bl@hplabsb.UUCP (10/10/85)
> Todd. > > P.S. Is anyone else out there working on a homebuilt airplane? I am > currently in the early stages of a KR2 project--NOT pulse jet > powered--and would be interested in talking to others who prefere to > build their own. (other than a few times a year at EAA events!) I've been building a Spencer Air Car for six years now and it's a constant two years away from completion. There are two builders in my area who are building KR2's and a fellow around the corner from me who just finished his second WAR replica.
james@alberta.UUCP (James Borynec) (10/16/85)
() I am currently building a Thorpe T-18. It is a fine airplane, and should be finished before the turn of the century. As far as I can see, all the innovation in general aviation nowadays can be directly attributed to the homebuilt industry. Furthermore, the large aviation companies seem to have no interest in building an airplane for the common man. The incredible legal fees involved in building an innovative airplane may be the major contributing factor. All this adds up to the death of general aviation as we know it. If a "common" man wants an airplane, he will either end up buying an old used airplane, or build one himself. j. borynec
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (10/18/85)
[ If you've read my ravings in the past, feel free to 'n' past this one, nothing new here] > As far as I can see, all the innovation in general aviation > nowadays can be directly attributed to the homebuilt industry. > Furthermore, the large aviation companies seem to have no > interest in building an airplane for the common man. Ah, my favorite soapbox subject... What kind of plane does "the common man" want? Sorry, he doesn't want a 2-place plane with no room for luggage nor avionics. What "the common man" wants is a miniature airliner. Four to six seats. Dual Nav/Comm's with ILS/DME/RNAV. ADF. LORAN-C. Transponder w/altitude encoder. Backup vacuum and electric supplies for the full-gyro panel. Long range tanks (1000 miles or so). Huge useful load, with uncritical CG limits. Plush interior, preferably with air conditioning. Two engines would be nice, as would approval for "known icing". Of course, it has to go fast, too. In short, he wants an all-weather plane that will get him and his family wherever they want to go, as fast as possible, in as much comfort as possible. Unfortunately, such planes are beyond the financial means of "the common man", and so we find ourselves in the current General Aviation "slump". -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
matt@uwvax.UUCP (Matt Thurmaier) (10/21/85)
> > As far as I can see, all the innovation in general aviation > > nowadays can be directly attributed to the homebuilt industry. > > Furthermore, the large aviation companies seem to have no > > interest in building an airplane for the common man. > > Ah, my favorite soapbox subject... What kind of plane does "the > common man" want? Sorry, he doesn't want a 2-place plane with no > room for luggage nor avionics. What "the common man" wants is a > miniature airliner. > > Four to six seats. Dual Nav/Comm's with ILS/DME/RNAV. ADF. LORAN-C. > Transponder w/altitude encoder. Backup vacuum and electric supplies for > the full-gyro panel. Long range tanks (1000 miles or so). Huge useful > load, with uncritical CG limits. Plush interior, preferably with air > conditioning. Two engines would be nice, as would approval for "known > icing". Of course, it has to go fast, too. > > In short, he wants an all-weather plane that will get him and his > family wherever they want to go, as fast as possible, in as much comfort > as possible. > > Unfortunately, such planes are beyond the financial means of "the common > man", and so we find ourselves in the current General Aviation "slump". > -- > Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug add an rnav and slave those gyros too. resetting gyros in a thunder-strom can be a REAL hastle. "why am I ALWAYS going somewhere?" >>-matt--> Matthew J. Thurmaier U of Wisc - Madison, Computer Systems Lab ...!{allegra,harvard,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!matt matt@rsch.wisc.edu -- "why am I ALWAYS going somewhere?" >>-matt--> Matthew J. Thurmaier U of Wisc - Madison, Computer Systems Lab ...!{allegra,harvard,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!matt matt@rsch.wisc.edu
bob@ulose.UUCP ( Robert Bismuth ) (10/22/85)
> > Ah, my favorite soapbox subject... What kind of plane does "the > common man" want? Sorry, he doesn't want a 2-place plane with no > room for luggage nor avionics. What "the common man" wants is a > miniature airliner. > > Four to six seats. Dual Nav/Comm's with ILS/DME/RNAV. ADF. LORAN-C. > Transponder w/altitude encoder. Backup vacuum and electric supplies for > the full-gyro panel. Long range tanks (1000 miles or so). Huge useful > load, with uncritical CG limits. Plush interior, preferably with air > conditioning. Two engines would be nice, as would approval for "known > icing". Of course, it has to go fast, too. > > In short, he wants an all-weather plane that will get him and his > family wherever they want to go, as fast as possible, in as much comfort > as possible. > > Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug Everyone would like such a plane. One point though, you seem to imply that homebuilts are only 2 seaters with no room for baggage. That isn't true. In fact, until Rutan decided, for his perpetual fear of liability suits, not to continue selling the plans, the Defiant is exactly what you have described. There are several other examples of 4 seater homebuilts, but Rutan's was perhaps the most attractive. (I understand that a set of plans is now worth several thousand dollars, if you can get the owner to part with them ...) Of course, the common man or woman doesn't want to really build it themselves. However, I tend to agree with the original article - most of the inovation I have seen in GA aircraft has been as a result of designs and ideas tried in the amateur built category - after all, the GAMA manufactures get free testing prior to a certification application by letting the homebuilders try it first. While it may very well be beyond my checkbook, the Beech Starship is really nothing but the outgrowth of Rutan's homebuilding activities. I often wonder if part of his deal with Beech for Scaled was an agreement not to sell plans anymore through RAF - after all, it is difficult to convince the business GA community to shell out 3 or 4 million for a "homebuilt" design .... -- bob (decvax!ulose!bob) Disclaimer: the right to anything is universal, but flaming is not intended in the above. My employer knows nothing of aviation, even if Scaled does use one of our workstations, and so these are my opinions alone.
hqb@gatech.CSNET (hqb) (10/22/85)
In article <807@terak.UUCP> doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) writes: > >Ah, my favorite soapbox subject... What kind of plane does "the >common man" want? Sorry, he doesn't want a 2-place plane with no >room for luggage nor avionics. What "the common man" wants is a >miniature airliner. > >Unfortunately, such planes are beyond the financial means of "the common >man", and so we find ourselves in the current General Aviation "slump". >-- >Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug Not true. *I* want a *fighter* :-) -- Henry Bibb School of Information & Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: hqb @ GATech ARPA: hqb.GATech @ CSNet-Relay uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ulysses,ut-sally}!gatech!hqb
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (10/22/85)
> Ah, my favorite soapbox subject... What kind of plane does "the > common man" want? Sorry, he doesn't want a 2-place plane with no > room for luggage nor avionics. What "the common man" wants is a > miniature airliner. > ... > > Unfortunately, such planes are beyond the financial means of "the common > man", and so we find ourselves in the current General Aviation "slump". > -- > Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug You missed the point. Even the today's new spam-can 2-place plane with no room for luggage nor avionics is beyond the financial means of "the common man".
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (10/24/85)
> > Not true. *I* want a *fighter* :-) > There are two kinds of things in this world: fighters and targets.
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (10/25/85)
> You missed the point. Even the today's new spam-can 2-place plane with no > room for luggage nor avionics is beyond the financial means of "the common > man". Not true. Well, if there were any left it wouldn't be true. But when the sales dried up they all went away. A stripped 152 was really quite inexpensive; but essentially 100% of U.S. sales had the "152-II" dress-up and avionics option. I'm trying to remember if there are any 2-place GA planes in production in the U.S. I don't think so. T-Craft closed up earlier this year. Varga closed up last year. The Skipper and Tomahawk went away a couple of years ago, and Cessna has shut down the 152 production line. The Super Cub and the old Bellanca tail-dragger lines are trying to be revived, but I don't think they've succeeded yet. Maybe the Arctic Tern is still going, I don't know. Wait -- I forgot about aerobatic biplanes. The Pitts S-2 must still be in production. The Great Lakes has popped in and out of production regularly, but I think it's currently "in". -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
brad@gcc-milo.ARPA (Brad Parker) (10/26/85)
In article <441@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >> >> Not true. *I* want a *fighter* :-) >> Speaking of fighters, can anyone give some pointers toward information on pylon racing? Do anyone do it on the east coast (Do i *have* to move to Reno?) I'll never be rich because I keep finding more expensive hobbys. -- J Bradford Parker seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!brad "Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon." - Alan Perlis
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (10/27/85)
> In article <441@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: > >> > >> Not true. *I* want a *fighter* :-) > >> In article <441@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@BRL-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) did not write that. That was from <1665@gatech.CSNET>.
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (10/28/85)
> One point though, you seem to imply that > homebuilts are only 2 seaters with no room for baggage. That isn't true. In > fact, until Rutan decided, for his perpetual fear of liability suits, not > to continue selling the plans, the Defiant is exactly what you have > described. I had a difficult time deciding whether there was enough reason to make this a public posting instead of a simple E-mail note... I didn't really come to a decision, so everybody gets to read it :-) Anyhow, I didn't mean to imply that all homebuilts are 2-seaters. What I was trying to say was that the "common man" isn't interested in the 2-seaters because they just don't serve his purpose. The larger planes that do serve his purpose, even the kit-built Defiant, are beyond his means. I don't think it's fair to rail at the manufacturers, complaining that they aren't producing what the common man wants at a price he can afford. The problem is that the common man wants too much. Over the last few decades, the price of planes (adjusted for inflation) has actually gone down while the performance and features have improved. But during that same period the sophistication of the buyers far outpaced the income of the buyers. And that is the real problem. Slightly different subject: according to Aviation Consumer, the reason that Rutan closed RAF was purely economic (as in not making a reasonable profit), and that the Defiant was a flop commercially. -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
bob@ulose.UUCP ( Robert Bismuth ) (10/30/85)
<-------- a blank line --------> > Doug Pardee -- Calcomp -- responded: > > Not true. Well, if there were any left it wouldn't be true. But when > the sales dried up they all went away. A stripped 152 was really quite > inexpensive; but essentially 100% of U.S. sales had the "152-II" > dress-up and avionics option. > > I'm trying to remember if there are any 2-place GA planes in production > in the U.S. I don't think so. T-Craft closed up earlier this year. > Varga closed up last year. The Skipper and Tomahawk went away a couple > of years ago, and Cessna has shut down the 152 production line. The > Super Cub and the old Bellanca tail-dragger lines are trying to be > revived, but I don't think they've succeeded yet. Maybe the Arctic Tern > is still going, I don't know. > Well, not that this is intended to flame Doug, but, last time I saw a price tag for a C152 it was in the high 30s, close to $40k - and that was with only the basics required for non-instrument instruction. I wasn't aware that Cessna had shut down the line - a friend of mine just ferried a brand new 152 from Kansas to one of our local flight schools. As for other 2 placers in production, Decathlons and Citabrias still are and the line has just been bought out by Great Lakes Aircraft Inc. They will be produced here in NH at their factory. Also, don't Lake Aircraft produce a two place amphibian? If I were looking for a new craft, I certainly wouldn't consider any of the 2 place commercially built planes. For $33k one can buy a brand new Maule M5 which seats 4 and has stol performance. Of course, if one wants aerobatic capability, then it's a different story. In that case, I still wouldn't go with a production craft, I'd build my own (which is what I shortly intend doing). After all, who can afford the $80k to $100k for a Pitts or Great Lakes? (Real planes have both wings, right? :-) ) Still, pilots shouldn't give up in seeking out production craft. I still think that owning and flying a 2 seater classic is something everyone should try, at least once. They are cheap to fly, maintain and loads of fun. Two points for those of a politically supportive frame of mind: the EAA is starting to canvas for a return of the 1930/40 type of certification and for limits on aircraft manufacturer's liability. While they'll probably fail on the second item, they might succeed on the first and thus could be born a new generation of Cubs, Funks, Aeroncas, Ercoups, Luscombes, etc. This generation might even be affordable by non-millionaires like me. -- bob (decvax!ulose!bob) (The above highly opinionated text is solely of my own contrivance and does not in any way reflect the opinions of my employer or anyone else. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything I have said - reality is, after all, only what you believe it to be.)
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (11/04/85)
> > A stripped 152 was really quite inexpensive; but essentially 100% of > > U.S. sales had the "152-II" dress-up and avionics option. > > last time I saw a price > tag for a C152 it was in the high 30s, close to $40k - and that was with only > the basics required for non-instrument instruction. That is the "152-II" configuration. A stripped 152 has no carpeting and no radios. I believe (no guarantees on this, folks) that it still has a full-gyro panel. It still has a full electrical system (28 volts) with starter and position lights, but (I think) no anti-collision light. Dual controls with right-side rudder pedals and toe brakes? I don't remember, but I think so. It never mattered much; who wants a daytime-only plane with no radios these days? Heck, you can't even legally ferry it from the factory without first lashing in an ELT. > new generation of Cubs, Funks, Aeroncas, Ercoups, Luscombes, etc. Again, I have to ask "who wants a daytime-only 2-place 90-mph plane with no radios"? I keep coming back to that because it is the crux of the matter. The current pilots are turning their backs on this type of flying. Every year there are fewer and fewer pilots who "just want to fly" even if they don't *go* anywhere. And there are more than enough old 2-place puddle-jumpers around to meet the needs of the few pilots that want them. We don't need, and can't use, a "new generation of Cubs..." unless we first (or at least, simultaneously) produce a new generation of pilots who *want* that kind of flying. -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
wildstar@nmtvax.UUCP (11/10/85)
I realise this is a very silly question... But supposing you had already built a high-altitude pressurised aircraft, under the homebuilt rules. Is it legally possible to convert it into a spacecraft ( orbiter ), assuming that you had a compact powerplant capable of such a feat? Could you legally fly it ( ie, would IFR/jet rating for a private jet be sufficient )?
dave@quest.UUCP (dave) (11/22/85)
> > I realise this is a very silly question... But supposing you had already > built a high-altitude pressurised aircraft, under the homebuilt rules. > Is it legally possible to convert it into a spacecraft ( orbiter ), > assuming that you had a compact powerplant capable of such a feat? > Could you legally fly it ( ie, would IFR/jet rating for a private jet > be sufficient )? You might have trouble avoiding flying over cities. :-) -- David Messer UUCP: ...ihnp4!quest!dave ...ihnp4!encore!vaxine!spark!14!415!sysop FIDO: 14/415 (SYSOP)