Modest Pilot Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Had a good look at this aircraft at Oshkosh. Apart from the extra cabin width I think I preferred the C150 that was parked along side; it certainly had better build quality! Accepting that many details have yet to be worked out, one feature that didn't impress was the rearward sweep of the main wing struts. It allows you to step into the cabin unobstructed. However if you grab the wing tip and push up you will notice that the wing twists and moves forward. The increased angle of attack of the wing will be interesting in turbulence, hope they have built the wing nice and strong! (heavy) The engine looks bulletproof and should be a hit with fixed base operators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 True. That effect is the opposite of what you would want. When you get an increase of lift as in a gust, the last thing you want is for the wing to twist and increase the AoA further. The rearward placement of the strut attach point also puts more load into the rear spar ( compression. Nev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 That effect is the opposite of what you would want. When you get an increase of lift as in a gust, the last thing you want is for the wing to twist and increase the AoA further. .... and I'm sure the Cessna doesn't do that. The strut seems to be forward of the wing torsional axis so any tension in the strut would seem to me to pull the leading edge down (and reduce angle of attack).Its not the only aeroplane where the strut is swept to improve access. The rearward placement of the strut attach point also puts more load into the rear spar ( compression. Nev. ... depending on the load case. The high angle of attack, high G at Point A on the flight envelope has a large forward load which would seem to me to be reacted quite neatly by the swept strut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 More.. Diacpro, I have only the statement by modest pilot to go on, and my first comment should be prefaced by a big "IF that is the case".. If the door is the factor determining the location of the strut attach point, then where would the attach point have been if the door didn't have an influence? Most rearward locations are so placed to permit the wings to pivot back for storage/transport .. The point you make re compensating for the wing to have a tendency to move forward at high angles of attack, has been used by some designers to justify the set-up we are discussing. There is an extensive analysis of a Fisher horizon which was put through a testing programme by BCAR ( british authority )for certification in that country and the wing structure was found to be overloaded in compression in the rear wing spar. Google fishnet. should pick it up Nev... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Iinteresting story, thanks. Inadequate structural analysis seemed to be at the heart of the Fisher I issue. http://www.fisherflying.com/news/newsletters/2000-summer.pdf Configuration is somewhat similar to the Husky which was the last wing I did a detailed analysis of. I have some faith that Cessna engineers would have done a rigourous analysis and I know they have done structural tests. PS - I didn't even compare it with the 150 at Oshkosh. I do like a refurbished 150 or 152 Aerobat personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Agree. I have no doubt that Cessna are capable of addressing these things. The 150/152 series are a bit under-rated for strength.ie (they are STRONGER than some would expect) The mid-air at moorabin where a large amount of damage occurred to the wing outboard, but no sign of it coming off, is proof of that. I have personal experience of a severe turbulence event (the worst that I have ever encountered) in a 150 and I couldn't believe that it could take it, but it did!. I know of one where the fin bent over at almost 90 degrees with a poorly executed recovery from a spin, but this was not the fault of the aeroplane and it landed safely. Corrosion is the worry, but they can be extensively rebuilt, (at a cost). maybe 50K if you are unlucky, (or careless in your purchase). The other thing is that they do not actually climb like a homesick angel. I have flown one with a Lyc. 0-320 (140 Hp) fitted. Prop clearance on a rough strip has to be coped with then . The Texas Taildragger might be an option but perhaps based on the "aerobat".to make it all worthwhile. ramblings.. Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brentc Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Well I hope they are built well, I know someone who has ordered two of them and someone else ordered 1 and I was hoping to have a fly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now