Luscombe reborn as LSA

[Garfly]

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Great looking aircraft! Looks alone may sell them but I cant help feeling that reserecting the "dead" is an evolutionary hiccup when you consider that there are so many fantastic plastics out there that will perform so much better on less fuel and with lower airframe maintenance concerns

[kasper]

Skippy - Except that plastic fantastics have three issues that going forward will become more of an issue:

1. issues on the material istelf - many of the simpler constructions can absorb moisture and are subject to weight variations over time and despite anything you do UV is a concern that has to be managed

2. issues on repair - harder to spot some damage in a composite constrcution and can be very complex to repair - the repairs often add weight as well

3. environmental - as younger people who on average are more concerned with environmental issues move into the rec aviation owning group do not overlook the fact that he core materials in many composites are not environmentally friendly and the manufacturing processes go create unrecyclable waste.

 

Aluminium airframes and wooden airframes do not share all of these or to the same extent ... and there are current ways to address some of the environmental impacts of metal/wooden airframes that plastic fantastics just cannot currently address.

 

Wood metal and fabric are still attractive materials and can produce an airframe at lower cost than plastics

[Student Pilot]

Going forward...................😁    You getting that speak from Canberra?

[onetrack]

I'll wager the new Luscombe will cost an eye-watering amount more than any other current light aircraft! - unless they've found a myriad of ways to cut construction costs and amount of materials required!

One has to remember, in the era the original Luscombe was built in, labour was cheap and plentiful, and parts and components were pretty cheap, too.

And to add to that, bureaucracy costs, red tape, and certification costs were low as well. Legal liabilities were limited, and insurance premiums for a whole slew of liabilities didn't take up 20% of build cost.

It's a whole new ball game today. There are substantial costs involved just to start a company today. Rents are astronomical, and sales levels are lower than ever.

The only way a new Luscombe could even provide an economic offering today, would be for it to be produced on automated machinery, in a remote location, with low local costs.

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by onetrack

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, kasper said:

Skippy - Except that plastic fantastics have three issues that going forward will become more of an issue:

 

1. issues on the material istelf - many of the simpler constructions can absorb moisture and are subject to weight variations over time and despite anything you do UV is a concern that has to be managed

Absorb moisture ?? - certainly be a problem for all those  glass boats out there. I doubt that a well constructed plastic aircraft is going to absorb moisture.

UV - there are are very good UV protection paints available now. The Stewart System is one that I have experience with, there are many others. Choose the right paint system and this "problem" is negated.

My feeling is, given the corrosion issues with metal aircraft (especially those operating near salt water) are susceptible to,  plastic is by far the preferred construction material.

 

2. issues on repair - harder to spot some damage in a composite constrcution and can be very complex to repair - the repairs often add weight as well

True to a degree - the problem is that the outer skin can "bounce back" hiding the damage below, however the pilot would know that he/she had made contact with a solid object and investigate accordingly - I dispute that the repair would necessarily be complex or weight inducing

 

3. environmental - as younger people who on average are more concerned with environmental issues move into the rec aviation owning group do not overlook the fact that he core materials in many composites are not environmentally friendly and the manufacturing processes go create unrecyclable waste.

Also true to a degree. However aluminium and its alloys are incredibly energy hungry to produce. Someone much cleverer than I ,might work out  which of the two materials is the least damaging to our environment but for sure plastic and aluminium both have their problems

 

Aluminium airframes and wooden airframes do not share all of these or to the same extent ... and there are current ways to address some of the environmental impacts of metal/wooden airframes that plastic fantastics just cannot currently address.

 

Wood metal and fabric are still attractive materials and can produce an airframe at lower cost than plastics

 

I love wood, metal & plastic- my ideal aircraft would be one using plastic/wood/metal in its construction.

 

All three materials have their strong /weak points. Example : many LSA aircraft use epoxy impregnated wood main spares - you get the strength/lightness/flexibility of wood with a moisture resistant coating. Many props have wood cores, covered in plastic, resulting in  a vibration absorbing/ moisture/abrasion resistant finish. The Alpi Pioneer range have plastic skins over wood - terrific! The last time I checked engines, fuel tanks, electrical systems, exhausts, many undercarriages - all made of metal.

 

Don't forget, that an aerodynamically efficient airframe will demand less hp/fuel to deliver given performance targets - this means less pollution over its service life. Plastics can deliver extraordinarily efficient airframes.

 

Back to the Luscombe - I have always admired the shape of vintage aircraft of this type (straight tail Cessna's too) but for those of use who value efficiency, both in operating (litres/hour) and in maintenance (minimal), such throwbacks are elegant museum pieces  that can only be operated by those who have very deep pockets.

 

 

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Glass sure is a lot tougher than metal. But a glass plane really does need a hangar. Personally, I reckon metal aircraft need hangars too but I agree they fare better in the sun than glass does.

[skippydiesel]

34 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Glass sure is a lot tougher than metal. But a glass plane really does need a hangar. Personally, I reckon metal aircraft need hangars too but I agree they fare better in the sun than glass does.

That is the accepted wisdom however most of the very many Jabs that dwell close to me, live their resting lives in the elements. The only obvious effect seems to a dull finish - no cracking, bubbling or other signs of decay.

 

10% agree - all aircraft should be undercover when not flying.

 

Its not just UV its wind damage, rain & insect infiltration (especially metal aircraft) as well as the sun "cooking"  exterior & interior.

[kgwilson]

Most metal aircraft have some plastic bits. Cessnas etc all have plastic or FG wing tips and various fairing mouldings, spats etc. My aircraft while ostensibly aluminium has plenty of plastic bits as well. Good quality 2 pack paint protects it well from UV. It is always hangared except when I am away & have to park outside. The worst thing is not the body but the upholstery. Even though I have a tinted canopy and have painted the top of it the upholstery has faded really markedly in 5 years. I look at my original photos and compare them to the faded out colour now & it is pretty bad.

[Thruster88]

Onetrack nailed it, they will not be able to build that aircraft for a realistic price. The Luscombe 8A is one aircraft I lust after. Nice ones in oz can be had for about 60k, a bargain given the history, looks and the sweet reliable engine. A new one at a very high price would have no appeal.  

[Bruce Tuncks]

I don't know of a single plane left out in the sun here. A shed is not much more expensive than a refinish job I reckon. Maybe there are nasty regulations over there which make hangars so expensive that people go without?

 

[Kyle Communications]

To give you an idea a factory builr RANS S-21 base model with all analogue gauges is around US$130,000  so by the time you freight it here and pay the GST you are up for about AU$220,000

Even a kit now without engine or avionics will set you back around AU$85,000   I think the Luscombe will be more expensive

 

[Marty_d]

3 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I don't know of a single plane left out in the sun here. A shed is not much more expensive than a refinish job I reckon. Maybe there are nasty regulations over there which make hangars so expensive that people go without?

 

 

Zoom in here.

  http://www.google.com/maps/place/Tunbridge+TAS+7120/@-41.9001248,147.4798825,220m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0xaa71ad8e622b4f1b:0x403c94dd0ddffc0!8m2!3d-42.1429478!4d147.4213357

 

There's a Varieze (or LongEz, don't know which) sitting at the end of a strip just north of Campbelltown.  It's apparently been rotting away there for years.  Visible from the highway - I look at it and shake my head every time I drive past.

 

[Jabiru7252]

I know that if my plane had to stay out of a hangar, I'd be quick in acquiring some sort of weather/sun shade to throw over the thing. Too expensive a toy to let it get ruined. I am of the believe that many hangar owners are greedy bastards.