Algorithm21Support your fellow pilots.
I am hoping that the lack of comments is due to you all being deep in thought!!!
I wait with baited breath for the outcome of your deliberations.:rolleyes:
Before I get any more flack about the need for anti-skid brake systems on GA aircraft please read the following.
(1) The sealed 3000ft + runways that most of you operate from, are not the norm for 1000s of pilots in this world, in many countries there are very few if any sealed runways outside of the major city’s. ie Australia, PNG, South America, most of south east Asia, the list goes on and on.
(2) 1000s of pilots fly GA aircraft every day into remote airstrips in conditions that can and DO, make your hair stand on end, and your blood run cold, and they do this not for fun!!!!! It is all in a days work for them, and the aircraft they are flying is the best they can find for the job.
(3) Imagine!!! You’re in a GA aircraft (any GA aircraft) you have just turned into a valley with 12,000ft mountains each side and in front of you, you are praying that your nav is spot on because, if this is the wrong valley there is no way back, its too narrow to turn in!! and the terrain is rising in front of you, you are totally committed (no place for the faint hearted) you breath a sigh of relief when you spot the windsock perched on the mountain, now the fun begins!!!
The landing strip is one way, from the sheer cliff threshold to the to the rock wall that marks the end of the strip, it is at best 1000ft of bumpy uphill gravel, the wind is variable, and this strip is known for its vicious downdrafts/updrafts, but you are committed, you were when you turned into the valley 10 mins ago, now!! you land first pop or you die!!! No such thing as a go round here!!, its looking good the downdraft is steady, oh crap here we go!!!! firewall the throttle hold her, hold her, the downdraft eases you have only lost 400ft, but you are close to stalling, the strip is now 100ft above and half a mile it front of you, looking good you tell yourself as you pull it all together and push the carb heat to off, every little bit helps, BANG!!!! an updraft fires you upward, you are now 150ft above and 100ft from the threshold, kill the power nose down! DOWN!!! Speed rising fast!!! fight her to the ground slam her on 300ft in and if you are lucky maybe 700ft to the wall, you jump on the brakes the left wheel locks she swings you almost lose it, another bump more skidding !!! “STOP YOU MONGREL!! STOP“!!!!! finally you slide to a halt in a shower of gravel and dust, adrenalin pumping legs shaking, you close her down and climb out, the waiting company rep says Good flight mate? You reply, Yes mate excellent !!!;)
Pilots that fly operations of this type have a saying:
Any landing you walk away from was a good one,
If the aircraft can actually be used again that’s just a BONUS.
Its all in a days work for GA pilots the world over, so before you cast dispersions on the merits of fitting anti-skid brakes to GA aircraft, spare a though for your fellow pilots, who just like you are flying because they love it, give them the support they deserve and help them stay alive.:)
Happy landings
Algorithm21From that I am to assume you don’t have any figures?
Moggy
What figures are you reffering to ????????:confused:
Algorithm21Since all bizjets and many turboprops have ABS I’ll assume you’re talking about light GA aircraft.
I’d guess that ABS is not needed….fairly low landing speeds, light weight, not a lot of traffic on a runway where you have to apply brakes fast (unlike a motorway). Besides, anything that’s a VFR-type aircraft won’t be flying in a lot of rain.
Yeah, it might be nice on a “clean sheet of paper” aircraft but for GA aircraft under the size of a Bonanza, Probably not needed.
Just more stuff to break and service at annual time.Now if they would prevent ground loops on taildragers…then you’d have something…😀
Yes mate at the moment I am talking 2500lb-3000lb 4 place GA . IFR.:confused:
I know for the uninitiated it is hard to understand the need for anti-skid brakes, but in some parts of the world GA aircraft are the only practical transport between towns, cattle stations, villages ect etc, short, ruff, short, gravel, short, sand, short, grass, sloping, short, wet, short, muddy, landing strips are the order of the day, did I mention SHORT!!!! Every day 1000s of GA aircraft make 1000s of landings on these strips, a very dangerous game and it kills many, so I vote we help them, give the poor sods anti-skid brakes, they don’t have to be invented a set of the shelf will do.:eek:
Sorry mate, I was told that ground loops on tail draggers are part of the nostalgic experience, ENJOY!!!:diablo:
Algorithm21But their stall is also a little more challenging
you will not be able to deliver a slick handling aircraft that can’t be stalled.
Whilst I’m on, how many GA accidents have been caused in the last couple of decades by the aircraft sliding, wheels locked, off the runway / strip? I’m sure you must have the figures to hand.
Moggy
.
Now your talking Moggy!! nice to see a little bit of optimism creep into your comments, good on ya!! and now that you have admitted that a stall can be challenging we are almost on the same page.:)
I can understand your scepticism, it go’s against the traditional thinking that a fast aircraft could manoeuvre crisply and safely at very low airspeeds, without the aid of any high lift devices ie flaps, slats, boundary layer accelerators, or any other trick gismos. And at no point have I said that the answer is easy, but after 20 years of research on this problem, backed by 45 years as P1 and aircraft maintenance engineer military & civilian, I have finally worked the bugs out.:)
As you can well imagine its not an easy concept to explain, particularly when the person you are talking to thinks he already knows all there is to know about aerodynamics, which by the way would include 99.999% of so called aircraft design engineers, they stopped thinking outside the box the day they enrolled to learn the same dogma that has been dished out in the universities for 50 years.:mad:
If I sound bitter that is because I am, after 5 years of trying!!! I have not succeeded in getting anyone of any import in the aviation industry to give 1hr or even 10 minuets of there time to consider the fact that there may be a better way, now whilst I realise that this situation it is more than lightly largely my fault, I am an abrasive character ( that’s a Scotsman for you ) you would have thought that at least one would have an open mind, and at least do the math, in your dreams !!!!!!:mad:
Anyway as I was saying!! the basic premise I started with was, if I could find a way to uncouple all of the negative aerodynamic forces such as (a) down force generated by the tailplane (b) drag from wing washout gaps etc (c) parasitic drag from external odds an sods, and many other performance robbing features that proliferate high performance light aircraft, it would significantly improve the performance, “NO **** SHERLOCK” I hear you say, well here’s news !! What I found was not only can you uncouple the negative aerodynamic forces, they can be exploited and used as aerodynamic performance enhancing forces. the net result is at least a 20% increase in performance from the aerodynamic layout alone. (using standard aerofoils) this is before even looking at reducing parasitic drag and form / profile drag.
Now when we consider that most of the aerofoils in use on light aircraft today were developed in the 1930s – 50s and these aerofoils were developed for the standard monoplane layout of there day, so there also has to be considerable performance gains to be made in this area, particularly when applied to this new aerodynamic layout. But for the moment existing aerofoils will suffice, from here on in it is maths, that for obvious reasons I am not publishing. Well that’s it MOGGY.:)
As for aircraft spearing of the runway, in my time I have worked in some of the busiest GA airports in the world, and it is a very regular occurrence, but if no one dies, and usually no one does, you will never hear about it on the news, the hangar crew drag it out return it to the hangar and life goes on, the Australian bush has eaten 100s of GA aircraft that could not quite pull up, and if you really like living dangerously take a GA aircraft into a one way 1000ft strip perched at 6000ft on the side of a PNG mountain. It takes 5 mins to stop your legs shaking after you pull up 10ft short of a rock wall in a shower of stones and dust, and you need an anti-skid unit in your jocks. ONE ON THE AIRCRAFT WOULD HELP!!! 😮
The need for anti-skid brakes may be greater than you think MOGGY.:)
Catch you latter mate.
Algorithm21the less enlightened aviation authorities, such as the CAA, FAA, DGAC, EASA, etc.
Its got everything to do with money. Development costs money, certification costs money
manufacturers don’t really have much reason to do anything particularly groundbreaking.
Things such as anti-lock brakes you mention will need certifying, servicing, training of mechanics, etc. combines to make this just too expensive
I have to agree with you there, it is going to be an uphill battle, and it will not be cheap, but it is a battle that must be fought now if GA is to survive the 21st century , so we can not just throw our arms in the air and surrender, lets rollup our sleaves and get into it, if we don’t who will??? If you look at the big picture, yes it is a monumental task !!! But if we get started now, “JUST ONE SMALL STEP FOR A MAN” you know the rest.:cool:
“very difficult and takes a lot of money” k12479
Yes MONEY.!!!! Absolutely no doubt that it is THE major major problem, unfortunately I am not an entrepreneur by any stretch of the imagination, but from what I have observed over the years, I am confident that once the ball is rolling, ie proof-of-concept aircraft, probably registered in the experimental category, in a location most convenient to all concerned in the project, the money people will get interested when they see the performance and versatility, as for the authorities, well they are in reality just another part of the money problem, obviously the concept aircraft will have to jump thru all the required hoops to obtain certification, other than that, money will fix all.:diablo:
“manufacturers don’t really have much reason to do anything particularly groundbreaking.” k12479
So lets give them no option, force them to engage or be left at the post !!
The developers of the new generation aircraft engines are having a torrid time trying to bring there product to the market, the major GA aircraft manufacturers are shutting them out! in favour of there mates 1940s designs, there are some small manufactures who are supportive of the new engines, but they are thin on the ground.
It strikes me that it would benefit all concerned if the concept aircraft team were to form a cooperative company with the selected engine manufacturer/developer, and share the load, 21st century aerodynamics powered by 21st century engine technology ,a concept that may have some appeal to the money people.;)
“Things such as anti-lock brakes you mention will need certifying, servicing, training of mechanics, etc. All this, and no doubt a lot else, combines to make this just too expensive,” k12479
Your average AME or LAME who services your aircraft, knows all about anti-skid systems, just ask one, Anti-skid systems are fitted to most aircraft and all cars, only GA seems to have been afflicted with the, we don’t need it bulldust!!!! As for certification it has already been done, anti-skid brake systems were first certified for use on aircraft in the late 40s and have undergone extensive development since.:)
“just too expensive”k12479
Its never going to be cheap!!!!! But $250,000 US + for a 172 is about $100,000 over the top, did you know that the average operator in a aircraft factory earns about the same as a automotive production line worker????, I can remove the wing of a 172, strip it down to a pile of scrap on the floor, then reassemble it and put it back on the aircraft in about 120hrs, without factory jig’s and gizmos, you do the math!!!!! 240hrs for wings, 25hrs tailplane, 25hrs fin, and so on, add the cost of a 1940 engine (CESSNA COST) an avionics pak and a paint job, US$250,000 ????? that’s very expensive !!! when you consider the major cost of the development of this aircraft was incurred in the 50s. I would hope that the concept aircraft will be in the $150,000 range max:)
Thank you for your input k12479.:)
Algorithm21If it could deliver that whilst still being nimble and responsive, yes. But if this is bought at the price of it handling like a barge – no thank you.
Quick notes:
1) No GA aircraft that I can call to mind will “flick into a incipient spin” at the stall.
2) Incipient spins have never killed anybody.
Moggy
If it handled like a barge do you really think I would be interested?, the object of the game is to enhance the experience of flight, whilst providing the widest margin for error, for example a well designed aircraft will retain full lateral and longitudinal control at minimum flying speed ( mush stall condition )
just how many 200kt barges have you flown ????.
We just cant agree can we ??? Picky picky was it a spin ? Was it only a stall? I cant see that it matters what the technical name is. it killed this lady anyway.
I point to the following because I was there to see it, and clean up the aftermath.
LATE 1980s C172 VH-DBL on final approach to Jandakot airport (below 500ft) was asked to do a 360 deg orbit to avoid traffic landing on cross runway.
180 deg into the orbit the aircraft was seen to suddenly roll to a almost inverted attitude & impacted terrane seconds later. Ask the young lady who was flying if it was a incipient spin or just a spin, or was it just a vicious stall, maybe it was the hand of god, pity you cant ask her, she’s dead!! aircraft that stall are dangerous why is that so hard to understand ???
Now if you want to try this for yourself safely, just take a 172 up to 5000ft, ease back the throttle to idle, apply 10 deg flap ,hold the altitude, as the speed drops hold her level with the rudder, now she will drop a wing and you will use the standard stall recovery technique, no problem, now check how much height was lost in the recovery manoeuvrer and what your new compass heading is??, now tell me if you would like to try that again at say 500ft.!!!!
half a rotation on the way to the ground is close enough to a spin for me, if you want to get really technical and nit pick about the exact name for the manoeuvrer that the aircraft was in the process of completing before it killed the pilot, I must ask does it really matter??? it was the result of a stall, and that says it all.
YES YES YES I know the pilot & air traffic were probably in the wrong to some extent, but the fact is if the aircraft could not stall in the first place, the pilot would be alive today.
Look Moggy I am not on a crusade to rid the world of old aircraft, I love old aircraft, do you think I have spent the past 40 years maintaining, flying, and building them because I hate them???, I am trying to point out that its time for the next generation aircraft, that doesn’t mean scrap all the old ones!!! At no point have I even hinted that old aircraft should be scraped, but NOTHING LASTS FOREVER!! now if you can tell me how I can get my message over without pointing to the shortcomings of the existing aircraft ? It would be a great help.
Please stop nit picking, next you will be picking me up on my spelling like DEANO, personal abuse seams to be the order of the day in this blog, I really am trying to have a serious discussion on the future of GA, the past does not really interest me, its written in stone and there is absolutely nothing I can do to alter it, but I can at least try to ensure that my kids have safer aircraft to fly, I KNOW !!,I KNOW !!! There’s no such thing as a safe aircraft, I SAID SAFER , my eldest will be solo next month, so please if you have nothing constructive to offer the future of GA, go talk to your mates, I don’t have the time to waste on idle warbird chatter. I am on a mission.
The offer I gave Deano to come to my workshop and see just what a modern aerodynamics are capable off stands for you too, you never know it may change the way you look at flying, what have you go to lose. ???:)
Algorithm21If you can buy a cheap, well-made mass-market aeroplane made by someone with enormous backing and balls.
As it happens certification is a pain.!
Now your talking!! Positive thinking that’s what we need!! , get enough like minded people to put there minds to solving this debacle and we will succeed, despite the best efforts of the luddites to keep us in the twilight zone.
You mention a mass-market aircraft, an idea which I think has a lot of potential, there is no reason why aircraft should not be sold like cars. ie you offer a standard 4 place fuselage and option it just like a car, the purchaser would have a choice of 150hp-200hp- 300hp engines, and 140sqft- 180sqft -220sqft wing area, then budget options such as leather trim or plastic, IFR – VFR, etc etc etc, and if we want to keep the price down have the fuselage and wings built in China. JUST A THOUGHT what do you think.
As for certification ??? its an international aircraft with no real home, so to get the thing off the ground, complete the initial certification in the most convenient country, you will be stunned and amazed how much time and money can be saved.;)
Thanks for your input BlueRobin is nice to talk to someone who is at least willing to consider the possibility of there being a better way. Thanks again.:)
On we struggle !!!!
Algorithm21[QUOTE=Deano;1163372]Algorithm21
Your arrogance is beyond belief, I have met people like you before and it isn’t a nice experience.
Your arrogance is beyond belief” DEANO
Well at least this part of the plan is working, I have tried the softly softly approach for years, letters to manufacturers, talks to engineers & pilots, 100s of e-mails all to no avail, so lets see what happens when I rock the boat ?? when was the last time anyone got you thinking ??
“the person with the money“ DEANO
Its got nothing to do with money, building an aircraft with a 21st century aerodynamic design does not cost any more than building a 1940 design, and just think if these aircraft are built, you get to buy one el-cheapo in a few years.
If money was the problem there would not be 10 + VLJ aircraft under development as we speak.
‘coupled with everything else you say should be in a GA aircraft this means more weight, so can you enlighten us” DEANO
Anti-skid units come in all shapes and sizes, but due to the very rudimentary design of GA aircraft brake systems, it is not possible to retrofit any of the computer based lightweight units without a total redesign of the system, so the easiest fix is fit a maxaret anti-skid unit to each brake unit, the device fits on the end of the existing brake lines runs on the rim of the existing wheel, and has a flex line the connects it to the brake unit, no extra wiring or brake line required, this device is already approved for use on aircraft and will add 3lb to the aircraft weight.
By everything else I take it you mean, a more modern engine!! in case you haven’t noticed modern aircraft engines are a lot lighter than the 1940 VW design, so no extra weight there, 21st century aerodynamics don’t weight any more than 1940s so no extra weight there!! You will get a much higher lift to drag ratio with modern aerodynamic, so even if extra weight was involved, which it is not, the aircraft would be in better shape to handle it.
“But there is a valid reason, and that reason is that he wants to fly” DEANO
Please read what I have say in my posts before you abuse me, as I have pointed out at least 3 times in this thread, if you want to fly ? do it !!! Go for your life, FLY!!!, I do just as often as I can in almost anything that will fly, but you will not see me carrying anyone who does not totally understand, exactly what they have just strapped to there ass, and they sign a waver which they HAVE READ AND ITS HONEST, then and only then will I risk there life, If you don’t believe you are taking a substantial risk every time you leave the ground, you should not be flying.
So fly fly FLY if you want you will get no objection from me.
“But surely you are against such materials being used? you’d rather have them built out of aluminium, please try not to contradict yourself” DEANO
Picky Picky, (1) as you just pointed out IFR radio and navigation gear is heavy, fortunately avionics development has progressed beyond the twilight zone, I will let you guess how many lb could be saved by ditching the entire 1960s collection.
(2) Two engines designed in 1957, replace with modern lighter engines.
(3) most of the cabin trim used in the 60s was fibreglass, aluminium and wood, replace with composites.
(4) Replace all NON-STRUCTURAL panels with composites, ie floor panels, roof lining, engine cowls, wing fairings, u/c doors, etc etc etc.
Do you want me to go on or does that answer you question?
By the way, if you take more time to read my posts, rather than howl abuse, you will see that, I only have an objection to composite materials when they are used in structural applications, for reasons I have clearly stated, if you really are serious and you think you know something about aircraft engineering, do me the courtesy of at least reading what I have to say before you start to abuse me. ( who did you say was being arrogant ? )
“I’m sorry but that’s the biggest load of tosh I have heard in a long time, thank you” “sorry but that’s the nature of the normally asperated aero engine, DEANO
Yes your right !!! so why persist the with technology,? Nostalgia ??? When for the same money you can fit a Fuel efficient aviation certified 200hp diesel engine, which has less than half the parts count, vastly lower servicing cost, does not require mags, or plugs to foul, and of course there is the fact that they come standard turbocharged and supercharged, “Hot & High? do you still think its funny ??? if you do you know very little about aircraft engines and the effect of temperature and altitude ( 747s are normally aspirated ).
Any further discussion on 1940s normally aspirated engines is academic.
As for your question “ Just what is deemed to be powerful enough” ?? I don’t ask for much just what it says on the can will do me fine, but I would like it all the time ! not only when the weather is right or I am at sea level or when the carb heat is off, or the mags play up!! is that to much to ask for??
“I also want to see evidence that you can build a 200hp aircraft that can cruise 2,000 miles at MAUW? at best a 200hp single will cruise at around 140kts TAS, I make that 14hrs endurance in still wind conditions.” DEANO
The evidence you require is sitting not 10 feet from me, you are welcome to come and have a look anytime, I will require you to sign a non disclosure agreement other than that feel free.
What more can I say ? I think I have addressed most of your questions if not I am sure you will let me know.
By the way people who live in glass houses should not throw stones
THERE are 10 + spelling mistakes in your post, THERE may be more THERE if I take a close look, but THERE is not much point to that, is THERE ???after all this is a discussion on aviation not English grammar, so THERE!!!!!! (sorry I just could not resist that) 😀
Algorithm21Regardless of the technology, modern or otherwise, if a pilot flies outside the limits of the aircraft, it will bite.;)
relatively benign stall characteristics:eek:
are somewhat narrow minded.:confused:
I’m sure Messrs Piper, Cessna and Beech et al would be very interested :diablo: :
if a pilot flies outside the limits of the aircraft, it will bite.)
Go to the top of the class, you are 100% right! So the logical course of action would be, if you don’t want to be bitten, and I am assuming you don’t, (no prise if your dead) you would seek to fly aircraft that provide you the widest margin for error, to safely complete the task in hand, and if GA aircraft development had kept pace with most other technology based industries, you would have a myriad of aircraft to chose from, each with its roll to play, consider this ! if Igor Sikorsky and his mates had been as arrogant as there fixed wing counterparts, and just downed tools after there first creation struggled into the air, can you imagine what the daily death toll in the helicopter industry would be, have a look at the technology available to civilian chopper pilots, it makes 90% of GA aircraft look exactly what they are, ANTIQUE !!!!!
(Don’t tar every aircraft)
Yes you are right, I was being a bit over the top, there are lots of aircraft that have as you say “relatively benign stall characteristics“, the operative word being relatively, relative to what ?????? Relative to an aircraft that will flick into a incipient spin and kill you in an instant or what ????
My point is, 21st century aerodynamics completely eliminate the stall as you know it, a properly designed aircraft will not allow the pilot to accidentally stall, the aircraft will mush as the minimum flying speed is approached then maintain minimum flying speed until the pilot intervenes, no computers, slats or fancy trick gizmos, just sensibly applied basic 21st century aerodynamics, now that’s benign.
“somewhat narrow minded”
I am the one trying to drag GA screaming and kicking into the 21st Century, your ambition as stated, is to return to the comfort of what should be a bygone age.
Its your life to do as you will, just remember if you insist in flying these things do it solo!!! Your non pilot mates actually think that GA aircraft are state of the art technology, a view unfortunately also held by some pilots, so be honest with them before you take totally unnecessary risks with there life’s, you will find that when confronted with the true design history of the aircraft and engine they are about to trust there life to, lots will say thankyou, BUT!!! No thankyou, its there life not yours so be honest, not optimistic.
As for me incurring the ire of the major GA manufactures, bring it on!!! There is nothing I would love more than to see them try to publicly justify there attitude to pilot safety.
But don’t hold your breath waiting, they will remain camped in the back of there unused design office until I disappear, the last thing they want is to get involved in a public debate, they know there is a better safer way.
Having said all of the above, I learned to fly in these contraptions, and enjoyed every second of it and still do, even after 2 engine failures, one 15 seconds after takeoff on a short bush strip !!! scratch one bug smasher a broken leg and the usual cuts and bruises, but if treated with more than a little respect it is possible to fly them in relative safety, there’s that word relative again.
Algorithm21Everyones entitled to their opinion.
In your motorbike analogy it could be said that making fast bikes:mad:
employing modern ‘safety’ toys you actually tempt riders to overcook things and trust technology to save them resulting in a step backwards.:rolleyes:
Your original bike despite its ancient technology is perfectly safe provided it is ridden sympathetically and in accordance with traffic and road conditions at the time.:eek:
I fly a Yak52
The motorbike analogy has nothing to do with making faster bikes !!!!!!!
The 1984 GPZ900r delivered 156mph and 110hp off the showroom floor, the 2002 F1 delivers 140mph and 108hp, so its not speed that is driving the technology, in fact a few years ago all motorcycle manufactures agreed to limit there bikes to 186mph, a speed that most super bikes have been capable of for 15 years or more, now they are more than capable of 240mph + (dream on bug smashers ) so its not about speed !! and it hasn’t been for quite some time, 15 years at least ????? So why are the manufactures still spending billions on R&D ????? could it be that unlike the major GA aircraft manufacturers they recognise the fact that the machinery they are producing IS INHERANTLY DANGEROUS !!!??? And any improvement that they can make to the handling and reliability, will assist the rider in his efforts to stay alive whilst completing the task in hand, such as: cattle mustering, Police patrol / high speed pursuit, Search and Rescue over all kinds of terrane, Para medics, postal worker, and millions of people who by necessity use this product when at work or to commute to work each day . TOYS YOU SAY !!!! Are you serious???
You have very little concept of reality if you think your statement, “Your original bike despite its ancient technology is perfectly safe provided it is ridden sympathetically and in accordance with traffic and road conditions at the time.” is valid, in your dreams!!
It does not matter how sympathetically, skilfully or carefully you ride an antique the unavoidable fact is, any motorcycle manufactured today will, under any conditions, at any speed, out brake ! Out manoeuvrer ! Out accelerate ! Any from last century 1999 included!!, therefore they give the rider a much better chance of surviving the every day INHERANT DANGERS !! that as the manufactures know, go with the territory.
As for your belief that riders will “overcook things and trust technology to save them resulting in a step backwards“.
That’s what the Darwin Awards are for, there will always be idiots and apparently otherwise intelligent beings, who for reasons known best unto themselves push the envelop in the most predictably deadly way, well at least we get the benefit of them eliminating themselves from the gean pool, no more of them coming , I am happy with that so I can see no reason to slow down R&D to save a few suicidal stuntmen, they will be successful in there quest R&D or not, remember the old barrel over the falls trick? just what advance in technology gave the first idiot to do that the idea he would survive?? THE INVENTION OF THE BARREL ??????
With respect for the recently deceased, it’s a sad day for all, god rest, I will reserve my comments on the YAK 52 for another day.
Happy landings.;)
Algorithm21There seem to be several “new technology” SELs out there…with composites and glass cockpits. Still recip engines though.
At the recent EAA event in Oskhosh, a couple new SE VLJs were unveiled.
They’ll have everything you seek, composites, new avionics AND jet engines that can burn diesel.
What seams to be the problem lads???, you are all flying around in your bug smasher’s MTOW 2500lb or so, and when I ask you to point out any progress made in this area of aviation, you point to perceived advances in VLJ aviation !!!!!! Which as it happens is not doing much better than bug smashers,
VERY LIGHT JETS are a contradiction in terms, the average VLJ has a MTOW of over 8000lb, (10,000lb MTOW = VLJ) OK the Eclipse 500 comes in at 5650lb MTOW, still more than twice the weight of your bug smasher, and I am 100% certain that none of you will be happy with a 2000ft + take off, or coming over the fence @ 90kts+ for a 1500ft rollout, not to mention the $1,000,000 + price tag, also most of these aircraft such as, Adam A700, Eclipse 500, Cessna Mustang, Piper jet, Honda jet, have still to see the light of day, Piper has been threatening to bring out a jet since the 70s, time will tell.
As for advances made by any of these VLJs ZERO PROGRESS !!!!!, apart from compromising the airframe integrity by the use of suspect composite technology, I can see no meaningful advances,
Take a look at the specifications of the LEAR LJ23 which you could buy in 1964, empty weight 6151lb, yes it does have a MTOW of 15.000lb !!!!!, so what would happen if modern light weight materials and engines were used in the construction of a LEAR LJ23 today ? I will tell you, you would end up with a VLJ, that would probably fly rings round the alleged cutting edge technology aircraft that MIGHT!!!! be manufactured sometime in the future. So just where exactly are these advances that you are all convinced are taking place ????? , I still don’t see any.:confused:
PS
Where did any of you get the idea that I consider composites to be the holy grail of aircraft construction ???, I thought I made my opinion of composites very clear when I started this thread, and my opinion has not changed.:)
Algorithm21I must have missed that !
There’s plenty of progress in the general aviation world and the pace is accelerating
do not accept your premise that they constitute death traps.
Moggy
I am obviously missing something, so if you would please help me out by elaborating on any of these advances that you refer to, I often hear the manufacturers refer to what I presume are the very advances you speak off, that would be the advances I have no real world information on.
Please help me out.
What constitutes a death trap ??? In 1968 I purchased a Kawasaki 500 Mach3 a 2 stroke fire spiting awesomely fast bit of kit for its day, wrung its neck for a few years and moved on, in 1984 I purchased a GPZ900r much better than the Mach 3, it had 4 stroke 4 cyl 4 carb engine, adjustable anti-dive suspension, adjustable preload, electronic ignition, better brakes lights and controls, and some trick safety’s on gearbox and stands, hyper fast for its day, wrung its neck for over 500,000km (3 new engines) and moved on, in 2002 I purchased a Honda VFR800 F1 now the only real resembleance between 2002 F1 the 1968 Mach 3 and the 1984 900r is the fact that they are all motorcycles, in technology they are poles apart,
Would I ride a 1968 Mach3 on a daily basis,??? don’t be silly!! IT’S A DEATH TRAP! spongy brakes, heavy clutch, sticky gearbox, nonexistent suspension, freaky power band, crap lights, etc etc etc.
Would I ride the 1984 900r??? NO!!! same story great bike, bike of the year 4 years running, absolutely state of the art in its day, less of a death trap but never the less by today’s standards DEATH TRAP IT IS!, not even close to the technology of the 2002 F1 with its, fuel injection, coupled differential brake system, totally adjustable suspension, ergonomic controls, powerful lights, etc etc etc, the 2002 machinery requires 20% of the maintenance and is 100% more reliable, will out brake, out manoeuvre and out accelerate any machine manufactured in the 1960s, and do it safely and effortlessly, that’s not much fun says you!! Well if it is white knuckle fun you want, if you really want to push the envelop as you do, too hell with safety!!, the other side of 240km/hr and 2 Geee turns, are only a flick of the wrist and 6 seconds away, go for your life after all it is yours.(no pillions allowed outside the envelop) that’s not your life to risk !!! OUTSIDE the ENVELOPE = DEATH TRAP!!! what do you call it ? 😉
Just because you have some love affair going with the pre Columbian art that you persist in calling aeroplanes, does not mean that you have a licence to expose anyone else to the obvious risks that you choose it ignore, and it does not mean that the rest of us have to step into the twilight zone with you, examples like the one above, of how fast technology is moving can be seen in all industries, including commercial and military aviation, just try to find any technology based product, other than GA aircraft that is using the same technology today as they were in 1960. Good luck.
I look forward to reading about advances you speak off. I cant imagine how I missed them!,:confused:
PS
I notice that you don’t dispute any of the shortcomings of GA aircraft that I pointed out, or the history, its only the premise rubs you up the wrong way, if these aircraft are as good as you say they are, it will be easy to shoot me down, show me the error of my ways, let the tech data speak for itself.
If your total argument is based on some romance of flight delusion based more in folklore than fact, it is very doubtful you have anything constructive to offer any discussion involving aviation in the 21st century. I hope you prove me wrong, you could be a mine of innovative ideas.:rolleyes:
Algorithm21OK, 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!!!!;)
Algorithm21Any more posts off topic will be deleted, Algorithm21 if you want to force your views onto us regarding the benefits of flying “a more up to date and safer aircraft” then please start another thread.
Start a new thread???? STEVE FOSSET IS MISSING AND THE REASON IS HE WAS IN THE WRONG AIRCRAFT FOR THE JOB, I am sorry if I am upsetting your sensibilities by pointing out the bloody obvious, FLYING ANTIQUATED CRAP IS INHERENTLY DANGEROUS !!!!
I don’t think I will bother you Luddites any more!!! you are obviously happy flying crap, IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
Next time you are standing at a grave, farewelling one of your luddite mate’s after his suicidal museum piece killed him, TAKE NOTE!!!!!! If you keep flying this antiquated crap, it will eventually kill you, JUST ASK STEVE FOSSET
OVER & OUT!!!!;)
Algorithm21As an Australian, you should really be discussing the equipment requirements for surviving in the Bush should the worst happen.
If you want to discuss the skills, equipment and techniques required to survive the other side of the black stump, go for your life mate, it is critically important knowledge for anyone flying in Australia, I will read it with interest, as for me?? I am trying to drag general aviation into the 21st century, much to the consternation of the LUDDITES. All the best mate. 🙂
Sign In
