Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 33Vortex on April 10, 2009, 02:14:48 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS6Xd8xbd6A&feature=rec-HM-rev-rn
Very nice film, and yes it's safe to view at the office (even if your wife happen to be there).
-
beautiful aircraft........but it's a crying shame what they did to the instrument cluster.
thanks for posting! :aok
-
WTF is up with that instrument panel?? You'd think they'd have tried to get something at least close to accurate on that thing. :(
-
I don't care about the Instrument panel, I just am happy another P-38 is in the air. I herd somewhere only 3 are left in the World.
-
I don't care about the Instrument panel, I just am happy another P-38 is in the air. I herd somewhere only 3 are left in the World.
go here.
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p38registry/p38registry.html
-
The only historic aircraft I would condone the redesign of the instrument panel of is the F4 Phantom II. The panel was absolutely awful. The clock was right in the middle. THE CLOCK.
Why?
"Because it fit there."
-
I have been Proven wrong. thank you Sir. :salute
-
I have no problems with the new panel, I appreciate that it is designed to aviate, navigate and communicate the aircraft safely through the skies. Old panels are for museum aircraft, flying aircraft need to operate safely.
-
Two more awesome videos from inside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c16I8X8X5aA&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c16I8X8X5aA&NR=1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6036c9zrTs&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6036c9zrTs&NR=1)
-
I have no problems with the new panel, I appreciate that it is designed to aviate, navigate and communicate the aircraft safely through the skies. Old panels are for museum aircraft, flying aircraft need to operate safely.
ya..because the original panel didn't safely take our brave men on 1200 mile missions or anything silly like that..........
-
ya..because the original panel didn't safely take our brave men on 1200 mile missions or anything silly like that..........
Try to think of it this way, those are state-of-the-art avionics, and considering the difference in capability between 2009 and 1940 state-of-the-art, they're an excellent way to help preserve the aircraft from flying mishaps. Especially considering its a very nice, clean installation. At least the rebuilt the whole thing instead of just jamming a radio somewhere it would fit.
If I owned a Warbird, damn sure I'd do the same thing.
-
Try to think of it this way, those are state-of-the-art avionics, and considering the difference in capability between 2009 and 1940 state-of-the-art, they're an excellent way to help preserve the aircraft from flying mishaps. Especially considering its a very nice, clean installation. At least the rebuilt the whole thing instead of just jamming a radio somewhere it would fit.
If I owned a Warbird, damn sure I'd do the same thing.
ya, i do understand that.........it....just doesn't look right in there.
on the other hand, like you said, at least she;s safely flyable, and not setting rotting with a stick stuck up her arse like the one at mcguire afb. it would be soooooo good to see that one restored to flight.
-
ya..because the original panel didn't safely take our brave men on 1200 mile missions or anything silly like that..........
Ahh, want to guess how many guys got lost, didn't find their way home, ran out of gas? Want to speculate whether the air traffic control system might have changed in 60 or 70 years? Wonder if it is harder to replace a toasted engine or destroyed P38 is any harder to do now?
I do think if you polled real life pilots, most would go for the new improved panel if they were the guys trying to fly the aircraft. When I fly, I always prefer the most modern equipment in the cockpit.
-
They could have at least kept it looking somewhat correct, like the one in Porky II or Glacier Girl. Both incorporate modern navigation and safety equipment in more 'realistic' setups- the whole cockpit on the Red Bull bird looks like it was yanked out of a modern civil aircraft, not like it belongs in a plane designed in 1939.
Porky II
(http://www.warbird-photos.com/americanflyers-2-5-05/images/IMG_1219.JPG)
Glacier Girl
(http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r224/octane130/GlacierGirlCockpit.jpg?t=1239483990)
-
You know, Glacier Girl basically has the original instruments plus a VFR GPS and that's it. You want to chalk that up as an attempt to make the overall aircraft a "restoration", that's fine with me. When you have Steve Hinton at the controls every flight, that's almost as good as state-of-the-art avionics.
But, multi-function displays and their ever-expanding capabilities are revolutionizing general aviation and making flight much safer. I've pretty much told myself that I'm not getting my instrument ticket until I know I'm flying behind those types of avionics. I'm the ultimate purist when it comes to some things, but if it assists with safety of flight, I'll take the most up to date stuff you can install, regardless. New systems save weight, reduce the load on the electrical system, and provide more capability--win-win in my book. If I owned one of those aircraft, it would have a historical paint job but a state of the art avionics package, complete with a more ergonomically designed panel.
-
White Lightning (Red Bull 38) was heavily modified, even before RedBull got to it. The two P38s serve(d) two different purposes; one is historical and the other is racing/ad publicity.
Maybe Bodhi will disagree with me, but as long as they save the original instruments, they can always rebuild the firewall if they want a static historical display. For now, I'd much rather see the added safety incorporated into the 38s we have flying than lose anymore to crashes or accidents.
-
ya..because the original panel didn't safely take our brave men on 1200 mile missions or anything silly like that..........
For the record, my plane has 3 GPS's in it. Garmin 430. Garmin 420. Garmin 396 as a backup incase of electrical failure and for a weather datalink and traffic awareness. That, plus a 13 inch LCD moving map/mfd brings my screen count to 4 displays. Aside from that, I'm working off a conventional 6-pack with an HSI TC combo.
Point is, if it is a working plane that is earning it's keep, you have toejam in it that lowers the workload and keeps yr SA up high.
-
For the record, my plane has 3 GPS's in it. Garmin 430. Garmin 420. Garmin 396 as a backup incase of electrical failure and for a weather datalink and traffic awareness. That, plus a 13 inch LCD moving map/mfd brings my screen count to 4 displays. Aside from that, I'm working off a conventional 6-pack with an HSI TC combo.
Point is, if it is a working plane that is earning it's keep, you have noodles in it that lowers the workload and keeps yr SA up high.
i unfortunately, don;t own my own plane......yet. hopefully i can change that in a few years. as it is, i fly rentals. they have older, but currently updated gps's in them. i have my own garmin. i have a lowrance, in case that one fails. i never really use them though. i look outside. i use the OBS's. i use my charts.
granted, i don;t fly the distances they do, and i don't get to fly the performance levels they fly.
but they could've updated to modern, and safer ewuipment, and kept it somewhat original looking, don;t you think?
-
i unfortunately, don;t own my own plane......yet. hopefully i can change that in a few years. as it is, i fly rentals. they have older, but currently updated gps's in them. i have my own garmin. i have a lowrance, in case that one fails. i never really use them though. i look outside. i use the OBS's. i use my charts.
granted, i don;t fly the distances they do, and i don't get to fly the performance levels they fly.
but they could've updated to modern, and safer ewuipment, and kept it somewhat original looking, don;t you think?
I'm just talking about navigational equipment - the rest of my instruments are conventional gyros and steam gauges. The difference between the equipment of 60 years ago and now - price and MTBF. Finding parts for something 60 plus years old and having someone able to work on it at a price point that makes the slightest bit of sense, forget about it. I'll give you an example. I have a manifold pressure gauge - it has some circuit boards inside of it that translate the electric impulses for the manifold pressure sensor to the dial and twitch it which way. About 9 months ago the MP gauge was dying - something on the circuit board had shorted. A replacement gauge was upwards of $2000 and I was AOG since it is a required piece of equipment to be air legal. We took it apart, found a burnt out capicator, replaced with an identical, resoddered it on, bench tested - $300. And we can do that because we have those parts. How do you source something that hasn't been around for 60 years that might be collecting dust in someones barn? You know what a carburetor on a Merlin goes for these days overhauled? $15,000 grand and up - just to re-jet the damn thing.
When it comes to nav equipment - if I gotta call a mayday, i'd like ATC to know, besides giving them a flash, within 30 feet where I am going to be and where I am going. I don't want to waste time spinning the OBS to get a cross radial or DME off a VOR that might not even be in range. You got enough systems to worry about on a twin engine 60 year old aircraft without the additional workload of figuring out how to navigate to an off the beat airport when 1 fan is dead and yr not 100% sure where you are on the airway.
-
I'm just talking about navigational equipment - the rest of my instruments are conventional gyros and steam gauges. The difference between the equipment of 60 years ago and now - price and MTBF. Finding parts for something 60 plus years old and having someone able to work on it at a price point that makes the slightest bit of sense, forget about it. I'll give you an example. I have a manifold pressure gauge - it has some circuit boards inside of it that translate the electric impulses for the manifold pressure sensor to the dial and twitch it which way. About 9 months ago the MP gauge was dying - something on the circuit board had shorted. A replacement gauge was upwards of $2000 and I was AOG since it is a required piece of equipment to be air legal. We took it apart, found a burnt out capicator, replaced with an identical, resoddered it on, bench tested - $300. And we can do that because we have those parts. How do you source something that hasn't been around for 60 years that might be collecting dust in someones barn? You know what a carburetor on a Merlin goes for these days overhauled? $15,000 grand and up - just to re-jet the damn thing. i mentioned before, that i fully understand what you mean. but you might've given an example for me too. how old was your manifold pressure gauge? when it failed? how many classic aircraft are still flying with the originals still functioning? i fix cars. i absolutley the computer control systems. but i also see some failures in these systems due to little things like your capacitor, that would've not been necessary 60 years ago. speedometers used to be directly linked to the transmission. now there's a speed sensor that sends info to the computer, the computer converts the signal, and sends it to the instrument panel controller, and that sends the signal to the speedo. lot of possible failure points that don't need to be there.
When it comes to nav equipment - if I gotta call a mayday, i'd like ATC to know, besides giving them a flash, within 30 feet where I am going to be and where I am going. I don't want to waste time spinning the OBS to get a cross radial or DME off a VOR that might not even be in range. You got enough systems to worry about on a twin engine 60 year old aircraft without the additional workload of figuring out how to navigate to an off the beat airport when 1 fan is dead and yr not 100% sure where you are on the airway. a mode c transponder will let them see your location, right? and of course all of these aircraft have elts in them? actually, that brings me to a question? i believe elt's are required in all civil aircraft, and mode c in specific to be in class b airspace on general aviation aircraft? are they required to be fitted into warbirds, and other classic aircraft? if they are, do they also have to be upgraded to the 406mhz now? as for spinning up the obs's, between tham and the chart, you already know just where you are 90% of the time, at least in the low level(generally 5k alt and below) short distance(my round trips are usually well within range of my full fuel load, leaving me with legal reserve)
all of that being said, i understand, and FULLY agree with being safe. i absolutley HATE seeing any aircraft go down, especially warbirds.
my whole point when i made my original comment, was that they could've loaded that entire panel with the most modern euipment (short of things like the glass cockpits) and kept it entirely original looking. installing n elt....well....they're never in sight anyway.
<<S>>
-
my whole point when i made my original comment, was that they could've loaded that entire panel with the most modern euipment (short of things like the glass cockpits) and kept it entirely original looking. installing n elt....well....they're never in sight anyway.
<<S>>
If they had painted the panel black instead of light gray, I suppose it would have been less conspicuous, but honestly, that's the only thing they could have changed to make it look "more" like the original.
-
all of that being said, i understand, and FULLY agree with being safe. i absolutley HATE seeing any aircraft go down, especially warbirds.
my whole point when i made my original comment, was that they could've loaded that entire panel with the most modern euipment (short of things like the glass cockpits) and kept it entirely original looking. installing n elt....well....they're never in sight anyway.
<<S>>
MP gauge was 8 years old at the time. The manufacture had an OEM agreement with CDC which made repairing it a squeak and a half. Had to flame up the chain of command to pull that one through. Classics can function indefinitely provided there are no corrosion issues - problem is there are limited facilities that are allowed to service these gauges. And as those facilities become fewer, the price goes up each time. Gauges which are current you get robbed. Gauges which are that old - forget about it unless you want to get diddlyed end to end.
On the transponder issue - provided you have line of sight sure. But out west in the mountains, if you are below 15K - you won't have LOS except in the valleys. BTW, the whole ELT idea was a total government knee jerk. From NOAA's website ( http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/ ):
The beginnings of Sarsat date back to 1970 when a plane carrying two U.S. congressmen crashed in a remote region of Alaska. A massive search and rescue effort was mounted, but to this day, no trace of them or their aircraft has ever been found. In reaction to this tragedy, congress mandated that all aircraft in the United States carry an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT). This device was designed to automatically activate after a crash and transmit a homing signal.
Aviation rescues: 3 people rescued in 3 incidents
PLB rescues: 40 people rescued in 25 incidents
Every time government knee jerks the quality of enterprise suffers. In the heat of the moment it sounds like a good idea. After its done there is no continuous improvement to see if it needs tweaked or analyzes data to determine if it works. BTW, it also lists some data for SAR help. I did not know this data existed and it is not complete, but it is interesting to look at. It is clear PLB rescues are up. Since they can be carried on land by anyone (say hikers) its going to bring net new SAR activity. 3 net aviation rescue's YTD is a sad commentary on the effectiveness of the ELT mandate.
There is no government data to support that the ELT mandate met its promise. The NTSB is not required to capture data that the ELT performed correctly or not. For once our government is not forcing us to upgrade and you notice that AOPA is not making a big deal of it. My hope is that the US government lets this die. Unfortunately our Canadian and Mexican friends are requiring the 406 so many of us will be forced to spend $ on a system that does not work correctly. The ELT has a very bad activation record for the info that we can find.
The real question is will we be required to replace batteries and do the ELT test to keep our aircraft annual compliant.
-
Red Bull's 38 is far from historic to begin with. It is an L model that was HEAVILY modified into a racer to begin with. Nelson and his crew did a very nice job of bringing her to the aircraft she is today, which is a P-38 hybrid built to customer specs.
Glacier Girl is not a historic representation of the P-38F either. It is modified, has L model wings, and non working turbos. That said, it was rebuilt from a bad wreck by people dedicated to see it fly again. That's the important thing.
Frankly, there are no original '38's on the market, although that could change in the near future.
Wolfala, $15K to rejet a Merlin Carb? :lol If you are willing to pay that, please come buy some of mine. ;)
FYI, the carb for a CB-3 was $2500.00 for a total overhaul.
-
Wolfala, $15K to rejet a Merlin Carb? :lol If you are willing to pay that, please come buy some of mine. ;)
FYI, the carb for a CB-3 was $2500.00 for a total overhaul.
R-2800 thank god is still reasonable!
-
MP gauge was 8 years old at the time. The manufacture had an OEM agreement with CDC which made repairing it a squeak and a half. Had to flame up the chain of command to pull that one through. Classics can function indefinitely provided there are no corrosion issues - problem is there are limited facilities that are allowed to service these gauges. And as those facilities become fewer, the price goes up each time. Gauges which are current you get robbed. Gauges which are that old - forget about it unless you want to get twittleed end to end. i didn;'t know that...i thought any qualified avionics shop could work on them.
On the transponder issue - provided you have line of sight sure. But out west in the mountains, if you are below 15K - you won't have LOS except in the valleys. BTW, the whole ELT idea was a total government knee jerk. From NOAA's website ( http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/ ):
The beginnings of Sarsat date back to 1970 when a plane carrying two U.S. congressmen crashed in a remote region of Alaska. A massive search and rescue effort was mounted, but to this day, no trace of them or their aircraft has ever been found. In reaction to this tragedy, congress mandated that all aircraft in the United States carry an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT). This device was designed to automatically activate after a crash and transmit a homing signal.
Aviation rescues: 3 people rescued in 3 incidents
PLB rescues: 40 people rescued in 25 incidentsyaknow.....i should've known thst, but didn't. that is one of the things we do in CAP though....it's us that gets the call now. we're very good at it. we have several finds here in nj i know....and a lot elsewhere too.
Every time government knee jerks the quality of enterprise suffers. In the heat of the moment it sounds like a good idea. After its done there is no continuous improvement to see if it needs tweaked or analyzes data to determine if it works. BTW, it also lists some data for SAR help. I did not know this data existed and it is not complete, but it is interesting to look at. It is clear PLB rescues are up. Since they can be carried on land by anyone (say hikers) its going to bring net new SAR activity. 3 net aviation rescue's YTD is a sad commentary on the effectiveness of the ELT mandate.elt'sare actually hard to track. when we get a hit from one of the sattalites, it depends a lot on the angle of the satalite when it saw the siganal. it gets us close, then the rest is up to us. in nj, our aircraft are equipped with becker tracking devices. they work very well.
There is no government data to support that the ELT mandate met its promise. The NTSB is not required to capture data that the ELT performed correctly or not. For once our government is not forcing us to upgrade and you notice that AOPA is not making a big deal of it. My hope is that the US government lets this die. Unfortunately our Canadian and Mexican friends are requiring the 406 so many of us will be forced to spend $ on a system that does not work correctly. The ELT has a very bad activation record for the info that we can find.
The real question is will we be required to replace batteries and do the ELT test to keep our aircraft annual compliant.
-
I love P38's and I like old instruments but it is their airplane not mine.
I fly a modern jet and all those gadgets make the flight exceptionally safe and exceptionally boring but the point of a modern jet is safe and boring.
I used to fly WWII technology airplanes with 1950's technology avionics in the worst weather you can possibly imagine. It wasn't boring and it wasn't safe.
When I fly for fun I navigate by looking out the window. I wouldn't even consider an IFR flight for fun. That's transportation not recreation.
GPS is a safety backup only for me. I have a hiking GPS that I turn on and let it get the satellites before takeoff then i throw it up on the glareshield and leave it there in case I need emergency navigation help. Otherwise, a sectional chart with a line on it is the way to go.
-
I love P38's and I like old instruments but it is their airplane not mine.
I fly a modern jet and all those gadgets make the flight exceptionally safe and exceptionally boring but the point of a modern jet is safe and boring.
I used to fly WWII technology airplanes with 1950's technology avionics in the worst weather you can possibly imagine. It wasn't boring and it wasn't safe.
When I fly for fun I navigate by looking out the window. I wouldn't even consider an IFR flight for fun. That's transportation not recreation.
GPS is a safety backup only for me. I have a hiking GPS that I turn on and let it get the satellites before takeoff then i throw it up on the glareshield and leave it there in case I need emergency navigation help. Otherwise, a sectional chart with a line on it is the way to go.
well, i've only mostly flown 70's era cessnas.......the ones i've flown in cap are mid 80's. they all have normal gauges. our 182's have the g1000's...which i've not flown.
i flew the clubs da20, which has one of the garmin glass panels....540 maybe? but it wasn't the g1000.
what i generally do with my gps, is as a backup. like you said, preplanned route on the chart, with a line drawn. i use the obs's too though. there's a MOA nearby, some class c, and some class b. every so often, i may glance at the gps to verify what i see outside, and on the chart. it's my insurance that i don't bust the bravo.
the lowest vis i've flown in was 6 miles. i didn't stay up very long, as that wasn't really fun. when i finally do go for my instrument rating, it will never be deliberately used for an ifr filight, but rather it'll be simply to improve my skill, and as insurance if i happen to run into those conditions.
but now that being said, those classics don't ever go up in ifr anyway, do they? i mean....if you owned a corsair, or a lighting, would you fly it in 3 mile vis?
i wasn't saying that i think they should tear out that panel, and re-do it with the original instruments.....i was only stating my opinion....which is that they "uglified" the interior with that panel. it just doesn't "fit" in a beauty such as the p38. modern guages coule easily have been installed(i think) in a very original looking panel.(i think). i know it's expensive, but i also think that if you have the money to own and operate one of these beauties, they you have the money to do these things to it. they did it their way, and at least it's another p38 in the air though........hope they keep her flying, and don't park her in a museum somewhere.........
-
ya, i do understand that.........it....just doesn't look right in there.
on the other hand, like you said, at least she;s safely flyable, and not setting rotting with a stick stuck up her arse like the one at mcguire afb. it would be soooooo good to see that one restored to flight.
I've seen that one. It is definitely a shame. (Just don't tell Stampf, I said that :devil )
I was thinking about taking the kids there this year when we take one of our trips to the Pine Barrens. We'll have to go on the way to Wharton. I don't think everyone wants to walk around covered in NJ mud/sludge :devil
-
I didn't mean to imply that i was disparaging anyone else.
That panel in the red bull 38 is ugly. It looks like a Beechcraft panel. They used to do like colored panels like that. I suspect it was that way to go with the white lightning theme.
And navigate the way that makes you comfortable and makes the flight fun.
Since I deal with hi tech navigation at work, a pencil line on a map is fun. Believe me, when I was slogging over the Great Lakes at 3000 feet in the ice and snow of winter in a Twin Beech navigating through sincere prayer and ouija board I would have committed multiple capitol offenses for a GPS driven RNP 1 FMS moving map setup.
I'm jonesing to buy one of them new American Champions just to tool around in.
Maybe in about 5 years I can talk the wife into it.
-
I didn't mean to imply that i was disparaging anyone else.
That panel in the red bull 38 is ugly. It looks like a Beechcraft panel. They used to do like colored panels like that. I suspect it was that way to go with the white lightning theme.
And navigate the way that makes you comfortable and makes the flight fun.
Since I deal with hi tech navigation at work, a pencil line on a map is fun. Believe me, when I was slogging over the Great Lakes at 3000 feet in the ice and snow of winter in a Twin Beech navigating through sincere prayer and ouija board I would have committed multiple capitol offenses for a GPS driven RNP 1 FMS moving map setup.
I'm jonesing to buy one of them new American Champions just to tool around in.
Maybe in about 5 years I can talk the wife into it.
THAT is art of the reason i never chose a career in aviation. i felt it would've possibly taken the fun out of flying for me. i don't really do anything useful withj my ppl. i go up, and burn holes in the sky and my wallet. it's my recreation. i love beng in the air.
<<S>>
-
My P-38 would have an EFIS display :P
So will my scale P-51 if the insurance premium for the hull alone wasn't equal to my annual operating budget. :furious
when i finally do go for my instrument rating, it will never be deliberately used for an ifr filight, but rather it'll be simply to improve my skill, and as insurance if i happen to run into those conditions.
That'll get you killed. If you do decide to pursue an instrument rating (I would highly recommend it) the most important thing is to keep current. The next is to know your limitations and stay within them regarding weather conditions. You'll learn a better understanding of weather, forecasting, decision making and above all a finer level of aircraft control. You'd be foolish to get the rating and never intend to use it much less keep current.
-
My P-38 would have an EFIS display :P
So will my scale P-51 if the insurance premium for the hull alone wasn't equal to my annual operating budget. :furious
That'll get you killed. If you do decide to pursue an instrument rating (I would highly recommend it) the most important thing is to keep current. The next is to know your limitations and stay within them regarding weather conditions. You'll learn a better understanding of weather, forecasting, decision making and above all a finer level of aircraft control. You'd be foolish to get the rating and never intend to use it much less keep current.
i would keep it current....with a cfi. i tend to fly with bob whenever he has time...even if i feel i don't have a need to, i do it anyway. no matter what, i ALWAYS learn something from him.
i would practice it, i just would probably not delibretly go up in ifr conditions, as that tends to tkae the fun out i think. i was thinking of it to increase my ability in general.
aas for knowing my limitations? i have a reputation in our flying club of actually adhering to them. when i make an error, it;s on the side of caution. everyone that knows me knows that....and when the day comes that i do end up having to land somewhere besides an airport, and i say it wasn't my fault.....those that know me won't doubt me.
you're bringing up your stang again.....how;s it going with that? i'm frakkin jealous dude....
-
It's not.
I've found other round engined airplanes to keep my attention for now. Not to mention the price is right :)
-
THAT is art of the reason i never chose a career in aviation. i felt it would've possibly taken the fun out of flying for me. i don't really do anything useful withj my ppl. i go up, and burn holes in the sky and my wallet. it's my recreation. i love beng in the air.
<<S>>
Don't get me wrong, flying is better than working for a living. I've done both. If I fully described exactly what I do to earn my ridiculous salary right now you wouldn't believe me.
I tell my wife weekly that someday I'll have to go back to work but for now I'm retired on double pay. :devil
-
It's not.
I've found other round engined airplanes to keep my attention for now. Not to mention the price is right :)
please tell? some of us have to live vicariously through those of you that can do these things. :D
-
R-2800 thank god is still reasonable!
Talked to a friend today, it's about $2 - $3k for a Merlin carb overhaul. Depends on condition. Anymore than that and you are getting raped.
-
Golfer, what kind of scale Mustang you looking at?
-
The latest iteration of the Fighter Escort Wings kit with an LS7 engine. I wasn't totally sold on the reduction unit for its reliability but when I got an insurance quote it gave me the official door slam. The earlier experimentals using car engines had a horrible record and the actuarial tables reflect that. I was working with some Corvette racing enthusiasts to tweak an LS7 which would have had the engine operating at a fairly low setting (~3000rpm) giving me all the shaft horsepower I'd need. Again coming back to the poor reliability with the propeller speed reduction unit really had me apprehensive about aerobatics so I shelved that idea.
Know of anything that uses an honest to goodness aircraft engine (up to a Lycoming 540) with reasonable looks with scaling, +6/-4G, 4 hours endurance and 2 seats for 150k or less?
I'd really like a replica but my budget ranges from a Swift, RV8 and Marchetti in terms of what I'd realistically expect with aerobatic and cruising capability. I've got some Yak-52TW time and with the swapping out of that god awful pneumatic braking system for conventional Cleveland hydraulic brakes it's a good airplane. Cruises marginally faster than a 172 unfortunately.
Combine all this with "boy I sure hope my airplane doesn't get sold..." compared to a year ago it's all just dreaming.
-
Wow that looks like a very nice kit! If you're seriously looking for reliability why not take a look at rotary engines? I know there are a lot of people suspicious about rotaries but let me tell you that new advanced alloys have solved all problems of the rotary engine. How about 20.000 hrs between overhauls? There was a company at AERO Friedrichshafen that promised me that when I looked at their rotary engines, which were also multi-fuel capable btw and can run on pretty much anything, regular car gasoline, diesel, jet A1 etc etc. These engines typically run at 6000 rpm max, so a reduction gear unit is obviously necessary.
One already well established rotary manufacturer is Mistral (http://www.mistral-engines.com/). However, afaik they are not all-aspect capable thus only for limited aerobatics. I believe the rotary engine to come very strong in the next few years in aviation. There is a lot of exciting research and development being done on the rotary to make it everything it was ever hoped to be.
-
uses an honest to goodness aircraft engine (up to a Lycoming 540) with reasonable looks with scaling...
Well, here's the jam in my opinion. Since very few of the period aircraft used horizontally opposed air-cooled engines, I don't know that you can find anything with reasonable looks and scaling. For example, a scale Spitfire just doesn't look like a Spitfire with cylinders hanging out the sides of the cowling.
One motor I've been looking at for future potential is the Delta Hawk series. They've got 6 and 8 cylinder concept engines that they're working on, with 160 and 200 HP 4 cylinder versions that are being installed on everything from RVs to Cessnas to Velocities. The best thing is that they've got all the documentation on their website to support alternative installations, on just about anything. I would think that almost any scale design that used an inline engine would be able to use this series of motors and not look like a scale WWII aircraft with a horizontally opposed, air-cooled engine. I've got two concepts I'm personally working on, and the bigger of the two is a concept using their 8 cylinder powerplant. Neither is a WWII type design. Another concept I've considered is exploring the potential of the M14 series of engines as the basis for those aircraft that used radials. Most of that is simply day-dreaming, but I think those two engines are the best bet for future potential.
-
Well, here's the jam in my opinion. Since very few of the period aircraft used horizontally opposed air-cooled engines, I don't know that you can find anything with reasonable looks and scaling. For example, a scale Spitfire just doesn't look like a Spitfire with cylinders hanging out the sides of the cowling.
One motor I've been looking at for future potential is the Delta Hawk series. They've got 6 and 8 cylinder concept engines that they're working on, with 160 and 200 HP 4 cylinder versions that are being installed on everything from RVs to Cessnas to Velocities. The best thing is that they've got all the documentation on their website to support alternative installations, on just about anything. I would think that almost any scale design that used an inline engine would be able to use this series of motors and not look like a scale WWII aircraft with a horizontally opposed, air-cooled engine. I've got two concepts I'm personally working on, and the bigger of the two is a concept using their 8 cylinder powerplant. Neither is a WWII type design. Another concept I've considered is exploring the potential of the M14 series of engines as the basis for those aircraft that used radials. Most of that is simply day-dreaming, but I think those two engines are the best bet for future potential.
didn't someone do a 3/4 scale FW190 with a lycoming in it? if so, with any other aircraft that was designed for a round engine, couldn't you "hide" a standard lycoming inside the cowl?
-
I think power and drag would be a problem. The Thunder Mustang is a ~3/4-5/8th scale P-51. It uses a 650 HP motor to get P-51 performance. In order to get that type of power for any 3/4-5/8th scale aircraft, the only horizontally opposed motor that gets close is the Thunderbolt IO-720's from Lycoming. In order to fit that motor into a round cowling, you'd have significant areas of the cowl opening that would simply be an air inlet. There'd be a lot of cooling drag that you'd have to get around.
I don't know, you'd have to do a lot of analysis to determine whether or not it would be suitable, but that IO-720 motor alone goes for $100,000 so it would blow Golfer's budget out of the water.
-
Yeah. Same with the Ryan Falconer engine and its most basic price of 65k. The M14P is a great engine and I've got some time behind it now. There aren't really any kits out there to build that go well with it however.
For now my dream is on the shelf. I really like the FEW/Legendary Mustang kit in principal, have the confidence in myself to build one. I'm still shopping for insurance options but with the LS7 powering it the insurance bill is beyond what I'd consider reasonable for my budget/current income.
Now that the thread has been thoroughly hijacked I may as well build a P-38... :D
-
I just gave you the solution to the problems you are discussing but it went completely by.
-
I wouldn't put a rotary engine in my truck ;)
You said it yourself about their limited usefulness as an aerobatic engine. Rotary engines haven't really caught on in the USA and I'd like to put my tail behind something proven with not just a lot of time on one engine, but a lot of time on a lot of engines.
I'll very likely end up in an RV-8 type airplane for it's combination of fuel economy, parts availability, maintenance, utility and fair aerobatic capability.
My ideal airplane:
-500 mile range
-2 passengers + bags
-Aerobatic
-Cruise near/at 200kts
-IFR capable
That list gets pretty short pretty quick.
-
Uhhh? Not proven??? :huh
www.rotaryaviation.com
What I said about the Mistral rotaries does not apply to all rotary engines. Just because they chose not to make a all-aspect capable oil system does not mean it isn't possible.
-
I think power and drag would be a problem. The Thunder Mustang is a ~3/4-5/8th scale P-51. It uses a 650 HP motor to get P-51 performance. In order to get that type of power for any 3/4-5/8th scale aircraft, the only horizontally opposed motor that gets close is the Thunderbolt IO-720's from Lycoming. In order to fit that motor into a round cowling, you'd have significant areas of the cowl opening that would simply be an air inlet. There'd be a lot of cooling drag that you'd have to get around.
I don't know, you'd have to do a lot of analysis to determine whether or not it would be suitable, but that IO-720 motor alone goes for $100,000 so it would blow Golfer's budget out of the water.
i didn't know....thatr's why i was asking....
-
My ideal airplane:
-500 mile range
-2 passengers + bags
-Aerobatic
-Cruise near/at 200kts
-IFR capable
That list gets pretty short pretty quick.
I'd say RV-8 is probably the best bang for your buck with that list of requirements. Ideally, I'd slide the Lancair Legacy in there as the ultimate 2-place. Those are the only two kits I'd invest time and money in. RV8 on an Everyman budget, and the Lancair after I win the lottery :)
-
Know of anything that uses an honest to goodness aircraft engine (up to a Lycoming 540) with reasonable looks with scaling, +6/-4G, 4 hours endurance and 2 seats for 150k or less?
Nope... but, it is worth looking around for at this point, because there are an abundance of deals out there.
Seeing good T-6's selling for under $120k.