|
Here is something that may not be as fast or as sleek as the aircraft up to this point but is is definitely aeronautical insanity. The Ultra-flight Lazair Small light and slow Twin engines with a top speed around 45 mph Sadly the website looks like it is from the early 90's http://www.lazair.com/
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Preoptopus posted:Am I correct in understanding that you need nothing more than a drivers license to fly one of these? That probably depends heavily on what country you are in. I can only speak for Canada and here you are required to have an ultralight pilot permit which can be had for a few thousand dollars.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
The other factor in why these old designs are still around is simple. If your old design works well it will probably costs billions of dollars to improve on it even marginally. So why even bother to make something new. It's a case of its kind of broke but it will cost $20 billion to make it slightly less broke so why fix it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 14:28
|
|
|
The big issue with replacing 8 small engines with 2 big ones is that when an engine fails you need to be able to correct the yaw with rudder. It would be a massive undertaking to modify the b-52 to fly with just two engines. As you reduce speed for landing the rudder becomes less effective and you approach what is called the VMC which is the velocity of minimum control. If you have a failed engine and dip below that speed you lose directional control of the plane. If you have 4 engines you can probably shoot an approach with 2 and you just idle the opposite one to the one that has failed and remain in control. If you have just two huge engines then the plane may have as much trust with one engine as it had with 8 before but if you cannot control it in a safe manner than its not worth the effort.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 03:24
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:The Goblin is loving amazing. Looks that way. That dark line just aft of the cockpit normally indicates the start of the turbine section of the engine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:I believe this is true AI. That plane looks incredibly heavy. After seeing that it took four guys to pick up the horizontal stabilizer I doubt it will ever fly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
That report lists the aircraft weight at 800 Kg which is about double the weight of a Cessna 152. I also did't see any sort of control stick and he is using an ebrake lever as a throttle.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
I really liked the original 2 seat Katana. I flew 152's for my flight training and every time we stopped in London and saw those sleek new Katanas I felt I was missing out. We got to see the prototype DA40 and it is a really nice plane. I got checked out on the Katana a few years later and really liked it. Nice little plane with good performance with low fuel consumption.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2010 04:02
|
|
|
thetechnoloser posted:I enjoyed it more than the 'actual' A&S museum. Yeah the actual air and space museum was a bit of a let down and packed with people when I went a few weeks ago. Here are a few pictures I took. Ultraflight lazair. I bought one of these last week. I'll try to make a thread about it next spring once flying season starts.            
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:http://www.affordaplane.com/ Keep us updated on how your build goes. I just got a better insurance quote for my Lazair, $189 for on ground/not in motion and liability.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Why do we need to manually adjust the mixture on airplanes? I understand "why" it needs to be done. I happily tune my motorcycle carbs. Many newer engines do autmatically lean themselves automatically. The Rotax 912 comes to mind. It probably is just a case of it always being manual. The mixture control is also used to kill the engine by leaning it in most light aircraft which can come in handy if your "needs no electricity" ignition system has a bad ground connection and refuses to stop firing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Canada really loves those big russian planes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6bKCsJd2K0 I got to see the AN 225 when I was a wee lad in the aircadets. It was parked in baggotville while I was on an "air experience" flight in a C130. The C130 pilot joked that its cargo was just a pallet of vodka for the prime minister.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:The engine in question is a Corvair. They've been flown successfully for decades. But I value the minds here, so .. let me have it. This is totally anecdotal but I helped a guy install the wings on a corvair powered air camper. I was told that he had an engine failure within the 25 hour fly off period and immediately ordered a used continental upon landing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Oddly enough, that's in the same time window that most certified engines fail too. They die "now" or somewhere well past TBO. That statement would be true if this engine had been brand new from a factory. How about some form of wankel? What are you thinking of building? helno fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Mar 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:I am looking for 65-100hp. I really like that little plane. Why dont you just buy an A-65? I see an overhauled one on barnstormers for $8000. For the price of that custom engine you are into slightly used 912 territory. helno fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Mar 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:I'd like 100hp, if only to permit me to get to higher altitude. And I'd like a 6 cylinder, for smoothness reasons. Also, it seems the corvair motor has better BSFC. Remember its your rear end up there regardless of how smooth it is. I do see the irony of this statement when my plane is powered by a pair of industrial waterpump motors. O-200 for a good price http://barnstormers.com/classified_643294_Cont.+0200a_100hp117+ttsmoh+.html
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
I assume you mean this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_H-21 The main gear looks like it is still off the ground and I bet a plane that quick needs a shitload of runway so they are using every inch available. Everyone needs to go the the airforce museum and see that plane in person. It looks like a star destroyer from the back.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Sometime last year somebody posted an incredible FAA accident report involving a hella stupid kitbuilding pilot. That is my favorite accident. Was that the one with the autocoversion engine and nonfunctional prop governor that had obviously forged logbook times and pictures of it flying with the cowl attached with clecos?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
A wee bit of aeronautical insanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z2KfmcsioQ
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
Nope. I am going to get a machinist to make me a drilling jig before I start boring holes in carbon fibre.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Are...are those contra-rotating props? Nope. Everyone calls them biplane props. The original engine was much smaller and used a single prop. When they went to a bigger engine they needed a bigger prop but had trouble manufacturing one so they just stacked two on each engine. It works but is far from ideal. As for noise I wear a standard aviation headset and it is not as loud as it sounds. It has pretty large canister mufflers and the exhaust is up over the wing so unless I am WOT it doesnt make to much noise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:Which makes me wonder, what performance gains can be had by fitting a better suited prop? Better props are suposed to increase climb performance quite a bit and get you slightly faster cruise for the same fuel burn. I`ll let you know once I install mine. The story I was told about the biplane props was that they had developed a larger prop but it was made in three parts a hub and then two blades. They had an in flight failure of one and issued a recall. The Biplane props behave as a 4 blade prop. Stacking them doesnt effect the thrust as much as you would think, approximately 4% reduction over running them in a X configuration. Having them stacked does however cut down the drag when the engine is shut down which is pretty critical in a twin.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
Went on a short flight in a Lear 23 Today.  
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:Yeah, noticed those too. That's a cool airplane owner. Dave was pretty awesome. His previous jet was a Mig-17.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Didn't check the charts and got too far overloaded for the altitude? That's what it looked like to me. Unable to climb and eventually the ground caught up to what little altitude they had.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:I get the concept but the temperature differential would have to be pretty extreme for that I'd think. Using buildings to climb a skydiving parachute is fun! The temperature differential is very small actually. Thermal activity occurs when there are unstable conditions in the air. Any tiny disturbance causes a bubble of rising or sinking air. I wonder of most of that guys facial trauma was caused by the Ipad on his yoke?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
I've met that guy a few times. He is a Lazair enthusiast and used to host a fly-in at his farm in Big bay. Hopefully the airship pans out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
It's cheaper than you think. ^^^^ Far 103 ultralights require ZERO training, however you would be a loving MORON WITH A DEATH WISH to fly one without any sort of training. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3474976  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEfBl4G30go helno fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
It is probably far easier to make a purely electric power system rather than trying to make a hybrid. Getting an improved takeoff and climb one time during a flight is incredibly useless since you are now left with all the extra weight to carry around and you are missing 1/3 of your power. Only type of plane that could make use of something like this is a self launching glider and they are ideal candidates for pure electric power.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Current technology only allows it to work on lightweight aircraft. The ideal case would be gliders that only need the engine in short bursts. The energy density of a battery is always going to be lower than a liquid fuel so you really need to either up the efficiency of be willing to sacrifice run time. There are a crapload of articles on this subject here. http://blog.cafefoundation.org/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
So does this mean you have finally bought it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Oh, they just shed tails. :-) I really do think mach is achievable by a private citizen. But it is so much cheaper to just buy an old jet. When are you going to get started on your Davis? Do I need to keep dropping links. http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_590719_Davis+DA2+.html
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
I rent a 172 for ~$110 and hour once you add in fuel. And that is about as cheap as you will get in a certified aircraft rental. I own a very basic ultralight. It costs about ~$10 an hour to run but has some rather serious disadvantages as far as range/speed/weather are concerned. However there is no cheaper way to get your rear end off the ground. Aircraft are relatively cheap to buy but expensive to operate. Your best bet is to partner with someone else if you want a certified aircraft. The less you fly the more it costs per hour.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:How has this not been taken over by robots? It seems incredibly repetitive. Probably for the same reason why most things are hand assembled in China. It takes less time to teach a person a new thing than to reprogram a robot and a person can detect errors better than most robots. Watch a few episodes of how its made and you will see just how little stuff is automated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:Something about that awful 2-stroke screaming away while crawling along just screams "I've given up." With a weight limit of 254 lbs the power to weight ratio of a two stroke leaves you with a lot more weight for the airframe rather than for the engine. A guy local to me re-powered a Lazair with Honda 4 strokes but abandoned the project because the extra weight removed any fuel efficiency gains. There simply aren't very many light weight 4 strokes in the 10-40 hp range.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Keep on ignoring the glaring hole in your posts. He is from Alberta so he still celebrates the cancellation as a victory for western Canada. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:They had a replica at the Reynolds Museum in Wetaskiwan (big restored car/tractor/planes museum). I didn't realize how huge it was before then. I saw the fullscale mockup at the Canadian air and space museum as well as the front end of RL206 at the national air museum. It is in fact a huge airplane. Hopefully with the sequestration in the states cutting all of the american military airshow flying the snowbirds will do well enough to get the support of the government.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Boomer The Cannon posted:Here's some airplane porn from the fly-in at my local airport: Now you have me wanting an Ercoupe again. It is hard to believe that was designed in the early 30's when you look at its contemporaries.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
xaarman posted:So uh, is this a big deal? It is a pretty nasty time of year. These two sets of pictures were taken two minutes apart. Then things go nasty.    
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
MrChips posted:I did a sort of an accelerated PPL with the Air Cadets here in Canada. We did it in seven weeks and let me tell you that was about as fast as I would dare anyone do it. It was pretty much an 8-5 job five days a week; I can't even imagine what it would be like doing it in two weeks... I also did the air cadet program. One thing about it was that all of the students were previously licensed on gliders so we soloed less than 7 days after arriving on average. We also spent the first four weeks on a pretty tight schedule cramming in every bit we needed to pass the MOT exam. It would be pretty miraculous to get two weeks of good VFR weather around these parts.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 03:16
|
|
