Kyle Communications Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I will be old and dead before I get to 1000 hrs in mine I am sure...thats a hell of a lot of flying. Whats your opinion on fantastic plastic gliders and RAA aircraft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Something like this would tick all my boxes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Gliders have gone to extremes; and as in any composite airframe, it depends on just how they are put together. They can be very, very good, or they can be horrid - and you cannot tell which by looking at them. The early foam-filled wing Jabirus are remarkably good airframes from a structural standpoint. The later Jab types with the fuel in the wings have better handling and better performance, as well as better general utility - but I do not know anything about their ultimate durability. Of the Jab types, I liked the J 160C a lot; but if I had one now, I'd put a CAMit engine in it. You have to respect the glass undercarriage legs. Not really paddock aeroplanes, however, even with the big wheel options. I tend to be very wary of GRP gliders that were built with the main spar cap roving bands inside the skin sandwich, and which had a spar web that was connected to the skins by bog and good luck, at wing assembly. That joint is completely un-inspectable; and if it fails, you ain't got a wing. However, they do not seem to be falling out of the sky in any quantity - yet. Nevertheless, they have become aeronautical "white goods" and they are useless for anything except exactly what they were designed for. They are essentially "throw-away" aircraft, not designed to be maintained. Nobody is building anything of the ilk of a K13 any more. So if you want to spend $120 K or so in order to fly gliding competitions furiously for five years or so, and then throw it away, modern plastic fantastic gliders are just that - fantastic. Personally, that kind of flying doesn't appeal to me any more. For my opinion on RAA aircraft generally, see my thread Caveat Emptor on this site. They are almost all built to watered-down design standards - the ones certificated to JAR-VLA or higher are the best in this regard; you can find out which they are by downloading their Type certificate Data Sheets from their certificating authority's website. I consider the advent of LSA as potentially de-stabilising for the whole industry, because the LSA rules are a recipe for regulation by litigation. There are too many players in the market, and the shake-out will be bad for a fair percentage of owners; I would not touch one myself. Also, they try to be both trainers and useful personal aircraft - and that's really a contradiction of terms; for a trainer, the mission is to fly the aircraft. For a useful personal aircraft, the mission is to fly the mission - the aircraft should damn near fly itself. No aircraft can be good at both these requirements; they are diametrically opposite. So what we have are neither fish nor fowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I will be old and dead before I get to 1000 hrs in mine I am sure...thats a hell of a lot of flying.Whats your opinion on fantastic plastic gliders and RAA aircraft? True - but it affects the resale value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Something like this would tick all my boxes... Ganagobie, itn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
503 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Something like this would tick all my boxes... What use if you can't take a victim ,I mean pax to share the joy of flight with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 True - but it affects the resale value. The kids can worry about that when they inherit what's left. rgmwa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvairkr Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Something like this would tick all my boxes... I know where there is one.. jason 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I would like a spaceship that I can open the window for low and slow then shut it for warp drive engagement all for $20 per hrs tops and fits in the garage with all up price delivered and lic for next to nothing and no certificate required yesterday thanks Is there a Down Under dealer for this aircraft? Please post the location, website and phone number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hihosland Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Dafydd did say "Here's my list: "I don't want open cockpits. "I don't want fabric covering. "I don't want an aircraft whose fatigue life is completely unknown. "I don't want a flimsy, "Reynolds Wrap" special, held together with pop rivets. "I don't want an aircraft whose GC limits and flight envelope limits are unknown. "I don't want an aircraft that is likely to overturn in an emergency landing, from which escape is then impossible. "I don't want an aircraft that has marginal stability in any normal flight condition; or that has poor control harmonisation. "I don't want an aircraft that is incapable of routinely operating from a croppie strip or a paddock. "I don't want a nosewheel aircraft that has either a small nosewheel or inadequate propeller clearance; I prefer taildraggers for those reasons. "I don't want a nosewheel aircraft whose crosswind capability is limited by "wheelbarrowing". Then modified the list by saying fabric is OK if hangarage is available, That has the Skyranger as one possible aircraft ticking all his boxes to which you can add a..rapid build kit b..easily repaired c..economical to buy and operate It ticks all my boxes Davidh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Dafydddid say "Here's my list: "I don't want open cockpits. "I don't want fabric covering. "I don't want an aircraft whose fatigue life is completely unknown. "I don't want a flimsy, "Reynolds Wrap" special, held together with pop rivets. "I don't want an aircraft whose GC limits and flight envelope limits are unknown. "I don't want an aircraft that is likely to overturn in an emergency landing, from which escape is then impossible. "I don't want an aircraft that has marginal stability in any normal flight condition; or that has poor control harmonisation. "I don't want an aircraft that is incapable of routinely operating from a croppie strip or a paddock. "I don't want a nosewheel aircraft that has either a small nosewheel or inadequate propeller clearance; I prefer taildraggers for those reasons. "I don't want a nosewheel aircraft whose crosswind capability is limited by "wheelbarrowing". Then modified the list by saying fabric is OK if hangarage is available, That has the Skyranger as one possible aircraft ticking all his boxes to which you can add a..rapid build kit b..easily repaired c..economical to buy and operate It ticks all my boxes Davidh Not quite - I said I could put up with the fabric covered fuselage on the Maule, if hangarage was available. Its wings are metal. What is the certification basis of the Skyranger (if any)? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Mmmm,,,,quite a thread ,and we've yet to find the perfect aeroplane,,,,,, It's all very subjective,,,lots of I wants and I don't wants! So here's my take on it 100 knots cruise( and not 100 in salesman talk) but it's not on the top of the list ;-) Fabric is fine ,I would rather not have a plane if I had to leave it out side( hailstones still hurt certified jiggers) Taildragger , cause prop clearance in the afore mentioned paddocks is all important Alloy ,sure ,but 4130chrome moly has been keeping people off the ground for decades High wing,,with struts ,,,,no gutless strut less for me Rotax or lycoming engines Stall speed in the low 30's would be nice Savannahs and 701's ,,,,I really want the plane to make me look good,,,,if it has to be the other way round we're in fugly town, and they're the only aircraft I've seen that doesn't look better as a taildragger ,,,,,,sorry guys ,just an opinion! For me the piper cub copies ,the eurofox( although to get the cruise speeds they claim you run out of altitude at some point) , the kitfox's especially the latest variant , the highlanders, ,,,,,,,bit of a theme running here. I've flown plenty of different types , and it's all very personal,,,,did a lap in a B55 Baron recently,,nice but even if I had the money I wouldn't bother, get to tool around in a Tigermoth on occasion,,,,the smile stays for days,along with the sore leg muscles( the rudder is so heavy compared to my jigger) I reckon aircraft are like women ,,,,if we all like the same one ,,,she'd be bloody busy and it would be hard to get a ride ! Matty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Yes - everybody wants something different. However to put the Maule M5-180C into perspective - it's a 4 seat cum freight taildragger with a Lycoming 0-360 and a Hartzell CS prop. MTOW 2400 lbs, empty 1300 lbs - so its useful load is almost equal to the MTOW of most RAA aircraft. 75% power cruise around 115 kts. It has a ginormous freight door on the stbd side; largest of any other aeroplane of its size & weight. People use them in NZ to haul deer carcases. I did the first-of-type work on both it and its big brother, the M5-235C to get them into Australia, and flew them both in the process of preparing Australian performance charts. Most people go for the bigger engine; but unless you're operating in really high country, the bigger engine gives no real benefit - and it uses a duplex magneto that is troublesome and for which parts are no longer available. The 180 horse one was just a very sweet and highly practical aircraft, and as the engine was one of the few 0-360s to have tuned counterweights on the crankshaft, very smooth. The climb performance tests showed the propeller efficiency to be unusually high - considerably better than the M5-235. Go-anywhere undercarriage, tho I'd not bother with tundra wheels. Definitely NOT an RAA aircraft. The difference between something like this and a Skyranger/Savannah/Kitfox/ Skyfox/Eurofox is that it's a tool, and they are toys. I find aircraft of that ilk extremely boring; and the ones I've flown had poor control harmonisation, which I find irritating. The rag on the fuselage was Razorback (a fibreglass cloth) but by now they'd have Ceconite, I suppose. Quite outside my means to operate one these days; so I'll stick to the motorised Blanik, which I expect will be able to fly rings around any of the above lot of RAA aircraft, and can stay up with the engine turned off, in the kind of conditions one would choose to fly it. It's downside is the large wingspan - 54 feet - and it's difficult to taxi. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I don't know if mine is the perfect plane or not, but it's mine.... and that's perfection! rgmwa 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I don't know if mine is the perfect plane or not, but it's mine.... and that's perfection! rgmwa That's the only way to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 It's NOT a silly question, for this thread has revealed much of the many ways in which recreational pilots select an aeroplane. If the sole purpose was to define the ideal recreational aircraft, then yes, it'd be better done by negatives. Respondents have wished for more cruise speed, less landing speed, decent range and low initial and operating costs. Quite a few have recognised the benefits of the high-wing, strut braced layout, whilst a few at least have also recognised the field of view issue. So the answer seems to be, people would like a choice of a few speed/performance brackets, but all in low initial cost, low running cost, quick-build, and generally easy to get one's butt into the air. With a four-stroke engine... which points at LSA "certified"; CS-VLA is an acceptable standard under LSA in Australia, and meets or exceeds all requirements of ASTM 2245. The remaining question is, will the manufacturer(s) have the expertise to properly exercise "due diligence" in the certification? I wasn't trying to point to any particular type; the question was, "what do people want in a recreational aircraft?"I think the answer must depend on a number of peripheral matters, which will differ greatly from one person to another. For example, do you have hangarage available? I happen (by choice) to live on a rural block & have my own (short) airstrip & a hangar. Most people do not have that; and so their choice is likely to be constrained. If you are paying for hangarage, folding wings are a considerable advantage. If you have to leave it tied down in the open - as I did when I had a PA 28-140, there are a different set of constraints. Cost is a major consideration for everybody, but it's affected by things like the availability of maintenance facilities, insurance, fuel efficiency, etc, which will have different importance for different people. So, really, it's a silly question. Do you want to use the aircraft mainly to go places - i.e. do you want to get there quickly - or do you want to really enjoy looking at the countryside? Are you simply obsessed with speed? (That gets boring after a while). So it's much more practical to ask, "what do people NOT want in a recreational aircraft?" Here's my list: I don't want open cockpits. I don't want fabric covering. I don't want an aircraft whose fatigue life is completely unknown. I don't want a flimsy, "Reynolds Wrap" special, held together with pop rivets. I don't want an aircraft whose GC limits and flight envelope limits are unknown. I don't want an aircraft that is likely to overturn in an emergency landing, from which escape is then impossible. I don't want an aircraft that has marginal stability in any normal flight condition; or that has poor control harmonisation. I don't want an aircraft that is incapable of routinely operating from a croppie strip or a paddock. I don't want a nosewheel aircraft that has either a small nosewheel or inadequate propeller clearance; I prefer taildraggers for those reasons. I don't want a nosewheel aircraft whose crosswind capability is limited by "wheelbarrowing". That's ten "don't wants", for starters. I could go on. What's your list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I don't want much , a Piper Super Cub will do me as my last aircraft 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daza Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 ...Definitely NOT an RAA aircraft... If we're not limiting ourselves to the RAA requirements, then surely what you need is a DHC-4A Caribou! Pro's - Enclosed cockpit - All metal - Fatigue life thoughly tested - Confirmed Not flimsy - GC limits and flight envelope limits well documented - Unlikely to overturn, and still easily escaped from - Stability and control harmonisation confirmed by numerous low hour pilots - Routinely operated from much worse than a croppie strip or a paddock - Nosewheel performance and propeller clearance throughly tested - "Wheelbarrowing" performed for fun, crosswind capability Sufficient Con's - Only one, Cost p.s. It could also serve as a trailer for the Blanik! Darren. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 If we're not limiting ourselves to the RAA requirements, then surely what you need is a DHC-4A Caribou!Pro's - Enclosed cockpit - All metal - Fatigue life thoughly tested - Confirmed Not flimsy - GC limits and flight envelope limits well documented - Unlikely to overturn, and still easily escaped from - Stability and control harmonisation confirmed by numerous low hour pilots - Routinely operated from much worse than a croppie strip or a paddock - Nosewheel performance and propeller clearance throughly tested - "Wheelbarrowing" performed for fun, crosswind capability Sufficient Con's - Only one, Cost p.s. It could also serve as a trailer for the Blanik! Darren. There's few of them just sitting here, I reckon the purchase price would be the cheapest expense though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 The question was. What STYLE? It makes it a bit harder to answer. What style of plane would use almost no fuel (say 20 litres) be very quiet, cruise at 160 knots and land at 38 knots and fly with absolute perfect control response and feel and manage plus or minus 10 "G". Like motorbikes, the perfect plane is yet to be made. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Ideally.....2 seat tandem, high wing, tail dragger, with rough terrain capability, strut braced, all metal, folding wings, trailerable, quick rig, common automotive engine, with a gear redrive. Speed doesn't matter, as long as it has around 1.5 hrs endurance. I will overlook most handling/balance/harmonisation issues, as long as it doesn't fall apart, or try to kill me all the time without letting me know beforehand. I don't want it certified, so that I can fiddle with it myself legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 If we're not limiting ourselves to the RAA requirements, then surely what you need is a DHC-4A Caribou!Pro's - Enclosed cockpit - All metal - Fatigue life thoughly tested - Confirmed Not flimsy - GC limits and flight envelope limits well documented - Unlikely to overturn, and still easily escaped from - Stability and control harmonisation confirmed by numerous low hour pilots - Routinely operated from much worse than a croppie strip or a paddock - Nosewheel performance and propeller clearance throughly tested - "Wheelbarrowing" performed for fun, crosswind capability Sufficient Con's - Only one, Cost p.s. It could also serve as a trailer for the Blanik! Darren. All perfectly true; but I can't afford one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Like motorbikes, the perfect plane is yet to be made. What, like one that will go full throttle for over a minute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 It will probably have feathers. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hongie Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Ideally.....2 seat tandem, high wing, tail dragger, with rough terrain capability, strut braced, all metal, folding wings, trailerable, quick rig, common automotive engine, with a gear redrive. Speed doesn't matter, as long as it has around 1.5 hrs endurance. I will overlook most handling/balance/harmonisation issues, as long as it doesn't fall apart, or try to kill me all the time without letting me know beforehand. I don't want it certified, so that I can fiddle with it myself legally. sounds like you want this... ticks all your boxes except the automotive motor, but I'm sure you could do that too if you built one. video of wing fold 1 1 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