Jesus in a bunny suit!* Does anyone not realize I was making a joke?
*Plagarized from another thread.
Or a push/pull, like the Defiant. Neat airplane.
Amen, brother.
BTW- Here is one of my favorite airplane pictures. I read about the radio conversation they were having when they took this picture…
"A little lower… Okay, a little lower…
WHOA!"
http://www.rutanaircraft.com/htmlpages/orderdefiantonwater.html
RV’s are neat little planes - if your idea of a fun time involves smashing 5000 rivets (after locating, punching, pilot drilling, final drilling, and de-burring the holes[sup]*[/sup] - and possibly dimpling the damned things, to boot)
-
- yes, Van’s now offers "fast build options involving CNC-punched holes
The newer kits (even the non fast build) are completely pilot drilled, and don’t even need those old monster jigs to assemble.
Metal construction used to scare me, until I helped a friend build a Glasair. That resin and plastic is not my idea of fun to work with. It smells bad, you need heavy ventilation, it’s tricky, and if you screw it up you’re in big trouble because you can’t get it open again. Screw up a rivet on an RV, and you can just drill it out and replace it. And for peace of mind, you can have an A&P come and inspect your work.
But you know, if you’re worried about the effort it takes to build any homebuilt, it’s not for you. The people who are successful building homebuilts are the ones who do it for the love of building, and not to just have a finished product at the end.
Because if you want to fly inexpensively, there’s still no cheaper route than buying a simple 2-place factory aircraft. Like I said above, even the cheapest ‘performance’ homebuilt will set you back about $35,000 plus a couple of thousand hours of labor before it’s in the sky. But you can go buy yourself a Grumman AA1 for $15,000, fly it for 500 hours, and then sell it for more than you bought it for, meaning that you’ll fly for the cost of gas, oil, and maintenance.
I owned an AA1 for 8 years. Paid $11,000 for it, sold it for $11,000, after flying hundreds of hours. It cost me $35/mo for a tie-down at the airport, an average of $500/yr for an annual, $200 for insurance (no hull coverage), and after that it was 4.5 gallons of gas an hour and oil. I don’t think it is possible to fly any aircraft for less money than that, including homebuilts and even ultra-lights once you factor in their depreciation.
Joey: That photo must be on a dry lakebed after a rain, huh? with about 2 inches of water? That couldn’t have been good for that prop in the back.
I have seen two different photos of the Defiant skimming the water.
The one I posted above, which certainly looks as if the water may not be that deep. Could be a dry lakebed or something similar.
The other I have in a magazine. It’s more of an overhead shot, taken from a shorter distance. The water is greenish. I don’t know if those are from two different photo sessions or not.
Either way, he looks as if he is about to tie the World Low Altitude Record.
Sam -
Did you read the material safety data sheet for the MEKP on that Glasair? Talk about fun - it will dissolve your cornea if it is left in your eye for 4 seconds. But, it’s quiet, and does not result is allergy (rivets and epoxy, respectively).
The P-51’s of WWII closed their scoops for combat as much as possible, they were faster closed than open. Was a distraction in dogfights to watch the engine temp.
There was a twin tractor design that had the wing in an U shape behind the engines and made the propellers almost shrouded but with an airfoil. At least one flew and it was extremely capable of STOL and slow flight characteristics.
Scariest airplane to fly. Breezy.
Pitts S2-B 260 HP = fun and I could not break it in the air. Lighter, faster, quicker, yeah, there are some around but they will break. That Pitts, well — I wonder what will happen if I do this… not a problem… just don’t have lunch first. Bwhahahahhaha
One consideration in airframe design is that the center of gravity needs to be on the wing, close to the leading edge.
The engine is the heaviest item on the plane, so in order to keep the CG on the wing, you have to keep the engine close to the wing so the plane doesnt become tail heavy. On a pusher, you wind up with the longer portion of the fuselage in front of the wing.
What’s wrong with a long fuselage in front of the CG?
I’m reflecting on how a wind vane works…how does that rooster on top of my barn always point into the wind? It’s because the back end of the arrow is further from the pivot point than the front end is, so the wind can express more torque on that end. In fact, the “rooster” itself is the analog of the engine: it is there to balance the vane so that it pivots nicely.
I think you’d run into the same kind of problem with a pusher prop, moreso as you try to create a longer passenger compartment. You lose horizontal stability.
A plane with a tractor prop looks just like my wind vane!
(Jet aircraft handle this situation nicely by placing the engines right ON the wing!)
Pushers solve horizontal balance problem through two means:
-
either mount the prop just behind the wing, or mount it over the wing.
-
long fuselage (like you said) which ALSO allows much better visibility than many high-wing pullers (which as a general rule increases safety)
-
counterwieght in the front of a shorter fuselage. In some designs, the counterweight is the pilot. When I flew a Drifter from the front seat (tandem pusher) there would be a 10 lb sandbag up there with me to provide proper counterbalance. With that in place, once I was in cruise the plane would happily fly straight and level hands-off without any form of autopilot or wing leveler. VERY well balanced and stable aircraft.
Comes back again and again to proper design. Get the design right, it’s a great airplane. Get the design wrong, it doesn’t matter if it’s a pusher or puller, canard or not - a bad design is a bad design and nasty to fly.
I’d love one of the RV’s - had a chance to take the stick of an RV-6 last summer. Very fine airplane, and problably the best performance per dollar of anything out there. Only problem is… I have little mechanical skill or experience and no real desire to build. And the husband wants a new airplane. Oh, let’s not open that can of worms…
A NEW airplane? Are you independently wealthy?
I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that a new Piper Cherokee can be $200,000, and a new Bonanza is half a million bucks. That’s simply a ridiculous amount of money to pay for 2000 pounds of aluminum behind a 70 year old engine.
I’m thinking about buying another airplane, and the prime candidate right now is a Grumman Tiger, about 1978 vintage or so. $40,000 dollars gets you a comfortable, nice handling 4-place airplane with good range, the performance of a light retractable (143 kts cruise), and the operating cost of a Cessna 172. Great airplanes. My Grumman AA1 was a hoot to fly, but useless for cross-country flying. Short range, poor altitude performance, slow climb rate, and not much cargo capacity. I pulled more than one button off the seat getting out of some shorter airstrips in that thing, and vowed that I was never going to own an underpowered airplane again.
If you want a fun little rocket with 90% of the performance of an RV-6, there are a lot of AA1s out there that have been converted to O-320 or O-360 power. Those little buggers can go 170-180 mph, and climb at almost 2000 fpm. The airframe is perfect for the conversion - the AA1 from the front two seats forward was almost identical to the bigger Grummans, and the engine just drops right in. And the airframe is bulletproof and already has a Vne of 195mph. The only problem is fuel - you pretty much have to install extended tanks in the wing. And then with tanks full you can’t carry any baggage. But still… If I didn’t have a daugter and need a third seat, a 160hp AA1 would be right up on my list. It’s close to being a factory built RV-6, and you can pick them up for $25,000 or so.
Forgive me as I seem to be the least knowledgeable one here when it comes to the realities of flying, but I remember reading about pullers vs. pushers and Bernulli’s Principle. The point was that even without forward motion the puller created a moderate yet important amount of lift as the air traveled over the wings. As the plane traveled forward, the air forced over the wings by the puller traveled at a much higher rate of speed than the airflow created by the forward motion and therefore added to the lift created by the forward motion. I realize that recently some have taken a second questioning look at Bernulli’s Principal as a major source of lift it the operation of a plane or jet, but it does still have it’s fans.
On a small single engine tractor airplane, this is so small as to be insignificant.
**Nothing at all.
It points into the wind because the center of pressure is behind the pivot.
In an airplane, the center of gravity is the pivot point. Keeping the center of pressure behing the CG is what keeps it pointing into the wind, no matter how the engines and wings are mounted.
No - hey, I said it was my husband’s idea, not mine.
I’m not very famillar with the Grumann planes, but if I recall how you get in and out of them correctly, it may be a poor choice for my household because of the difficulty my husband would have getting in and out of the airplane. In fact, RV’s are extremely difficult for him to get into and out of, and if I had one we’d probably have to install some sort of stirrup-step for him. I’d also like to keep the option open for him to learn to fly, but I’m not sure how well he’d do in a taildragger given his leg problems.
I’m looking at the Piper Warrior or Cessna types. Used, of course - no way I can afford new. Like the C172 as an all-around airplane EXCEPT after 1972 or so they built the panel too high, giving me extremely poor forward visibility. You shouldn’t have to taxi with S-turns in a tricycle gear in order to see the runway, but the C172 at my local FBO is exactly like that for me - I can’t see the centerline at all from the front left seat. If I put enough under my butt to see out properly I then have trouble reaching the rudder pedals. That particular airplane was clearly built for 6-footers, which I am not. An early '60’s model I flew in Tennessee had a much more comfortable cockpit for me, but a relatively low-powered engine which it’s also getting harder to find parts for.
Oh, well, all airplanes are compromises. Won’t be able to afford to buy anyway until the car and truck are paid for - that’s about 2 years off. But I’ve started window-shopping. Right now a Warrior would do me just fine - I think the maintenance costs would be managable, and it would be sufficient for the types of trips I’d mostly likely be doing at this point.
The husband maintains he could build an airplane. I have no doubt he could, if he wanted to do so. Me, I don’t personaly have an interest in building, and I don’t want to wait 10 years for something flyable when I can get something NOW, in used but good condition.
Can you live within the realm of the “sport pilot” restrictions? If so, the next couple of years might get interesting - I expect Zenith will offer a ready-to-fly (and/or apply-the-placards-and-fly) version of the 601, and maybe somebody will offer a Pelican/Glastar.
Then there’s Toyota (if they ever decide what the hell they want to do).
Yep. And if you want an RV, with 3100 of them flying now there will be a healthy, competitive used market for them in another couple of years. Actually, there is already. You can find a few of them for sale in the $65,000 range.
If your husband has trouble getting into the plane, a Cherokee isn’t much better than a Grumman or an RV. In fact, a Grumman is quite easy to get into. You just step onto the wing, roll back the canopy, flip the seat up with your toe, stand on the spar, and then just lower yourself down. A cherokee you kind of have to crouch and slide your way in.
I think you’d find a Grumman fits you quite well - it has a much more open and visible cockpit than a 172 or a Cherokee. I just loved the visibility I had in my AA1. It was a total bubble canopy. And the cockpit is 43 inches wide, which is about the same as the other 4 place machines. Lots of women own Grummans.
And the airframes are extremely strong. The fuselage is honeycomb steel. The wings are overbuilt, especially in the AA1. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of an inflight wing or tail failure. There was a picture in one of the flight magazines one time of a Grumman Cheetah that went through a tornado and had a Cessna 172 dropped on top of it. The 172 was folded over the Grumman like paper, and the Grumman looked unharmed. Great crashworthiness, and the free castoring nosewheel is a hoot to taxi around once you get used to it. They fly better than any of the other popular birds in their class. They’re faster, more responsive, and more efficient. And they are much simpler than 172’s or Cherokees, with fiberglass gear legs instead of oleos, and no steering linkages or other hardware. No door hardware, either. Very cheap to operate.
And, they’re still cheaper than other birds in their class.
Warning -
As I told the buyer of my AA1 (O-290, quite nice):
If your time is all in 'Hawks and Cherokees, take the transition seriously - the AA1 is real nasty and can kill you quickly (a fully developed spin cannot be recovered, and the thing has the glide properties of a brick) - the AA5 is much kinder, but still lighter on the controls than either a C172 or PA-28.
But yes, do yourself a favor and check out a Cheetah/Tiger before buying anything.
Yeah, think I can handle the “sport pilot” category - I started in ultralights, after all. Seriously considered a two-seat Drifter for awhile, but they get cold in the winter and have absolutely zero crash protection for the pilot (there was an extremely gruesome incident in Australia a few years back involving a fence…{{{shudder}}}})
But I’m not getting a composite or fiberglass airplane. Either a ragwing or metal. Personal choice that I don’t particularly feel like arguing about.
That high? We’ve had them for $45-55k around here. But then, we had an EAA club get heavily into them awhile back and, unfortunately, the old guys are literally dying off, leaving the families to sell the airplanes. Just too bad I didn’t have the $45k to buy one.
Your method of getting into a Grumman requires two healthy ankles one can balance on. My husband does not have two such ankles and is inherently unstable on one foot. He does not have the foot-eye coordination to manipulate anything with a toe, and “lowering down” is problematic since his legs do not always want to cooperate with a gradual and controlled descent. Meanwhile, he’s gotten quite good at getting into and out of the Pipers, in part because there is structure (the seat back and the upper part of the fuselage) he can used to steady himself while getting in. If all else fails, there’s the sit-on-the-wing-and-drag-your-butt-into-the-airplane method. It unelegant, but beats the heck out of falling off an airplane and onto a concrete ramp.
He also has trouble getting into and out of Cessnas as well, and it has a lot to do with needing to rely on his arms much more than the rest of us to support himself while getting in and out. Most airplane design presumes the support of two healthy and steady legs, which he doesn’t have. So I suspect we’re getting a low-wing Piper in our future.
All of the above comes from trial and observation in actual airplanes. I know it defies common wisdom, but so far the Piper low-wings are the easiest for him to get in and out of. He also does well with the Mooney, or at least no worse than the rest of us. He also used to do well with the Drifter which, with a useful payload in the 500 lb range is a genuine 2 person aircraft even with full fuel, but it’s slow, baggage is a problem because of a lack of floor (requires a LOT of bungee cords and duct tape), and you’re exposed to the elements which severely reduces the utility in winter. AND it’s one of those pusher planes 
Let’s get real, it’s a flying telephone pole. Assuming I got the link right this time, scroll down and you’ll see several views. To get back on topic, this pusher design works well for floats since the engine and prop are mounted high and the pilot and passenger provide a spray shield for them (of course, the people on board do tend to get damp)
As for airplane transitions - take them all seriously.