OK, I’ll bite. :dev2: (In reference to comments about old aircraft on the Steve Fossett thread).
I love old single engined aircraft – especially aerobatic ones. I own and regularly fly an aircraft manufactured in 1963 and designed in the 1950s. She’s a lovely thing with a crispness of handling and lightness of feel that is not found in modern spam cans. This aircraft gives me incredible joy. If flying loses its joy we are missing the point!
I recently flew a brand new (2007) glass cockpit aircraft complete with air bags and 13 (yes, 13!) fuel drains. Nice, but lacking soul.
When my partner started flying in the RAF (even though he is Australian) he flew aircraft older than he was – Hawker Hunters. He started his military flying in the military equivalent to the aircraft we now own. (That type has recently been chosen for update and remanufacture because a better type for the task could not be found.) He went on to fly modern twin jet supersonic fighters and modern twin jet transonic airliners but still adores flying a 115 hp 4 cylinder piston engined semi-aerobatic museum piece! It is a solidly built and well maintained piece of history and he feels as safe in that as in a 2007 composite calamity.
A multiple national aerobatic champion here has flown all sorts of things from Sukhoi 31s to Sea Furys – yet his favourite type is the J3 Cub.
I understand Chuck Yeager’s favourite bush aeroplane is the Husky – not the Bell X1!
Here in Australia we do NOT put in flight plans for every VFR local flight – in fact I would say that most people do not. A Flight Note (which bascially gives a responsible person an idea of your route and ETA) is encouraged.
Problems can happen in any aircraft. If technology prevented accidents, new airline and military aircraft would never crash, and new designs like the Cirrus would never have crashed. All flying has risk. All we can do is to be prepared. Take a portable ELT (the fixed ones often don’t work), a phone and some basic survival gear.
What’s wrong with taking a Decathlon for a local flight? How is it possible to put in an accurate flight plan saying, “I’m searching in the district for a lake bed, I’ll be back by lunch time.” Had he submitted a “block” flight plan with a survey area shown, the search area may not have been any smaller than it has been. I do hope Steve Fossett is found, he’s a great man. He enjoys flying old types, new types with groundbreaking technology, piston, turbine and balloon.
By: mike currill - 23rd September 2007 at 06:37
Some very good points there but the situation with the engines is even worse in the case of Lycoming and Continental engines. in their case we’re talking 1930’s technology. Thinking about it even the construction of Piper and Cessna aircraft has not really moved beyond the late 30’s either.
By: Algorithm21 - 16th September 2007 at 18:10
OK, I’ll bite. :dev2: (In reference to comments about old aircraft on the Steve Fossett thread).
I love old single engined aircraft
What’s wrong with taking a Decathlon for a local flight? How is it possible to put in an accurate flight plan
Absolutely nothing wrong with that, take a Bleriot monoplane for a joy ride, if that’s what blows your hair back, go for your life, I wouldn’t mind a go ether, I think the experience would be well worth the risk, I am sure that it will be easer to control than the Primary glider I flew behind a Chipmunk tug ( 2 tow ropes ) one wild ride!!!! and I still think that was worth the risk. ( as they say I learnt about flying that day ) I declined a second go, that may be why I am here to tell the tail.
So my problem is not risk taking, it is taking risks for no good reason because the major manufacturers have forced you!!!!
In this the year 2007 we have the technology to build the following:
An all aluminium 4 place 2500lb light aircraft that will takeoff in 600ft, climb @ 70% 140hp/175kts/800fpm cruse 205kts, range 1900nm + 45min reserve, totally stall free, and comes over the fence at 40kts for a short field. All for less than the price of a c172.
The manufactures know this, but they are not having a bar of it, the last thing they want is a technology war to break out in the light aircraft industry, they would actually have to employ people who know how to design an aircraft, then there’s the R&D, the new jigs BIG BIG bucks!! so as long as pilot’s are prepared to buy brand spanking new 1950s technology they will pump it out!!! I can see it now DATELINE 2057 Cessna reported today that the Mars colony has just ordered 50 new c172 IDs ( INFLATABLE DERIVATIVE ) why not ????they have been selling the same antiquated design for 50 years, and they said the new c172 they sold yesterday is state of the art, so why not the next 50 years. It is one thing sticking to a good thing when you find one, but now they are really taking the ****.
So enjoy the old old birds, and the new old birds, I do, but do it solo, that is unless your passenger really really!!! knows what they are getting into, a short summery of the aircraft and engines true design vintage, should be more than sufficient to keep most thinking beings on terra-firma ( the more firma, the less terror ) funny how nostalgia doesn’t have much currency with sane people.
Flight plan ????? any clue as to north south east or west would have been good, what did he say to Hilton when he hired the aircraft????? what did he tell his wife ???? Yes a flight note, anything!!! pilots don’t normaly fly off into tiger country on a whim.;)
When I joined the RAF the first aircraft I ever worked on was a Hawker Hunter 50s technology, and they were an amazing bit of technology then, and by comparison to any GA aircraft today the airframe technology is still light years ahead of anything I have seen so far, and believe me I have been up close and personal with a large percentage of the aircraft flying today, military and civilian , NO!!! I am not suggesting that we blast around at 500kts, I am just trying to point out, that if you compare the hawker hunter to a modern jet fighter such as the JSF, F-22 or even a F-18, no real comparison can be made, other than they are all fighter aircraft, the JSF etc are conceptually, structurally and aerodynamically in a completely different league!!! Now compare any 2 – 6 place GA aircraft produced by any of the main manufactures in the 50s to, any GA aircraft produced today!!! SAME AIRCRAFT AIRFAME PROGRESS ZERO!!!!!! SAME ENGINE PROGRESS ZERO!!!!!SAME AERODYNAMICS PROGRESS ZERO!!!!SAME “IT DON”T WORK” SYSTEMS, heaters, a/c ????in your dreams!!, doors and windows that you would not put on even the most rudimentary of cars, brake systems that are for the most part ineffective, and an ergonomic nightmare to operate!! none of them have any form of anti- skid system, hell!!! even my motor bike has an abs coupled interactive brake system, it came standard on the bike 7 YEARS AGO!!! So just what is going on when backyard enthusiasts are able to design and build all sorts of exotic aerodynamically efficient aircraft, whilst the so called experts dwell in the twilight zone of the 50s ??????
I Agree with you that a composite calamity has fallen on the light aircraft industry, composite’s sound great, but when you get down and dirty with them they can spring some catastrophic surprises on you, not the least of them being total failure under flight loadings with no prior indication, (ie cracks, staining, bulging,) due to thermal cycling, delaminating, and other gremlins.
So to sum up not only have the major manufacturers not made any progress, they have actually compounded the problem by integrating composite technology into there 50s aircraft, in an attempt to speed up the manufacturing process and reduce costs, and put a use by date on airframes but they sell it to us as some great leap forward in technology. They didn’t even develop the technology, they left the expensive part to the tax payer, then lifted what they wanted.
Give me an all aluminium airframe every time, it will let me know 99 times out of 100 if there is a problem well before parts start to fail. See lower risk same joy of flight it can be done.
AND THERE IS A BETTER WAY!!!!;)
Sign In
September 16, 2007 at 11:42 am