed the guesswork from it.

John

"Richard Lamb" wrote

It's a finger tip airplane. One finger tip on top of the stick.

Somebody used to a Cessna or Piper is going to be at a real disadvantage
for the first flight(s?).
Until they get used to it.
Then, the old Cessna suddenly feels like flying a 2-ton dump truck.

So, when are the plans going to be available? :-)

What are the specs?
--
Jim in NC

"Tater Schuld" wrote

heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
would tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?

sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
up. make sure to sandbag for CG!

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
Is there no limit to what some *don't* know?
--
Jim in NC

"Richard Lamb" wrote

I got to "fly" that contraption - once.
That was enough.

It was sorta fun, but with the truck driver manning the "throttle", the
limited lateral range, and limited roll range, it was - well -
interesting...

I heard it was later destroyed by some guy who claimed 10,000 hours of
glider
time...

That sounds like something Capt.. Zoom, the test pilot would have done,
don't you think?

What would you bet that he looped and rolled it, too? g
--
Jim in NC

"Peter Dohm" wrote

It would still be nice to have a safe way to realistically simulate engine
failures. \

How about idle power and a small parachute mounted on a quick release line?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

"Richard Lamb" wrote

I put some new pics up this evening.
2a.jpg - 2h.jpg are the latest of my parasol. Doc named her "Betty
Boop".
tank(xxx).jpg are pics of beating out the fuel tank parts.
therapy.jpg - well, it's just that - excellent therapy...

\
Nice looking plane. And that is a nice ..... hammer, too! g

Thankee, Morg!

It's real good therapy....


Richard

Morgans wrote:


"Richard Lamb" wrote

It's a finger tip airplane. One finger tip on top of the stick.

Somebody used to a Cessna or Piper is going to be at a real disadvantage
for the first flight(s?).
Until they get used to it.
Then, the old Cessna suddenly feels like flying a 2-ton dump truck.


So, when are the plans going to be available? :-)

Real Soon Now (tm!)

Started selling plans back about 2000 and have had several built.
First one completed from plans was in New Zealand (!?!)

It's been quite a trip.
Most fun I've ever had on the ground with my clothes on,
and at the same time the biggest hassle I've EVER had.
Guess you have to expect that when dealing with the public.

Anyway, I've decided to put the plans up for free download.
Matronix has offered to give me room for them and I'll get them uploaded
(hopefully) next week. It's a couple of rather big PDF files and I'm
not going to try to upload via this tin can and twine lash at home.
The public library looks like my best bet.

I also have a CDr that I'll still sell for $30. It has the plans, all
the old web site stuff, plus a whole mess of construction pics.
I figure even if people can get the plans for free, people who build
will still want the construction photos, tips, etc.


What are the specs?

Well, depends on how heavy you build it, what it's powered by, etc.

Wingspan 26 ft
Wing Chord 4.6’ (56-inch)
Wing Area 125 sq. ft
Aspect Ratio 5.8
Reynolds # 1.5 to 3 million
Empty Weight 350 to 450 lb.
Gross Weight 650 lb. max.
Power 40 to 65 HP

PERFORMANCE
Stall 30 mph
Cruise 55 to 75 mph
Vne 100 mph

Welcome to the world of alternate materials, guys.

One of the unique features is that the fuselage frame is built from
extruded 6061-T6 angle with driven rivets (AD-470 types).

There is a slight weight penalty involved compared to pop-riveted
aluminum tube, but the resulting structure is hell bent for stout,
and right inexpensive (I built one frame for $100 scrounging a bit).

The wings use aluminum tube spars at leading and trailing edges with
a bent up "C" channel (.025 6061-T6 sheet) at each rib location acting
as compression ribs.

Foam or light plywood ribs are then simply routed
out and glued to the compression ribs using (of all things!) Liquid Nail.
I did a bunch of testing a while back and Liquid Nail held to aluminum
better than anything else. Period. Sounds strange, maybe, but it works.

Chuck Beeson claims to have built over 70 airplanes like this. Several
of those were repeats, however. Build one and sell it, then later buy
it back, make some changes and sell it again. Still, it's a pretty
impressive piece of work. Chuck uses 2 strokes and called them ultralights
even if they weighed 350.

And, as I said in another thread, I've worked with him on at least a dozen
NEW planes over 10 years. So I know he has build a bunch of them.
He and I built six of these little darlings in 12 weeks. Bare frames on
the gear, wings and tail installed but not covered or with motors, etc.
Chuck was selling them as kits and was out of stock and had nothing to sell.
We worked 8 hours a day - 4 days a week. Six complete airframes in 12 weeks
is not too bad, folks. I've also know him to turn out a complete airplane
- from scratch - in just six weeks.

Doc Harr, Paul Hammond, Sonny Mosel, and myself have all used VW's and get
more like 450 - 465 empty.

At 650 gross she theoretically can pull right at 4 G's yield.
Doc had nearly 700 hours of aerobatics on his when he finally sold her (2004?).
The thing is with so little weight and so much drag, speed bleeds off
rapidly in hard maneuvers and it's difficult to actually pull that hard.


The Down Side:

There is a limit to how much weight one can hang on a two inch diameter spar
tube.

A bunch of guys (I'll not name) got together and started building a whole
bunch of these a few years ago. But they didn't like the fabric cover and
changed it to all metal skins (fuselage and wings both!) Then added heavy 4
stroke engines on them and suddenly discovered they were WAY too heavy to make
4 G margins.

Ok, to be fair, they had a professional aero engineer who was supposed to
design a heavier wing for it, but he died (natural causes) before finishing.
Next thing I know, I was getting bitched out for the wing being too "weak"
and they were threatening to "tell the FAA on me". What a mess.

I think there were a couple of guys who finished their planes in fabric and
got them flying ok. But the rest was a just total loss.
(that was the hassle part I mentioned)

But other than that, the trip has been a real blast.
Great people, interesting ideas, and a lot of enthusiasm for it.
It's been fun.

Richard

Morgans wrote:


"Richard Lamb" wrote

I got to "fly" that contraption - once.
That was enough.

It was sorta fun, but with the truck driver manning the "throttle", the
limited lateral range, and limited roll range, it was - well -
interesting...

I heard it was later destroyed by some guy who claimed 10,000 hours of
glider
time...


That sounds like something Capt.. Zoom, the test pilot would have done,
don't you think?

What would you bet that he looped and rolled it, too? g

Zoom, maybe.
I dunno about mere mortals.

That thing would be real easy to set down a little sideways...
Right in front of a speeding Dodge Ram!

Actually, the driver tries to stay right behind the airplane.
If you start drifting to one side of the other he'd stay with you -
up to a point. Then he decides to "chop power", and down you come!

That was the only time I've ever felt an airplane decelerate like that -
while still airborne.

Like I said, Once.


Richard