Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Weirdguy on January 17, 2013, 01:06:26 AM
-
I picked up the latest issue of Kitplane magazine in the supermarket based on the cover article of a T-51 mustang, by Titan.
(http://www.titanaircraft.com/images/t-51d.jpg)
Now, I am not really one to judge, but the plane looks like a lot of fun, yet their is always that bit of me that dismisses it as being a bit silly. Only a real mustang is a real mustang, and a scaled down kit plane is just asking for people to ridicule it.
Yet, if I could afford it I might want one.
Hell, the most interesting part about them is they use car engines form Suzuki and Honda.
But then again I have dreams of building my own 1-to-1 scale Panzer 38T or Panzer-III out of lightweight materials like plywood on a square metal tube frame, and justify it by taking it to all of the big paintball tournaments.
What do you guys think. Is it a bit of a laugh, or is it something you would want?
-
Get a Thunder Mustang. The Titan Mustang isn't much faster than a Cessna 172, and it can't carry 4 people.
-
Call me when they start building THUNDER JUGGS!!!! :airplane:
-
I've kind of follow the kit plane industry as I'm interested in one myself someday.
The Titan Mustang is really underpowered (when built per plans with a Rotax 912), to me it's like the folks who put a Ferrari body kit on a Pontiac Fiero. For a 2 seat tandem kit plane you'd be much better off with a RV-8. The RV has more performance in every respect, and it's safer (fixed gear, thousands built)
And if you want more performance then the RV-8 in a tandem, look at the F1 Rocket EVO.
The Thunder Mustang IS a high performance kit, can easily be built to outperform the original with either a V8 or V12 engine. Problem is those kits are no longer in production, and the prices for the existing kits are astronomical. Last time I looked (over a year ago) there where rumors they where selling the molds and tooling to someone who was going to start production again, but I don't think it ever happened.
Personally I want to build a Super Cub. Unfortunately all of the decent Super Cub kits cost 3 times what the "go fast aluminum" kits cost. :cry
EDIT: Looking at Titan's website, the Suzuki or Honda V6 engine option is new. Last time I looked a Rotax 912 was the only factory option. While the V6s would certainly give it more acceptable performance, you then run into all the issues involved with running a liquid cooled auto engine in an aircraft (radiator, PSRU, intake heat, etc). I know auto conversions have been successfully flown a lot, but I personally would feel much more comfortable with an aviation designed engine. If someone where to built a 3/4 scale mustang kit utilizing proven Lycoming or TCM powerplants, then I'd get excited. But even with that, you still have the worry of retract gear.
-
I've kind of follow the kit plane industry as I'm interested in one myself someday.
The Titan Mustang is really underpowered (when built per plans with a Rotax 912), to me it's like the folks who put a Ferrari body kit on a Pontiac Fiero. For a 2 seat tandem kit plane you'd be much better off with a RV-8. The RV has more performance in every respect, and it's safer (fixed gear, thousands built)
And if you want more performance then the RV-8 in a tandem, look at the F1 Rocket EVO.
The Thunder Mustang IS a high performance kit, can easily be built to outperform the original with either a V8 or V12 engine. Problem is those kits are no longer in production, and the prices for the existing kits are astronomical. Last time I looked (over a year ago) there where rumors they where selling the molds and tooling to someone who was going to start production again, but I don't think it ever happened.
Personally I want to build a Super Cub. Unfortunately all of the decent Super Cub kits cost 3 times what the "go fast aluminum" kits cost. :cry
EDIT: Looking at Titan's website, the Suzuki or Honda V6 engine option is new. Last time I looked a Rotax 912 was the only factory option. While the V6s would certainly give it more acceptable performance, you then run into all the issues involved with running a liquid cooled auto engine in an aircraft (radiator, PSRU, intake heat, etc). I know auto conversions have been successfully flown a lot, but I personally would feel much more comfortable with an aviation designed engine. If someone where to built a 3/4 scale mustang kit utilizing proven Lycoming or TCM powerplants, then I'd get excited. But even with that, you still have the worry of retract gear.
Scratch-build. Cheaper
-
http://www.radialrocket.com/ (http://www.radialrocket.com/)
-
Scratch-build. Cheaper
Yup... and I do have the skills that I could scratch build one.
Trouble is the time, probably would take 3-4 times longer to scratch build, then if you got a kit with a fuse all welded up, and pre-fabbed wing ribs, spars etc. Vs. Cutting, notching, welding all that tubing... cutting, forming, deburring each wing rib, etc.
I actually understand part of why the Super Cubs cost more. There is a lot more labor involved in welding up a 4130 tube fuselage, then a semi-monocouque fuse like in the RVs.
I actually believe that it's cheaper to buy a junker certified Cub, strip it down and rebuild/recover it, then to do one of the kits. CubCrafters wants $66K for their kit, Dakota is similar, Backcountry (formerly Turbine Cubs) is the cheapest, but still near $50K. There is the Bearhawk Patrol kit which is cheaper, but it's not really a Super Cub.
-
Call me a Spitdweeb but....
http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/
they just moved from Brisbane to Cisco Texas
(http://www.aircraftimages.net/pics/10/10179_800.jpg)
the V8 is a beast
http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/V8%20Engine.htm
-
Yup... and I do have the skills that I could scratch build one.
Trouble is the time, probably would take 3-4 times longer to scratch build, then if you got a kit with a fuse all welded up, and pre-fabbed wing ribs, spars etc. Vs. Cutting, notching, welding all that tubing... cutting, forming, deburring each wing rib, etc.
I actually understand part of why the Super Cubs cost more. There is a lot more labor involved in welding up a 4130 tube fuselage, then a semi-monocouque fuse like in the RVs.
I actually believe that it's cheaper to buy a junker certified Cub, strip it down and rebuild/recover it, then to do one of the kits. CubCrafters wants $66K for their kit, Dakota is similar, Backcountry (formerly Turbine Cubs) is the cheapest, but still near $50K. There is the Bearhawk Patrol kit which is cheaper, but it's not really a Super Cub.
I am in the process of scratch-building a Bearhawk 4-place. Actually met Bob Barrows last summer at his place in VA.
-
Get a Thunder Mustang. The Titan Mustang isn't much faster than a Cessna 172, and it can't carry 4 people.
When you compare the costs of the average Thunder Mustang and what people are putting into the high end versions, you can almost make the jump to a real Mustang.
-
Personally I want to build a Super Cub. Unfortunately all of the decent Super Cub kits cost 3 times what the "go fast aluminum" kits cost. :cry
build your own. We had to get another wing for ours due to an accident and the entire wing structure structure of spars and ribs was only $2000. We had all the other hardware from the other wing though.
-
When you compare the costs of the average Thunder Mustang and what people are putting into the high end versions, you can almost make the jump to a real Mustang.
truth
-
I want one of these:
(http://www.roland-aircraft.de/Mer109/galerie/images/002%20Me_109_Eichhorn.jpg)
http://www.roland-aircraft.de/Mer109/galerie/
Camo
-
I want one of these:
(http://www.roland-aircraft.de/Mer109/galerie/images/002%20Me_109_Eichhorn.jpg)
http://www.roland-aircraft.de/Mer109/galerie/
Camo
so do it, but i want mine with propellor blades :rock
-
I'd want to buy something the size of the titan mustang if it had at least 500hp, was designed for better than 6+ / -3.5 Gs, and had some real performance (looking for 300 kts at least). A 75% mustang with a 1000hp PT6 turbine would be a hoot.
-
build your own. We had to get another wing for ours due to an accident and the entire wing structure structure of spars and ribs was only $2000. We had all the other hardware from the other wing though.
How did you fixture it?
-
How did you fixture it?
What's that, the Wing? Everything for the wing we got was premade. The spars were pre drilled for the ribs. And the ribs were stamped out of a single piece of sheet metal ready to go on. The only thing we had to do was prime the pieces. Because we have an L-21B, our wings only have 13 ribs compared to the 16 a normal super cub has.
Very Simplified, We just used two Saw horses, laid the spars across them and slid the ribs on. Once the ribs were in there proper place and fitted correctly, we just screwed them in. After that, we put in the two X cross tension lines ( don't know the proper name for them) and got the wing all squared up. Then came the landing light fixture (it was the left wing) and leading edges and all the other hardware for mounting and the control lines and electrical.
-
I was asking because I am curious if people build wings for cubs and such with fixtures. It has been my experience that regardless if stuff is pre-drilled, you can still put unintended wash into a wing if it is not built properly or set up properly. On a cub it is likely not as worrisome as it is on a higher performance aircraft. I have seen and had to rebuild some seriously messed up attempts at building wings in the past. It really is scary what some people will attempt.
We had some Corsair wings in the shop years back and they were seriously messed up. We ended up having to "borrow" another Corsair to build fixtures from. That costs big money unfortunately as most people do not normally lend out aircraft to be taken apart. Another shop I worked at used the P-38 we used to have to build a complete set of fixtures from it. That action will likely insure another 4 - 6 flying P-38's from stuff that years back was considered unusable.
I'd like to see pictures of your project if you have time in the future.
-
When the winglet on my old airplane got crashed into by a runaway piston twin (under power, unoccupied...) even the replacement winglet didn't come pre drilled. They're all just that little bit unique.
I did some pretty thorough testing before bringing it home because that was one of the bigger projects I've had a vested ongoing interest in. Since insurance was paying anyway I wanted it just-right. Thanks to some facepalm worthy moments of brilliance from the manufacturer I settled for good enough. :bhead
I'm making the old smashed winglet into a serving bar for my basement.
-
I was asking because I am curious if people build wings for cubs and such with fixtures. It has been my experience that regardless if stuff is pre-drilled, you can still put unintended wash into a wing if it is not built properly or set up properly. On a cub it is likely not as worrisome as it is on a higher performance aircraft. I have seen and had to rebuild some seriously messed up attempts at building wings in the past. It really is scary what some people will attempt.
We had some Corsair wings in the shop years back and they were seriously messed up. We ended up having to "borrow" another Corsair to build fixtures from. That costs big money unfortunately as most people do not normally lend out aircraft to be taken apart. Another shop I worked at used the P-38 we used to have to build a complete set of fixtures from it. That action will likely insure another 4 - 6 flying P-38's from stuff that years back was considered unusable.
I'd like to see pictures of your project if you have time in the future.
I served an apprenticeship, and worked as, a tool & die maker for the first half of my working years (after the Army). I worked in a bunch of different shops doing prototypes, building new dies, repairing dies, building new jigs/fixtures and repairing existing jigs/fixtures that were in use on the production floor.
I would think that it would not be very cost-effective to build or commission a jig or fixture for a one-off repair like this.
I have made some form blocks for the plane that I am scratch-building, and some welding fixtures for when I weld the tube frame. These are needed due to dimensioning tolerances that must be adhered to and for holding parts in the correct position when welding. I did contemplate making cutting/stamping dies for the 190+ wing ribs that I need to hammer out, but after doing the math, the cost of tool steel, heat-treating and the need for a (minimum) 20-ton press, just to make the ribs, would cost about the same if I bought them already made and alodined. I could also have most of them formed by the time I had the dies ready for production. The only dies (to use in my 10 ton press) I did make, were for flanging the lightening holes in the ribs. I knew that I wasn't going to sit around flanging them with a notched wooden stick while I watched TV. :D
-
It's the aluminum bulkheads that are tough to replicate.
You could fabricate them by welding them up but they might not be as strong as the originals.
This new Selective laser melting should make complex bulkheads a lot easier to make.........as long as they make a machine that can fit them inside it.
-
I served an apprenticeship, and worked as, a tool & die maker for the first half of my working years (after the Army). I worked in a bunch of different shops doing prototypes, building new dies, repairing dies, building new jigs/fixtures and repairing existing jigs/fixtures that were in use on the production floor.
I would think that it would not be very cost-effective to build or commission a jig or fixture for a one-off repair like this.
I have made some form blocks for the plane that I am scratch-building, and some welding fixtures for when I weld the tube frame. These are needed due to dimensioning tolerances that must be adhered to and for holding parts in the correct position when welding. I did contemplate making cutting/stamping dies for the 190+ wing ribs that I need to hammer out, but after doing the math, the cost of tool steel, heat-treating and the need for a (minimum) 20-ton press, just to make the ribs, would cost about the same if I bought them already made and alodined. I could also have most of them formed by the time I had the dies ready for production. The only dies (to use in my 10 ton press) I did make, were for flanging the lightening holes in the ribs. I knew that I wasn't going to sit around flanging them with a notched wooden stick while I watched TV. :D
It does not seem very cost effective at all, but doing things the right way generally never does. When you build an airfoil, a small error in shape and dimensions changes the airfoil. In slower aircraft that change may not be as noticeable. In higher performance aircraft, the tolerance for deviation is not as accommodating. I know this after working in restoration for 20+ years and seeing things done the wrong way as well as the right way.
In regards to costs on fixtures, I built a fixture for a Corsair QEC years back. It was not cheap, but I considered it "cost effective" as it allowed us to work on it in a horizontal state at ground level as opposed to being on the airframe 8 feet in the air. A lot of fixtures do things like that. They place the work at a level where you can work on it from the ground level as opposed to being on lifts, ladders, stands, or simply being in awkward positions. Anyone that has worked over their head all day can tell you, it is generally not a pleasant experience. Further, when you have hard fixed fixtures that are built at and kept at generally the same temperature, they do not change in dimension. The best fixtures I have ever seen outside of a production line are the fixtures built by another shop I worked with to do P-38 restorations. They were massively expensive, but they allow the work to be done in a correct and accurate manner.
-
It does not seem very cost effective at all, but doing things the right way generally never does. When you build an airfoil, a small error in shape and dimensions changes the airfoil. In slower aircraft that change may not be as noticeable. In higher performance aircraft, the tolerance for deviation is not as accommodating. I know this after working in restoration for 20+ years and seeing things done the wrong way as well as the right way.
In regards to costs on fixtures, I built a fixture for a Corsair QEC years back. It was not cheap, but I considered it "cost effective" as it allowed us to work on it in a horizontal state at ground level as opposed to being on the airframe 8 feet in the air. A lot of fixtures do things like that. They place the work at a level where you can work on it from the ground level as opposed to being on lifts, ladders, stands, or simply being in awkward positions. Anyone that has worked over their head all day can tell you, it is generally not a pleasant experience. Further, when you have hard fixed fixtures that are built at and kept at generally the same temperature, they do not change in dimension. The best fixtures I have ever seen outside of a production line are the fixtures built by another shop I worked with to do P-38 restorations. They were massively expensive, but they allow the work to be done in a correct and accurate manner.
I should have been more specific.
I meant for the cub repair that was being discussed.
For the higher-performance aircraft, factoring in safety is always more cost-effective. :aok
-
VonMessa, I misunderstood your post. As for a cub wing repair, a fixture does not have to be ridiculously expensive to work. A cub has a limited number of pick up points, the rest can simply be contours.
Anyways, I just asked as I was curious how they did it. It's their aircraft and as long as it is safe, more power to them. I personally think it is nice seeing people work on their own aircraft when it is done in a safe manner. It helps to keep the interest alive.
-
All you guys with your fancy metal and composite aircraft, tisk tisk....
I'm a woodworker, and have been for years. Wood and fabric is "where it's at."
When you really get down to it, for sheer enjoyment, who needs to go 300mph or carry your whole family? I mean, if you need an aircraft for carrying the whole family, then rent one.... but for fun, I'm prepping my shop to building one of these:
(http://www.flitzerbiplane.com/images/Rupert/Flitzer03.jpg)
Staaken Z-21 Flitzer (this image because I'm going to do the round-tail version)
(http://www.flitzerbiplane.com/images/Williams/G-BVAW_LFront640x480.jpg)
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/9/1/7/1644719.jpg)
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/8/4/4/1314448.jpg)
Remarkably simple little aircraft, powered by a VW such as an AeroVee or RevMaster... all wood and fabric, plans built.
http://www.flitzerbiplane.com (http://www.flitzerbiplane.com)
:aok
-
Bodhi, will post some pics when I get the chance if... I think i have some of it while it was being laid up. In the last month it has sincle been covered, so wont be able to take any knew ones. Lol
But Like I said, what I posted is very simplified. I didn't work on it much except for when we first got the parts in.
-
All you guys with your fancy metal and composite aircraft, tisk tisk....
I'm a woodworker, and have been for years. Wood and fabric is "where it's at."
When you really get down to it, for sheer enjoyment, who needs to go 300mph or carry your whole family? I mean, if you need an aircraft for carrying the whole family, then rent one.... but for fun, I'm prepping my shop to building one of these:
Nothing wrong with working with wood. I have built a few wooden wings in my days, most notably the Stearman that is on display at Ford Island has wings that I built as well as a fabric job that I did. I love doing fabric althoug I do not like the long term effects the solvents have on the body...
I will say one thing about wood though, stuff has to be damn accurate to fit together without gaps for a strong structure. That is where a real craftsman knows when he has "done" it. Same goes for a guy working sheetmetal and fitting a complex curve to an airframe and seeing it lay flat and true against the frame. Those are "good" days.
-
VonMessa, I misunderstood your post. As for a cub wing repair, a fixture does not have to be ridiculously expensive to work. A cub has a limited number of pick up points, the rest can simply be contours.
Anyways, I just asked as I was curious how they did it. It's their aircraft and as long as it is safe, more power to them. I personally think it is nice seeing people work on their own aircraft when it is done in a safe manner. It helps to keep the interest alive.
Ha!
Talking about keeping the interest alive...
My parents have a vacation house on the Chesapeake and I have been going down there for years. Usually, we do all of our adventuring on my parents' boat or my sailboat but one day, my wife and I decided to take the Jeep out for a drive. A few miles down the road, I saw a sign that said "Aerodrome" with an arrow pointing ahead. Well, of course I had to check it out...
:x
The goon is real, the corsair is not. (disregard the misc other photos)
http://s239.beta.photobucket.com/user/tymekeepyr/library/Massey%20Aerodrome (http://s239.beta.photobucket.com/user/tymekeepyr/library/Massey%20Aerodrome)
I will have to find some pics of my local EAA Chapter planes, as well.
-
All you guys with your fancy metal and composite aircraft, tisk tisk....
I'm a woodworker, and have been for years. Wood and fabric is "where it's at."
When you really get down to it, for sheer enjoyment, who needs to go 300mph or carry your whole family? I mean, if you need an aircraft for carrying the whole family, then rent one.... but for fun, I'm prepping my shop to building one of these:
(http://www.flitzerbiplane.com/images/Rupert/Flitzer03.jpg)
Staaken Z-21 Flitzer (this image because I'm going to do the round-tail version)
(http://www.flitzerbiplane.com/images/Williams/G-BVAW_LFront640x480.jpg)
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/9/1/7/1644719.jpg)
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/8/4/4/1314448.jpg)
Remarkably simple little aircraft, powered by a VW such as an AeroVee or RevMaster... all wood and fabric, plans built.
http://www.flitzerbiplane.com (http://www.flitzerbiplane.com)
:aok
Wife wanted more space and payload for travel.
Keep prepping, I'm building :neener:
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1338.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1339.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1343.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1346.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1330.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1336.jpg)
-
Wife wanted more space and payload for travel.
Keep prepping, I'm building :neener:
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1338.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1339.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1343.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1346.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1330.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Bearhawk%20Building%20pics/100_1336.jpg)
<--- green with envy....
I'm still a ways of from being able to start...mostly due to space constraints...Got a few other projects to complete and moved out of the shop, and build of those nifty eaa assembly tables to work on.
-
<--- green with envy....
I'm still a ways of from being able to start...mostly due to space constraints...Got a few other projects to complete and moved out of the shop, and build of those nifty eaa assembly tables to work on.
My tables are loosely designed in the same manner, except that I changed them a bit to suit my space.
Nice and sturdy :aok