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

("Richard Lamb" wrote)
[trimmed the heavy post g]
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.


How about a download-lite for the curious?


Montblack

"J.Kahn" wrote in message
.. .

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.

I dont know. doing this at altitude makes the manuver safe, and learning to
perfect it that way can give the pilot overconfidence.

best to make sure your'e never in the situation that call for such a
manuver, and take the taime to make sur the plane works rather than building
confidence that you can do what others haven't

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"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?

yeah, I'll admit it. I'm interested in flying, in too remote of a place to
get a mentor, and too cheap to afford instruction.

I also looked at the prices of buying a certified plane, and the prices of
renting one, and was disheartened.

one of my biggest complaints is that there is no possible flying potential
for someone who works at minimum wage. EAA wants bigger and bigger
memberships, and wonders why it is so hard. I believe that if they could get
the price of flying down so that a minimum wage a afford it (minimum wage
income, not minimum wage IQ), you could get a LOT more people interested. a
plane in every garage and that sort of thing.

so I am looking at homebuilt plans, trying to see what would fit that
criteria. still looking for the perfect one plane. might still be looking 5
years from now.

ok, back on the topic. tow the plane, use sandbags to simulate the pilot,
and you eliminate what percentage of first flight failures? wrong control
throws, broken or stuck cables, improper wing incidence, incorrect control
surface areas, improper structural load theories..

and you KNOW that plane can get airborne. a big confidence builder for the
first time builder/flyer

"Highflyer" wrote in message
...

"kd5sak" wrote in message
m...

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! :-)

ok, now fess up!

add my name to the list of those who want to know.

I guess you did something that violates have a dozen rules, otherwise you'd
say so. forced spin? a outside loop? immelman? stall-drop?

Montblack wrote:

("Richard Lamb" wrote)
[trimmed the heavy post g]

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.



How about a download-lite for the curious?


Montblack

Oddly enough, curious Sir, I think we can handle that request.

There are two main files that constitute the "plans".

The first is named P1-Text.pdf which is "only" 7.5 meg.
It describes the techniques and gives directions, tips, and photos on how to
work the material and such. It runs about 50 pages.
That would be the first thing to look at - an introduction, so to speak?

The other file, the drawings, is 16.5 meg file named P1-Draw.pdf.
These are CAD drawn engineering type drawings that describe the layout,
shape, and assembly.

Now, before everyone gets in a rush, I've been told by some that the plans are
Great! (and they go off and build the thing) - and by others that they suck
(and that NObody could build anything from such drivel!)

My own humble opinion is that they are not half bad.
The only reason I ever got a wild hair to tried to do this is because I bought
a set of Graham Lee's Neiuport 11 plans way back when. Now that's a very
popular project, but the "plans" (if anyone else has a copy, sound off?) ARE a
little - skimpy? in some areas...

Lt. Lee assumed that by that point in the project, you'd have learned what it
is all about and don't need Tab-A into Slot-B directions. Judging by the
number of planes finished and flying, he seems to have been right about that.

The only place I know I messed up was on the main gear. All the parts are
detailed, but I missed getting a dimensioned assembly drawing to show how
to rig Height and Track. That omission has been addressed with a JPG of
the set up.

Like I said earlier, I'll try to get them up to Matt this next week.
Then, you can judge for yourselves!

Thanks all,

Richard

Tater Schuld wrote:

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"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?


yeah, I'll admit it. I'm interested in flying, in too remote of a place to
get a mentor, and too cheap to afford instruction.

I also looked at the prices of buying a certified plane, and the prices of
renting one, and was disheartened.

one of my biggest complaints is that there is no possible flying potential
for someone who works at minimum wage. EAA wants bigger and bigger
memberships, and wonders why it is so hard. I believe that if they could get
the price of flying down so that a minimum wage a afford it (minimum wage
income, not minimum wage IQ), you could get a LOT more people interested. a
plane in every garage and that sort of thing.

so I am looking at homebuilt plans, trying to see what would fit that
criteria. still looking for the perfect one plane. might still be looking 5
years from now.

ok, back on the topic. tow the plane, use sandbags to simulate the pilot,
and you eliminate what percentage of first flight failures? wrong control
throws, broken or stuck cables, improper wing incidence, incorrect control
surface areas, improper structural load theories..

and you KNOW that plane can get airborne. a big confidence builder for the
first time builder/flyer


Sorry Tater, old boy, that's just not going to work.

Or, do you have some way of controlling said towed aircraft that we haven't
heard of yet?

There are two schools of thought on first flights.
Both have merit.

One is to "go for it!". Take off and climb to altitude where you can become
safely aquatinted with her "personality" safely.

The other is to make several short hops down the runway to get the feel first.

The latter, at first, scared the dickens out of me - just on principle.
Going from low and slow lift off to low and slow landing *seemed* like a bad
idea. But in the end, I've come to think this is safer than I originally
thought, and had become my standard approach to testing a new plane.

I like it because 1) we are low and slow and if anything does go wrong, at
least we are low and slow. And 2) we are expecting to "abort" the take off
soon after lift off. We will not have the danger of the engine possibly
quitting on climb out, and the attendant difficulties that presents.

And 3!) it let's you skip the first flight! When you finally are comfortable
with the plane and take it around the pattern for the first time, it's really
not the first flight! (how 'bout that for a plan!)

And, frankly, this turned out not to be the pilot challenge that I first
thought it would be. Although YMMV?


One other thing, Tater. If you can't afford lessons, wait until you can.
I know people who have tried. Most of them got smarter after dinging a
few airplanes (and themselves!). My own opinion is that teaching yourself
to fly is dumber than going into a Tiajuana whore house without a condom.
You are just begging to get hurt.

So, until then?

richard

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:28:57 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
wrote:


one of my biggest complaints is that there is no possible flying potential
for someone who works at minimum wage.

You can't do a lot of things at minimum wage.

If you're intelligent enough to fly, or for that matter, communicate
on the Internet, can't you improve your marketable skills to raise
your income? In fact, the time spent learning to fly would be much
better spent improving your standard of living, no?

I didn't say *I* was being paid minimum wage. I wanted it to appear do-able
at minimum wage. that way the factory working that is working double minimum
wage can see that it is an affordable hobby.

takes aviation from "only doctors can afford it" to "anyone can afford it"

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:28:57 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
wrote:
If you're intelligent enough to fly, or for that matter, communicate
on the Internet, can't you improve your marketable skills to raise
your income? In fact, the time spent learning to fly would be much
better spent improving your standard of living, no?


For the last several years I've heard families complaining about kids with
PHDs that are having to work for minimum wage. That didn't happen with my
kids,
I'm pleased to say. Glad I worked when I did and retired in 1996.

Harold
KD5SAK

"Tater Schuld" wrote in message
...
ok, back on the topic. tow the plane, use sandbags to simulate the pilot, and
you eliminate what percentage of first flight failures? wrong control throws,
broken or stuck cables, improper wing incidence, incorrect control surface
areas, improper structural load theories..

Aerial tow is hard even when you have an experienced pilot at each end of
the rope. Take a couple of glider lessons (at a field where they use aerial tow
for launch) and you will quickly see what I mean. Hint: the glider does not
willingly follow the tow plane like a trailer follows a car; you gotta fly it
every second , and it is a learned skill.

Vaughn

"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...
In a "normal landing" you start a half mile to a mile to one side of the
runway and only require about 180 degrees of turn. In a turn back maneuver
after takeoff, you are nearly directly off the end of the runway. Turning
back to the runway from this position requires far more than 180 degrees
of
turn. So calling it a 180 degree turn back can be misleading. 180 degrees
of
turn will usually put you well to one side of the runway so you must
continue turning until you are headed back towards the runway and then
turn
back the opposite direction to line up with it. This maneuver requires
closer to 360 degrees of turn than 180 and you will lose altitude faster
while turning than when flying wings level. So before you attempt a turn
back, you need to know how much altitude you will need for a 360 degree
turn.

If you are taking off from an airport with more than one runway, you might
consider if it would be easier to turn back to a different runway than the
one you took off from. One time during a BFR, my instructor pulled the
throttle at about 500' after takeoff from runway 6 at Midland Barstow. He
expected me to attempt to return to land on runway 24. He was kind of
surprised when I just made a gentle 240 degree left turn and rolled out
lined up with runway 18 with altitude to spare. I just looked back and
realized it would be much easier to get to 18 than 24, the wind was
blowing
us that way anyway.
--
Bryan Martin


Good point.