Your fancy schmancy dream machine

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

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!!!

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

"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.

(Brock) wrote in message . com...
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.

Materials have changed quite a bit since then and so has the
availability of computers. There is still lots to try and learn.

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.

Go ahead and capture your design in X-Plane and see if it'll fly on
50hp. You're going to have to put some wheels on it because I don't
think they're modeling water take-offs (at least not in V5). It won't
tell you if the wings will fall off, and it won't tell you that its
impossible to make a float plane that weights the same as the pilot,
but provided with proper input, it will give you a good run on the
aerodynamics/stability of your model. You know the computer rule:
Garbage in garbage out. People have made some amazing aircraft with
all kinds of weird shapes that really do fly, but usually they would
need the equivalent of something the weight of balsa and the stregth
of steel, or a power plant that puts out 1000hp and weighs 200lbs. Or
the take off speed is over 200mph.

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/
------------------------

(Corrie) wrote in message . com...
Gentlemen, I am in your debt. :-D

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."

I'll keep working on her, fellas. ;-D

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/

B2431 wrote:
Subject: Your fancy schmancy dream machine
From: Ernest Christley
Date: 8/3/2003 1:25 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Rich S. wrote:

"Brock" wrote in message
e.com...

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.


snip

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------



Ernie, I have no dog in this fight, but what Brock said sure looked like
sarcasm to me.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Doh!! You're right, Dan. Please accept my apologies, Brock. It really
didn't seem like sarcasm the first time I read it. Just seemed like the
typical attitude that I see a lot of in here.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

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/
------------------------