Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on November 27, 2005, 11:53:59 PM
-
It's been 6 months since I first really considered building an airplane. Back then, I gravitated towards the RV 9 and 7. Since then, I've inspected a few RVs, and sat in an RV-6a. Great planes, but pretty cramped. I'm 6'2 and 260-270, and my shoulders feel really cramped.
I spent a few months thinking about Piper Cherokee Warriors, and probably will still end up with one in the beginning, but for long term planning, I'm really interested in building my own.
I've recently spent a bunch of time reading up on canard planes. Has anyone seen or flown in a Cozy Mk IV? It seems to have almost all the traits I'm looking for. Four seater, fast (200mph+), efficient... And since it's a composite full builld, I can easilly modify it as needed, like adding in a couple extra inches in width for comfort.
(http://www.canardaviation.com/cozy/cz863l.jpg)
Just specudreaming right now...
-
those things will get you killed :noid
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
And since it's a composite full builld, I can easilly modify it as needed, like adding in a couple extra inches in width for comfort.
That type of thinking right there is the leading cause of death of homebuilders....
-
http://www.pacificaerosport.com/twister.htm !
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
That type of thinking right there is the leading cause of death of homebuilders....
Nah, I think the leading cause of death of homebuilders is, based on reading NTSB reports, "ah, I just fueled it a couple months ago. All I've been doing with the engine is ground runs, how much gas could that possibly use? Anyhow, I'm just doing a quick test flight, no need to open up the tank and check."
The mod I'm considering has been done a bunch of times by other builders, so no worries there, but involving the builder community to double check changes is a good idea, so you can learn from their experiences.
-
Why aeroplanes lack fuel gauges?
-
A gauge there may be. But how many fuel gauges have you seen that are linear? Besides, how do you know you have the right one installed?
"hmm, says here on this gauge that we got enough gas to take this ATR all the way back to Tunis."
Fuel exhaustion has ended many a promising medical career.
-
If you reply on NTSB reports, the leading cause of trouble is flying in VMC without a flight plan
-
Logically thinking I've never run out of gas driving a car, why should way more advanced aircraft be any different.
-
Fuel systems in an automobile tend to say F --- E.
Fuel systems in an A/C say Right tank F --- E, Left tank F --- E, maybe fuselage tank F --- E.
Homebuilts tend to have custom fuel valving systems. With a small amount of unfamiliarity, one can suffer fuel starvation and still have 50 gallons on board.
Ask John Denver.
-
Chairboy - I went to the 1991 EAA exhibition at Oshkosh. I spent 2 days there and could have spent a third or indeed the full week. Really interesting stuff. What I liked best was the homebuilt section. Amazing planes with fantastic performance with very modest fuel consumption. I'm talking about 180mph on about 4 gallons/hour...
But I agree with the other guys here - those things will get you killed! That year (or it may have been the year after) one of them broke up in flight flying from that very event at Oshkosh.
Also, the time - 3000 hours just to build one that's been partially prebuilt, 5000 hours for a really ambitious project. Do you have the time? Do you have the garage space, the tools and the know-how?
As for aircraft fuel gauges - not worth a piss in the wind. My TB10 used to get almost exactly 38 litres of fuel per flying hour, usable capacity being 300 litres. I worked out the fuel remaining by time flown.
It was a plane I could trust - took it across the English channel on many occasions and all the way to Corsica once, crossing 160nm of water - a real man's flight. None of this land-lubbing American nancy boy stuff! ;):p
-
Holden if the pilot doesn't know how to select proper tanks it won't help to visually check fuel levels either. Even if they're all topped off during takeoff he might make a midair error and drain a tank in the end. If there would be a gauge and perhaps audible low fuel alarm then the user could act on the problem.
Sounds like the flight security could be enhanced with $50 modification easily.
-
Were that the case...you think people who spend $100 & up per flight hour are too cheap to fork over for the $50 modification? I landed a plane, PA-28-181 Archer II N8039E, with only 14 gallons once (12 usable & flow was 8-10 per hour), still gives me the twitch when I think about it because I landed & didn't refuel during that trip. Even stupider, had I refueled for the return trip the extra 20 minutes time would have let me fly without worrying about a TFR which expired about 15 minutes after I flew through it. The FAA rules for fuel gauges are that they must read empty when the tank is empty, so in effect you can probably make an excuse for dumping them & calling the engine your fuel gauge. I'd love to see the look an FAA inspectors face when I tell him "I've set up my plane so that the manifold pressure drops when the tank is dry"
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
If there would be a gauge and perhaps audible low fuel alarm then the user could act on the problem.
What keeps fuel starvation from happening is familiarity with systems and a proper preflight. Oh, and every A/C has an audible low fuel alarm. It's called slience.
-
Heh I don't know about you but I'd prefer a nasty beep 2 minutes before running out instead of a dying engine during flight.
It's a bit like saying I don't need a seatbelt - the windshield will stop me on the event of a collision. :D
-
Two-minute warning won't help much.
Your car doesn't run out of fuel because the tank is set up to read "Empty" well before empty, and contains an amount of reserve fuel practically unknown. Besides, you rarely refuel your car at the start or end of a trip.
Anyway, taking automotive issues further: plenty of cars do run out of fuel. I'd bet that if you examined the average driving hours between cases of fuel exhaustion in private automobiles and in single-engine aircraft driven by PPLs, you'd find similar results.
Of course, similar problem for kit planes: not all builders have the time or ability to follow rigorously basic principles of safety in construction (oops, forgot a wing spar, again), or they make modifications based on an imperfect knowledge of how the aircraft works, and what went into its design (John Denver, again).
-
Dinger the warning buzzer would come in handy in the situations Holden described - being unfamiliar with tank selectors. It would prevent the pilot from making the mistake of switching to a tank that is already empty. Or running one totally empty without knowing for that matter.
The reason why it's far more common for an automobile to run out of gas would be the consequences of such an event. While at land - fairly low risk. While at air - life or death situation.
-
I never trust gas gauges on cars either(because I mostly drive beaters), and use the odo to check the mileage I have left. Just last week I ran out of diesel because I had changed to winter tires of a slightly larger diameter. The odometer reading vs. real mileage changed for the worse and I thought I had 15 miles left when I didn't. :rolleyes:
-
Even though my Mercedes has a reliable fuel gauge I prefer to keep the tank topped off. Better for condensation and convenient if I need to take a long trip in the morning - I hate nothing more than having to refuel 5 am in a blizzard.
-
Chair, I flew a Veri-EZe back 20 years ago. Nice handling airplane in my opinion. Roll rate was excellent, if a little touchy. Pitch was good but a little slow...I think the canard's moment arm around the CG is not very long. Yaw control was effective.
The one drawback was seating position and visability. I had a hard time seeing out of the plane for approach. You sit low, so the length of the nose is exagerated, plus the canard gets in the way too.
Interstingly, the plane that I flew crashed a week after my flight killing the owner. NTSB said he had exceeded the g limit and snapped a wing. They assumed he was probably performing aerobatic manuvers.
-
Building a "glass" plane like that is neat as it gives the design a much cleaner airframe than a standard aluminum bird. It does make it harder to actually inspect the interior and a fuel leak can have rather dramatic consequences for the wing.
Another consideration for me is how well it will handle years of exposure to the sun. There is no real data on how many years the surface will last. IN the sunbelt there are many fiberglass pools and spas as well as other items made from composite that have deteriorated from exposure. I'm not too sure I'd like to ride in a "glass" plane that has been around for 40 years vs a metal plane like the Comanche I used to own. You can't check for delamination of the material or other problems nearly as easy as you can with a different design.
Buying a prebuilt homebuilt glass bird is not anything I'd consider. I have no real way to confirm the specs were complied with by the builder, much less the quality of the original lay up work.
As to fuel guages. The only spec that the FAA requires is that they read empty when the tank is dry to the level of unusable fuel. A pilot that depends on a guage has a technical term to describe them, statistic.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Interstingly, the plane that I flew crashed a week after my flight killing the owner. NTSB said he had exceeded the g limit and snapped a wing. They assumed he was probably performing aerobatic manuvers.
Can you point me to the tail number or report? I'd love to read up on it. Based on what I've read so far, it seems hard to believe that someone could snap a wing on one of these without either doing something boneheaded in flight or construction. I've seen demonstrations with these composite wings where two guys jump up and down on one to show how much stronger they are than metal wings of the same caliber.
In regards to the fuel stuff, the lack of accurate fuel gauges is common to all aircraft. My instructor quipped that 'we can send a man to the moon, but we can't create a reliable fuel gauge', and told me that it's a constant in aviation. One of the reasons why I manually check the fuel levels every time I fly, and all these reports I read of experimental pilots running out of fuel really reinforces that. The other fuel related mishap I've read a lot about in composite aircraft is something that interferes with fuel flow, usually described as 'a gummy substance' or something similar. I'm going to guess that with a composite fuel tank, there's a real danger of improperly treating the inside resulting in a tank that the fuel can be a solvent on, but that's just a guess. I've read a bunch of reports where the engine quits and they find gunk in the lines, so...
Regarding exposure to the sun, I've learned something interesting in my studies. Burt Rutan said that he will not fly in a VariEZ, LongEZ, or the ilk that's painted any color other than white. The reason? Anything else will absorb enough heat that it could break down the lamination. He said that back when he started making these, and I guess there have been advances since that ease the restrictions, but the smart money is probably still on a light color.
...which brings up another point, the VariEZ was first introduced back in the 1970s, and there are plenty of the originals still flying, many of which are parked out on the tarmac in places as inhospitable as Mojave, CA. Sounds like a pretty good track record to me, Maverick! :D
I was describing my interest to a co-worker this morning, and he said he could only support my efforts if the airplane looked as much like an imperial shuttle from star wars as possible. I grinned and told him to come by my desk so I could show him a picture of it.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Heh I don't know about you but I'd prefer a nasty beep 2 minutes before running out instead of a dying engine during flight.
It's a bit like saying I don't need a seatbelt - the windshield will stop me on the event of a collision. :D
The problem with airplane fuel guages is that most airplane fuel tanks are in the wings. Wings are thin, and the 18 gallon tanks in my old cessna 172 were no more than 4 or five inches deep.
That makes an accurate float system problematical. Add in any aileron roll (normal when flying crosswind), and you have a wildly inaccurate measuring system.
On the other hand, fuel flow guages are very accurate, and cruise power fuel flow calculations from the POH are pretty much right on. That's why pilots generally calculate the fuel needed for a flight, and plan fuel stops along the way to make sure they don't run out of fuel.
-
Chairboy,
It's possible to destroy many planes without actually managing violent aerobatics... I read of one guy who had a known history of using full-stick deflection at maneuvering speed in his RV, around 140 or 160 in that model if I recall correctly. Well, one day he was messing around and somehow mis-read his airspeed (maybe it was 260 instead of 160?) and he used full aft stick to enter a loop. The plane never exeeded about 3 G's because the tail snapped off before it could cause much of a pitch angle change.
Anyhow, there are lots of ways to break off airplane parts and some aren't obvious.
-
Geez, nice supportive comments folks. I am helping to build both a long-ez and a vari-ez currently. Done right, these things are overbuilt about 400%. The Cozy has attracted my eye more than once, but I think the RV-10 is my real-world top pick.
Anyways, don't listen to all the naysayers. Homebuilts are exactly as safe as you build and fly them.
-
In about a year and a half I'll be looking for a homebuilt too. I'll start by looking at an RV, not exactly sure which though since I haven't actually sat in a completed one or flown them. The stats sure look nice and the planes look cool, and it seems like everyone who owns one likes it.
EZs... The impression I've always gotten is that it's like the old intel vs. AMD argument, with the RV being the intel and the EZ being the AMD. Sure you can customize the EZ (AMD) and get better performance, but for solid all-around performance and reliability go with the RV (intel). Most of that has to do with aluminum vs. composite construction, but it also has to do with aircraft configuration and the fact that many people are more comfortable with the "standard", and the EZ really isn't "standard" in just about any area.
Don't get me wrong, the EZ is a great design, but it's more aimed at efficiency than comfort or maneuvering performance/aerobatics. The RV can operate out of rougher strips (the EZ nosegear can be a weak area on rough strips) and is designed up front for all around dependable performance including a thick rectangular wing for good acro and stall performance to go with reasonably good cruise efficiency. I thought a modified RV did pretty good in one of those CAFE efficiency races a while back, but I could be mis-remembering since the glasairs and EZs tended to dominate that contest.
-
The RV-10 is a sweet looking plane, agreed. I do like the idea of operating out of more runways....
but again, there's the efficiency aspect. The Cozy should be able to seat 4 like the RV-10, possibly with more comfort, and be able to go faster on less gas. The super spin resistance of the canard is great too. I've been reading that it's nigh impossible to spin them without being a complete idiot because you build it so the canard stalls first. No wing dip, the canard stalls, and the nose mushes down until you're flying again. Sounds good to me!
Downside, you need more runway, it doesn't fly out of dirt runways as good (if at all), and you land at 5-10 knots faster.
Another upside, it looks like a freakin' spaceship. Hard to beat THAT.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Can you point me to the tail number or report? I'd love to read up on it.
Hell I sometimes have trouble remembering the N number for the plane I'm sitting in while on unicom let alone one from 20 years ago! :rolleyes:
You can probably search for it. There can't be that many that went down in the early to mid 80s. If you find one in Florida in that time period...then that was it.
-
Chairboy, Arrow from AH here has one of these planes.
He flew it into the reading airshow 2 years back. He does the Osh relay or something of that sort. I was supposed to get a ride in it. The payload is under 400lbs. so i had to lose some weight to be a passenger. I did get down to 195. From seeing this plane i hear they are awsome. If you need more information i can pass your e-mail address to Arrow. I think they have a webpage on the canards, last i heard they were doing some formation flying and started a group.
NUTTZ
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Hell I sometimes have trouble remembering the N number for the plane I'm sitting in while on unicom let alone one from 20 years ago! :rolleyes:
You can probably search for it. There can't be that many that went down in the early to mid 80s. If you find one in Florida in that time period...then that was it.
No joy, searched all fatal accidents for experimental aircraft in FL in the 1980s and didn't find it. I'll search again and widen the net tonight after work. Thanks!
-
Originally posted by NUTTZ
Chairboy, Arrow from AH here has one of these planes.
He flew it into the reading airshow 2 years back. He does the Osh relay or something of that sort. I was supposed to get a ride in it. The payload is under 400lbs. so i had to lose some weight to be a passenger. I did get down to 195. From seeing this plane i hear they are awsome. If you need more information i can pass your e-mail address to Arrow. I think they have a webpage on the canards, last i heard they were doing some formation flying and started a group.
NUTTZ
Hi Nuttz! You sure it wasn't a LongEZ? The Cozy design I'm looking at has a usable load of around 1,000lbs.
On a related note, you can find VFR LongEZs for sale for cheap. I saw one for $16,000 and another for $25,000. If someone had the skills to perform a good inspection, might be a good deal for a fast, cheap plane.
-
Kinda makes you wonder why someone would sell an aircraft like that for less than the cost of the materials including engine.
Chairboy I've known some homebuilders. Some were absolute perfectionists whose only failing is that they are never finished building the plane even after it's painted and certified OK to fly by the FAA. They are always wanting to improve instead of just flying the truly outstanding machine.
I've also met some who I wouldn't ride in the car they drove. One bought an engine and brought it by to have us look at it. He was very happy he got it at auction for only $6,000.00. He was going to strap it on a plane and fly it after doing nothing more than changing plugs and adding oil. It just had to be good as it was all nice clean and freshly painted just like the factory lycomings. I asked him to check the engine out first. He declined and I then asked him if he minded if I got an insurance policy on him first with me as the benificiary. At that point he said ok lets look at it. We found the pan had a double handfull of sand in it, 3 cylinders had sand in them on top of the piston over a half inch thick. The 4th cylinder had 2 broken rings.
He also had a nice looking prop for the engine. I convinced him to take it to the local prop shop. One blade was bent over a half inch out of track. It had been in a blade strike. But it was really nice and pretty with the blades filed and freshly painted, albeit a bit short.
I think "glass planes" are ok bnut I would not buy anything that I can't fully inspect. There are just too many things that can go wrong with the construction of a composite that you won't be able to see without xraying the entire bird. A well constructed one would be a joy to have and fly.
As to durability and exposure. I flew in Southern AZ. I also looked over the line in places I fley into. In AZ. I never saw a composit bird stored outside on the ramp at TUS, Marana NW and even La Cholla, a private flying community.
Like "rag wings" I think compposits need to be kept in hangars for storage.
-
Ive been impressed with the slick lines of the Cozy. But unless its a Beech Starship, I wouldnt buy one. (And almost all of those have all been bought up by Raytheon, slated to be shredded and burned)
Local guy had a Varieze that seemed to continually have nose wheel problems. He also ran into a lot of walls with insurance. I was a big admirer of the Berkut, a retract variant of the Varieze. Apparently someone was killed in one and effectively shut down the operation (I could be wrong...but that's the info as it was passed along to me)
The RVs have a solid rep. If you opt to build one, there's a lot of support there.
Sadly, the General Aviation offerings are pretty stale looking. The Experimentals have all the excitement....if you have the ability to build em yourself
-
Chairboy, just drive on over to Redmond and drool.
-
Well, this has been put firmly on the back burner. I was just laid off from my job of almost 10 years this morning, so my flying budget, not to mention my 'build or buy a plane' budget has just been axed.
Sadness.
-
Oh man, sorry to hear that...no advance warning or anything? Severance? What a rotten time of year to get the axe :confused:
-
Hi Furball,
Originally posted by Furball
http://www.pacificaerosport.com/twister.htm !
O come on, you're going to trust a lightweight Spitfire replica built by a GERMAN company?
Nope, you'd be better off investing the $470,000 and buying one of Flugwerk's full-scale 190A8 knockoffs. I have it on good authority that the Germans knew how to build them.
190 Kit Details (http://www.flugwerk.com/new/fw190/fw190.shtm)
(http://www.flugwerk.com/new/images/12-04/kFW190_AZEITLER_22.JPG)
-
Damn, sorry to hear the bad news Chairboy.
Why are the starships being rebought and scrapped?
-
There was a thin on the history channel about it...the only thing I could find right away off Google was this (http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3256258) article.
-
Hi Chair,
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, this has been put firmly on the back burner. I was just laid off from my job of almost 10 years this morning, so my flying budget, not to mention my 'build or buy a plane' budget has just been axed.
Sadness.
Sorry, I posted my most recent missive without reading to the end of the thread and almost deleted it entirely as a result. I'm truly saddened to hear your news.
Ah well Chair, sometimes it helps to be reminded that all of our jobs, promotions, and wealth, are in the end so much dust and try as we might, they inevitably all slip through our fingers:
"When the race is ended, and the play is either won or lost, and ye are in the utmost circle and border of time, and shall put your foot within the march of eternity, all the good things of your short nightdream shall seem to you like ashes of a blaze of thorns or straw." - SAMUEL RUTHERFORD
If I can be of assistance to you, both now and in the future, please don't hesitate to contact me.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Debonair
If you reply on NTSB reports, the leading cause of trouble is flying in VMC without a flight plan
Those are my favorite ones. Just like shooting the approach without a clearance was the obvious cause of the accident. If he had a clearance...all would have been well and good.
The FAA is cinching up loose ends...watch out!!!! :noid
-
Thanks guys. Yeah, got a severance, and I hope to find something soon. Appreciate the kind words.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, this has been put firmly on the back burner. I was just laid off from my job of almost 10 years this morning, so my flying budget, not to mention my 'build or buy a plane' budget has just been axed.
Sadness.
Just got to the end of the thread...sorry Chairboy. I guess you didn't own a pizza shop like I thought...ass-u-me
Good luck.
-
No, we still own two pizza stores, it's just that one of them makes a modest profit that the other one (that we're trying to turn around) is in the red for that amount and more, so in the end, right now it's actually a cost center. With my salary, I've been able to float it along until we get things fixed the rest of the way, but that will be tricky now.
To make a small fortune in the pizza business, start with a large one!
We'll figure something out, I'm confident.
-
I wish I could help. If I knew a darn thing or would've spent more than a week in Oregon I'd offer.
Mind if ask what type of field or job you were in? Skilled labor? IT? Management? I heard from the blonde (girl from Hobby airport in Creswell) she's in Eugene now and involved with the Church and about a million other groups...if I can help I'd like to.
Network...network...network
-
Thanks, appreciate it. I was an SQA Engineer, developed test tools and stuff like that. My best bet will probably be to find another position with my company, I was let go because, as part of a re-org, they got rid of a bunch of remote employees today. I was technically based out of Santa Monca, CA, and remote employees just aren't part of the plan right now.
I heard that 40-50 other people at my company lost their jobs today, so christmas will be fun for plenty of software folks this year.
Gonna stay positive. I have skills, and gotta take care of the family.
-
Chairboy
I am truly sorry to hear your situation. I hope that it reverses quickly. The timing is pretty damn crappy for the company to do that.:mad:
-
There's never really a GOOD time for it, afaict.
I'll find something. Always opportunities for people who search.
-
Sorry to hear this Chair, good luck.
I have some contacts in Oregon, if you want to become trailer trash.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
No joy, searched all fatal accidents for experimental aircraft in FL in the 1980s and didn't find it. I'll search again and widen the net tonight after work. Thanks!
Hmmm...I recall I was in college at the time, so it would have either been in Florida (home) or Texas (school). And it had to have been between 1981 and 1985. I recall that the folks at the FBO acted like I was the stupidest person in the world to go up in the thing...the local A&P commented that you never know how well a homebuilt was constructed unless you build it yourself...which is a comment that has stuck with me my entire aviation career. When the guy went down, the FBO ramp rats told me about the accident and that part of the wing had snapped. They said I had been really lucky that the structual failure hadn't happened when I was in the plane. It was a pretty sobering thought.
Anyway...sorry to hear about your layoff. Hopefully some thing will come up quickly.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry to hear this Chair, good luck.
I have some contacts in Oregon, if you want to become trailer trash.
Hey not all folks in trailers are trailer trash. Some of us are trailer refuse! It's a higher class of trailer folks.
-
I actually have an old motorhome, I trailerdom might be in my future!
I think I may have found the crash:
NTSB Identification: FTW82FPD13
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, June 20, 1982 in ROANOKE, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 6/20/1983
Aircraft: VARIEZE , registration: N111CH
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Serious.
ABOUT 5 MIN AFTER TAKEOFF, THE PILOT INITIATED A HIGH SPEED LOW PASS OVER THE AIRPORT. WHEN THE AIRCRAFT WAS ABOUT 1000 FT FROM THE AIRPORT AT ABOUT 100 FT AGL, THE RIGHT WINGLET SEPARATED. A WITNESS ESTIMATED THAT THE AIRCRAFT'S SPEED WAS ABOUT 200 MPH. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PLANE ROLLED INVERTED AND CRASHED. AN EXAMINATION REVEALED THAT THE WINGLET WAS NOT INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE DESIGNER'S PLANS. SPECIFICALLY, THE PLANS CALLED FOR AN 8-PLY FIBERGLASS BUILD-UP ON THE OUTSIDE RADIUS FROM THE LOWER WING TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF THE WINGLET. FIBERGLASS BUILD-UP WAS NOT INCORPORTED. THE DESIGNER ESTIMATED THAT IT HAD LESS THAN 1/20 OF THE DESIGN STRENGTH. AT HIGH SPEED, WITH ZERO SIDE SLIP, THERE IS AN INWARD AERODYNAMIC (BENDING) LOAD ON THE WINGLET THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO A 15 DEG SIDE SLIP AT LOW SPEED. THIS WINGLET HAD FAILED INWARD. ALSO, A NUMBER OF OTHER DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGNERS PLANS WERE NOTED.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
WING,WINGLET..FAILURE,TOTAL
INADEQUATE QUALITY CONTROL..MANUFACTURER
Contributing Factors
WING,WINGLET..SEPARATION
Index for Jun1982 | Index of months
-
It's been about a month, and after the initial surprise of being unemployed, I've started to think about this again, now in terms of "when not working, this is a project I can just hack away at".
I haven't pulled the trigger to get the plans yet, but I'm eyeing my garage for space to put a 10x12 level table for building the various jigs, and I've read just about every build log online for this plane.
Has anyone else here built a composite plane before?
-
get yourself a good mask to wear. Whiff the wrong chemicals in the wrong dosage and you'll be in the hospital.
I've got the rudder to a Loehle 5151 Mustang...that's wood, epoxy and shrinkwrap. I was excited about those until I saw the video and found out they were lawnmower kites :( There's a company in Akron (They might actually be at Cuyahoga Co.) that is manufacturing a 3/4 P-51 that actually sounds like an airplane. It's tailwheel and it's aluminum. Non-toxic too!