|
It looks clean on the outside. It got a paintjob last year to sell it. Has just over 9700 hours on the airframe and 2500 on the motor. Back when it was towing banners the paint looked pretty rough. It is at the municipal airport so it gets flown off tarmac. No grass fields are open around here this time of year. There are a few guys with ski's but the winters have been pretty hit or miss lately.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Whops, nevermind.
CodfishCartographer fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
Some good questions there, you have plenty of options for travel / camping. If you want to land off field I'd suggest something with a decent set of balloon type tyres. I'm not sure what the US regulations are, but there seem to be a lot of places where you can land anywhere. When you're thinking about aircraft you really need to think about mission profile. Do you want to go really long distances? is short take offs and landings more important? and then there is cost. Sounds like a supercub type aircraft might fit your bill, or a light sport equivalent. Although there's also the cessna 170 in all metal format which would allow you to fly in more types of weather. It's a great hobby and I understand in the states there are plenty great airfields where you can camp. Jhonson creek has a great repuation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnaXor86Ep0
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
helno posted:Getting the gopro camera has officially paid for itself. I entered a pretty dull video in a contest but apparently the competition isnt that great because I got the most votes. Digging this back up because I just won $1000 from that contest. Edit: http://www.urthecast.com/blog/updates/urtheview-competition-announces-its-first-grand-prize-winner-video/ I have a feeling they wanted to forget it even happened due to the lack of submissions. I emailed them a few weeks ago asking who won the grand prizes and they replied yesterday that it was me. Hopefully with the weather improving i'll be able to get the Lazair back together. The 172 is missing a turn coordinator right now so I haven't started on the night rating yet. helno fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Apr 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
helno posted:Digging this back up because I just won $1000 from that contest. Hot drat, congrats Helno!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
So Nerobro found this thread for me again. I've been thinking I would love to build an ultralight lately for a variety of reasons, mostly that it's much cheaper in all aspects than building an experimental plane. I've narrowed it down to the Legal Eagle as my prime choice, mostly because it is a conventional style plane with a four stroke motor. For some reason, four stroke is my main decision factor. I just can't seem to get past the oil and noise and finickiness of a two stroke. As much as I love two stroke motorcycles, planes and two strokes just don't push the right buttons. If I do decide that I can get past the two stroke thing, I do like the look of the minimaxes and also the airdrome eindecker replica. Can anyone chime in with suggestions or experience? I don't even really know where to begin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
First off, since you're getting your license, why limit yourself to a ultralight? There are a lot of small, easy to build airplanes out there. Which opens your options to all sorts of "normal" engines. Is the engine the only thing that is really keeping you on the legal eagle? My only "problem" with the legal eagle, is that you need to learn to weld, as well as woodwork. A texas parasol is a very similar rig, but is all wood, simplifying life quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
I would say that if you are getting licensed anyways build one of the larger planes that can use a 4 stroke engine. You just give up way to much airframe to get a 4 stroke engine under FAR 103. Hell you can get an Ercoupe for <$20000 and that can fit in as an LSA and has a GENUINE AIRCRAFT ENGINE. I'm hoping in 5-10 years i'll be able to split an RV-6 for a decent price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
My biggest concerns with doing a full scale airplane is time and money. I don't know how readily I'd be able to commit 3 years to a project like that. I've looked at a few full size kits, like Sonexes and RVs and the like, and would love to do one, but the level of involvement with a kit like that is orders of magnitude bigger. The Legal Eagle is stuck in my head because it's the first one I've really looked into is all. I'm comfortable with welding and need an excuse to improve my skills. I suppose the 4 stroke aspect of it made it stick more than the others because it sounds more enjoyable. The weight penalty of the 4 stroke really is a pain in the rear end though. What are the odds of getting caught with an overweight ultralight? How would they even know? Ramp check you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:My biggest concerns with doing a full scale airplane is time and money. I don't know how readily I'd be able to commit 3 years to a project like that. I've looked at a few full size kits, like Sonexes and RVs and the like, and would love to do one, but the level of involvement with a kit like that is orders of magnitude bigger. Ultralights, and "full scale" airplanes are very close in size. In fact, for single seaters, ultralights tend to be much, much bigger than "full scale" airplanes. For example, a KR-1 Length 12' 9" Wing Span 17' 0" Total Wing Area 62 sq. ft. Cruise 180mph Lets compare that to a Lazair: Length: 13 ft (3.96 m) Wingspan: 36 ft 4 in (11.1 m) Wing area: 143 sq ft (13.3 mē) Cruise 40mph The lazair is almost twice as big! Lets try another. The Legal Eagle: Length: 13 ft 0 in (3.96 m) Wingspan: 23 ft 6 in (7.16 m) Wing area: 107 sq ft (9.9 m2) Cruise speed: 50mph Lets get back to "conventional" aircraft. Those that don't have the ultralight tag. I'm going to stick wtih single seaters to keep things even. Rutan Q1 "Quickie" Wingspan 17 ft 9 in Length 17 ft 5 in Cruise 120mph FRED Wing span: 22 ft 6 in (6.86 m) Wing area: 111 sq ft (10.32 sq m) Length: 16 ft (4.88 m) Cruise: 71mph RV3 Length: 19 ft 0 in (5.85 m) Wingspan: 19 ft 11in (6.12 m) Cruise 170-190mph So, why a "legal" plane versus an ultralight? Ultralights live in a very narrow range of airspeeds. And in a very narrow range of weight loading. Ultralights can't fly around populated areas. Ultralights aren't really welcome in controlled airspace. Ultralights have quite short durations. Building a plane that fits into the narrow little corner of the law that is "ultralight" is just that. A plane that exists in a narrow little corner of the law. If you don't need to live in that little corner, don't. Building an ultralight means leaving a lot of the fun stuff at home. A decent guage cluster. Comforts, and even some safety systems. You don't see carb heat on ultralights, nor cabin heat. You also almost never see flaps, and things that you should want to use to keep your skills up. "Real" airplanes give you more room to fudge. You can leave things a little heavier and you will still get a decent plane. "Real" planes also are smaller, which means there's less material to buy, and usually cheaper materials to buy. They also tend to use normal covering techniques, and normal materials, so you can get normal advice from normal airplane people. Not that I'd personally use normal materials or covering... I'm just saying.. you can. :-) Now, you asked about the plane getting checked. As far as I know, nobody gets checked. But, if you crash, and there are legal proceedings, your rig WILL get checked, and then you could be up the creek. Operating an unregistered aircraft, that sort of thing. And no insurance will want to touch you ever again. Why do you think an airplane will take you three years to build? why do you think a Legal Eagle will take much less time than say.. a Cub clone? (they are of about equal complexity.) Something like a FRED assembles very quickly. So can a KR-1. I went through the same thing. I didn't think I could afford to actually get a pilots license. when I discovered that it was going to be a reality, I did a careful check of myself and what my desires were. Building a ultralight just didn't make any sense once I knew a real license was in reach. Recently I read through all of bob hoovers blog. I picked up all the really choice stuff on building an airplane on the cheap. http://realtinker.blogspot.com/2013/04/cheap-aircraft-building-techniques.html Helo: no offence eh? :-) Ninja Edit: And somehow i got through a post without mentioning a DA-2 or a Hummelbird. Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
Perhaps I might chime in on this one. The thing I'd say most of all is try to work out what your mission profile is and what you want to get out of it. Microlights and ultralights are fantastic for bimbling around at low cost when the weather is excellent. They give you a lot of feeling for the air and are cheap to run. I think Helno posted a video of him flying later on in the evening and it just looked like a brilliant way to relax and unwind. I'm no expert on the actual building of kits, but the people I speak to who've done it say that the quality of the kit and how much comes asembled makes the biggest difference to construction time rather than the size of it. That being said there is an rv9 in our hangar which is now ready for test flying which has taken their group 8 years to build. The four stroke little engine of choice at the moment seems to be the 80 or 100hp rotax, it seems to be put on nearly all that category of planes at the moment. It also has the advantage of running on mogas and using very little. If you do want to go places though, a little bit extra size and weight helps a lot. I learned to fly on fixed wing microlights, which are fantastic little flying machines, but I have found that group A stuff deals with turbulence a whole lot better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
As far as ultralights and homebuilts go Canada has some pretty kick rear end laws. Our ultralights do not have the same ridiculous weight limit but in exchange we need to get a basic license. Oh and we can fly into the states and the only restriction is no passengers and you have to have an ultralight instructor rating or a rec/PPl. On the homebiult side of things I recently learned that we are not as restricted as you guys are. When someone builds a plane in the states they can do any maintenance needed. Once that plane is sold the new owner does not get this same privilege. In Canada this is not the case. You do not need to be the original builder to sign off the maintenance release. The more I keep looking the more I am leaning towards a used homebuilt over an inexpensive certified plane. The Lazair is great for what I currently use it for (ultracheap flying but only in great weather and very little cross country) but I really would like a second seat and the ability to go places faster than driving. Used certified planes are quite cheap but the cost of the annual maintenance kills the hourly rate with a single owner. An Ercoupe or a C150 can both be had for less than $20k but unless I fly 75+ hours a year it is cheaper to rent. An RV-6 costs more up front but split 2-3 ways cuts this down quite a bit and you get far more plane for the money with a lower hourly cost without needing to fly 75+ per year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:My biggest concerns with doing a full scale airplane is time and money. I don't know how readily I'd be able to commit 3 years to a project like that. I've looked at a few full size kits, like Sonexes and RVs and the like, and would love to do one, but the level of involvement with a kit like that is orders of magnitude bigger. Consider the STOL CH-750 http://www.zenithair.com/stolch750/ It's a relatively inexpensive kit that is estimated to snap together in about 350 hours, but don't take my word for it. isnoop fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
Got the Lazair mostly together last night. Everything is on but the engines. No video this time my gopro was dead. I have started flying with an instructor in the 172 to get my night rating but it looks like a buyer might have turned up so it is hard to say if I will finish that rating this season.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
Finally got the first flight of the year in the Lazair tonight. A 5 mph direct crosswind is the best weather I am going to see for a while. I did a few circuits and lost the display on my airspeed/altimeter. Didn't really miss it but was probably climbing out way faster than best rate because of it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Glad to hear you've got it ready for the year again. Did you do much maintenance over winter or just reassemble?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
I'm going to be falling into a big pile of money soon, and figured I might as well build an airplane now that I've got ASEL. Old issues of EAA have planes in them, and I've got a parts list going for a fully skinned fuselage and wings for about $1500 for a two-seat low-wing aircraft. Engine and avionics are obviously a big extra cost on top of that. I guess I'm asking for a sanity check. Is building this thing really just as easy as meticulously following the prints to the limits of precision and not accepting any shortcuts? The alternative is renting, and that makes phone sex addiction seem cheap in comparison.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:Glad to hear you've got it ready for the year again. Did you do much maintenance over winter or just reassemble? I fixed up a few things. I installed a new fuel tank and got better lines, the old ones were hard as a rock after one season. New tubes and tires not much else other than chasing the threads on the odd nut/bolt. As for building $1500 for a two seater seems crazy cheap even without an engine/avionics. With the market the way it is currently you can buy for cheaper than building in alot of cases. Find a partner if you can and the cost will go way down.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:I'm going to be falling into a big pile of money soon, and figured I might as well build an airplane now that I've got ASEL. Old issues of EAA have planes in them, and I've got a parts list going for a fully skinned fuselage and wings for about $1500 for a two-seat low-wing aircraft. Engine and avionics are obviously a big extra cost on top of that. What is your fabrication experience? Building an airplane from prints isn't exactly like snapping together a model...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
Did some work with Sandy and Addie on Sandy's Challenger. Finished up a few electrical things and found/fixed all the leaks in the fuel system.   This storm put a bit of a damper on things. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
Do you worry about timber frame hangars during the bad weather? When we had some heavy snow a few years ago there were one or two steel framed hangars that collapsed, it wasn't a pretty sight. I managed to get out for a flight yesterday that was the first for a nearly two months which was great. I'm also trying to put together an organised toolkit for the aircraft and maintenance on it. I'm going to help the a&p doing my annual in a few weeks and will attempt to get an idea of what I should be getting together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:Do you worry about timber frame hangars during the bad weather? When we had some heavy snow a few years ago there were one or two steel framed hangars that collapsed, it wasn't a pretty sight. A properly built timber framed building will kick the crap out of a prefab steel building 9 time out of 10. helno posted:Did some work with Sandy and Addie on Sandy's Challenger. So why the reduction gear? Is it using a Mazda rotary engine? I know part of it is clearance for the pusher prop above the fuselage, but I figured it would still be 1:1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
Blistex posted:So why the reduction gear? Is it using a Mazda rotary engine?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Blistex posted:So why the reduction gear? Is it using a Mazda rotary engine? As was previously stated it is a Rotax 582 that wants to turn very fast. Pretty common engine. I honestly have never seen a Rotary powered plane. I remember reading articles about them but they seem to have fallen out of favour. Did my first night solo last night.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
I found this and thought it would fit in well here. http://vimeo.com/32121344 . an 80's short on microlights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
That was pretty awesome. That guy was flying the poo poo out of that little plane. Doing a touch and go off the top of the airliner was pretty ballsy. Edit: Here is a bit of footage shot this year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUmW8XKcWE helno fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
I want a cri-cri very badly. Someone make me one. Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
I'll take a Subsonex if anyone is taking requests. Oshkosh tickets are purchased. If all goes to plan I am trailering the Lazair down and camping at the private campground adjacent to the ultralight area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:The motors from motorcycles that most easily convert to airplane use are the bmw boxer twins, the honda flat fours and sixes, and harleys. All of those motors are separate crank and gearbox engines. And most of them run conventional car speeds. So you're not really finding more power. I was reading this post and got really curious about the bmw boxer twins. Here's something I found: quote:Hi,
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
That is an engine family I had not even thought of. One part of that thread that really stood out to me is that BMW makes 250 of those motors per DAY. Seems like a pretty good option in the 100-115 hp range. Weight is listed at 75-85 kg installed weight which is right about the mass of a 912/914 once you fill up the radiator.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
helno posted:I'll take a Subsonex if anyone is taking requests. Will you be able to fly it at all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
Technically the Lazair fits in under Far 103 but I will be using an SFOC that allows Canadian ultralights to fly into the states. http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/sfa/media/ultra.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
helno posted:Technically the Lazair fits in under Far 103 but I will be using an SFOC that allows Canadian ultralights to fly into the states. I was asking in terms of being able to fly during oshkosh... is there any capacity to just go for a quick flight? It seems like it would be way too busy to do much flying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
There is a separate runway for ultralights in the southwest corner of the field and they have designated times for the various types of ultralights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Did something a little different last night. A buddy of mine who is restoring a Thorp T18 also owns a homebuilt glider. He hasn't flown the glider in a few years and is thinking of selling it so we did a little photo op last night. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crifjztsi24 Nice looking plane with incredible craftsmanship. http://s1175.photobucket.com/user/Helno/library/Flying/Gliders 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
helno posted:I honestly have never seen a Rotary powered plane. I remember reading articles about them but they seem to have fallen out of favour. My understanding of why rotary engines seemed to be a good idea in planes is that it came down to two things: (1) the inherent smoothness of the design, and (2) with iron rotors in an aluminum housing (vs. aluminum pistons in an aluminum or iron housing) they can't seize from overheating. You can also run a rotary engine with pre-mixed oil like a two-stroke, which saves you from having the oiling system as a point of failure. Not sure why they fell out of favor, though. Just too strange a design for people to get used to?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Perhaps it is more to do with a dwindling supply of donor cars. That BMW conversion looks like a much better option than the VW conversions but it is quite a bit heavier. There is a guy up here with a 1/4 scale hurcules and it is powered by 4 VW engines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:You can also run a rotary engine with pre-mixed oil like a two-stroke, which saves you from having the oiling system as a point of failure. I know people run them premix to treat the seals better, but would this actually protect the bearings on the eccentric shaft too? It seems like they would still need oil pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
I actually was wondering that after I posted. I think what they take out is the oil metering pump, which continuously feeds a small amount of oil into the combustion chamber, and just premix the gas instead. I remember now that the 12As (at least) have oil coolers, though, so there must be a larger supply of it somewhere for maintaining the e-shaft and things. And oil cooling may be very important to the engine's running, since there's such a huge temperature differential. Well, scratch that as an advantage. They're still extremely smooth though and only have like three moving parts (that's definitely fewer points of failure) and the power-to-weight and power-to-volume ratio is quite high. Plus you can negate the low torque by running them at their optimum RPM all the time and just gearing down to the propeller.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:My understanding of why rotary engines seemed to be a good idea in planes is that it came down to two things: (1) the inherent smoothness of the design, and (2) with iron rotors in an aluminum housing (vs. aluminum pistons in an aluminum or iron housing) they can't seize from overheating. You can also run a rotary engine with pre-mixed oil like a two-stroke, which saves you from having the oiling system as a point of failure. That's because nobody "really" seems to understand wankels. (I avoid the term rotary because that can mean a different kind of engine. See: Gnome rotary) Wankels really don't seize. (Modern cylinders and piston rings don't either..) But they do start detonating. Instead of seizing, the hot cylinder walls start to bulge, and you lose compression. And you lose apex seals. Or, if you manage to keep the seals around, then they start detonating, and really bad things happen. Like busted center section bearings, and more, blown out seals. The big advantage with a wankel, is it's size. They're downright tiny. However, they aren't a light as people seem to think they are. The need to have oil in the fuel is a sign of a design FAULT, not a design advantage. You can run a little oil in normal piston engines and it helps with ring life. Much as it helps with apex seal lift. The fundamental problem with Wankels is cooling. Piston engines have several methods for cooling pistons. There's the incoming air charge, there's air under the piston, there's contact with the cylinder walls, there's heat conduction through the rings, there's oil squirters to cool the bottoms of the pistons... There's NOTHING to cool apex seals, other than contact with the cylinder wall. And then they don't get any oil. The only way to carry significant heat from the rotor, is through oil. (or, in the case of the Hercules motorcycle, intake air... It ran the intake air through the rotor.) Oil management within the rotor isn't easy. There's also no easy way to increase the displacement of a Wankel. Rebuilding one is not far removed from building a new engine, because you can't refinish the cases. And, from what I've seen of installed weights, the weight of a Wankel is comparable to whatever horsepower engine you intended to run in the first place. ... I am a fan of these motors.... I've got several books on their history, and the math involved in them is inspiring. So is the story of making them survive. And the different engine case arrangements. (thing spinning block, with a straight crankshaft...)
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 03:04
|
|