Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: radguzzi on September 06, 2020, 07:04:37 PM
-
I had an opportunity to bring a couple of friends to the local small State Airport one day last week. The mission was to have them meet up with a friend from Mass and fly back for some fun and a visit with relatives.
Imagine my surprise when the plane we were to look for ended up being a Diamond DA 62. Just wow.
The pilot gave me the grand tour and I did not even think of the price of such an aircraft until I came home and told Sue Ellen about it... we looked it up. Holy Cow.
Well, the guy Is a billionaire.
Be well everyone,
Rob
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/3118/XyAa4T.jpg)
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/6299/1qV19L.jpg)
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/6284/paDZCC.jpg)
-
Yes, very nice airplanes to say the least.
(https://i.ibb.co/B3kL0Tx/DSC04498.jpg) (https://ibb.co/B3kL0Tx)
GliderJohn
-
I wish you'd be more careful with your thread titles .... I was hoping to find a friend ...
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Old-Beemer/i-SWJXHKC/0/2cbf7031/O/fly.jpg) (https://lannisselz.smugmug.com/Old-Beemer/i-SWJXHKC/A)
The Fly
-
I'll bet at that $ there's no triangle flashing on the dash.
-
Is $1.25M really a lot for that kind of machine? I don't know much about airplanes, but what does a new twin-engine top of the line Beechcraft or Cessna cost?
Lannis
-
Was that Tony Stark? Looked pretty slick.
-
Looks fast just parked in front of the hangar.
EDIT............Pow ered by diesel engines, that takes the shine off.
Ciao
-
Is $1.25M really a lot for that kind of machine? I don't know much about airplanes, but what does a new twin-engine top of the line Beechcraft or Cessna cost?
Lannis
A single engine Bonanza (Beech) will spec about $950K and its twin engine brother the Barron about $1.3+M. Of course this is new.
In '80 you could buy a new Bonanza for around $75K and right now I could buy a used baron (twin engine non pressurized.) for about $200K.
Operating costs are high.
-
Yep, the Beech Baron G58 is almost a direct comparison to the Diamond. Comparable payload and speed but the fuel burn on the Baron is more than double. And to enter the Baron you must enter from the right side.
The price? Right at $1.5 mil.
-
Looks fast just parked in front of the hangar.
EDIT............Pow ered by diesel engines, that takes the shine off.
Ciao
Compression ignition, whats a magneto failure? Most of the light ga aircraft are running around with motors that take advantage of all the latest 1930's technology. Frugal motors mean the less fuel you need to carry faster and more range.
-
A big disadvantage to have a diesel powered light aircraft is that you can't buy diesel fuel at small airports. So you have to use Jet-A which is jet fuel. If your airport has less than 6000' it is not likely to have much jet traffic(if any) therefore probably 90% of general aviation airports in the USA are under 5000' length don't have Jet-A or diesel.
BIG limiting factor for most potential owners of such aircraft...
BTW...
That "thirties technology" works pretty damn good. Basic diesel tech is even older...
-
A big disadvantage to have a diesel powered light aircraft is that you can't buy diesel fuel at small airports. So you have to use Jet-A which is jet fuel. If your airport has less than 6000' it is not likely to have much jet traffic(if any) therefore probably 90% of general aviation airports in the USA are under 5000' length don't have Jet-A or diesel.
BIG limiting factor for most potential owners of such aircraft...
BTW...
That "thirties technology" works pretty damn good. Basic diesel tech is even older...
Doubt the 90% figure is true. In my experience flying to a number of small GA airports, a sizable (?majority) have Jet-A. Remember, turboprops also burn Jet-A.
AAMOF, just did an AirNav search of airports within 50miles of KVJI - 10 of 11 have Jet-A. This is not big airport country.
-
You have to ask yourself, out of the 4500 or so public airports in the USA why would you pay $1.2m for an aircraft where 75% or so of them either don't have Jet A or say they do but don't because of lack of demand keep their system certified.
For the same money and very near the same performance you can get a avgas fueled aircraft that can land and fuel at virtually any of them.
For casual and private use this is not a wise investment.
-
You have to ask yourself, out of the 4500 or so public airports in the USA why would you pay $1.2m for an aircraft where 75% or so of them either don't have Jet A or say they do but don't because of lack of demand keep their system certified.
For the same money and very near the same performance you can get a avgas fueled aircraft that can land and fuel at virtually any of them.
For casual and private use this is not a wise investment.
Again, where are you getting these 90% and 75% figures?
-
BTW...
That "thirties technology" works pretty damn good. Basic diesel tech is even older...
Drinks like a fish and costs a fortune to rebuild, in the 4WD community people will tell you how reliable a Toyota 70 series landcruiser is what they fail the mention is ti drinks like a fish and its service intervals are half of everything else.
-
You have to ask yourself, out of the 4500 or so public airports in the USA why would you pay $1.2m for an aircraft where 75% or so of them either don't have Jet A or say they do but don't because of lack of demand keep their system certified.
For the same money and very near the same performance you can get a avgas fueled aircraft that can land and fuel at virtually any of them.
For casual and private use this is not a wise investment.
I used to drive a Morgan +8 with a LPG-fueled engine (Morgan didn't make enough cars to certify their 215 cu in aluminum V8 for the USA).
You'd have thought it would be a huge hassle. It wasn't. You just planned ahead. You found out all the places on the route or in your community that had LPG, and you tanked up there. You can almost get an LPG tank filled in more places than you can get a gasoline tank filled.
In a sense, it was a little like an electric car, with the two blazing counterexamples that it only took a couple of minutes to fuel it up, and you could go 300 miles between refuelings.
I understand that you don't have as much flexibility in where you fuel up in an airplane, which means maybe that you can't just meander around the country and say "Hey, there's a grass strip and a hanger and a shed down there, let's stop in and ride into town for dinner", but surely, with a fast plane with that range, you've got plenty of options. The 70 to 90% figure surely includes a lot of tiny grass strips that you wouldn't be flying a hot twin-engined plane into very often anyhow; those are for Piper Cubs and Cessna 152s ....
Lannis
-
I used to drive a Morgan +8 with a LPG-fueled engine (Morgan didn't make enough cars to certify their 215 cu in aluminum V8 for the USA).
You'd have thought it would be a huge hassle. It wasn't. You just planned ahead. You found out all the places on the route or in your community that had LPG, and you tanked up there. You can almost get an LPG tank filled in more places than you can get a gasoline tank filled.
In a sense, it was a little like an electric car, with the two blazing counterexamples that it only took a couple of minutes to fuel it up, and you could go 300 miles between refuelings.
I understand that you don't have as much flexibility in where you fuel up in an airplane, which means maybe that you can't just meander around the country and say "Hey, there's a grass strip and a hanger and a shed down there, let's stop in and ride into town for dinner", but surely, with a fast plane with that range, you've got plenty of options. The 70 to 90% figure surely includes a lot of tiny grass strips that you wouldn't be flying a hot twin-engined plane into very often anyhow; those are for Piper Cubs and Cessna 152s ....
Lannis
Those private turf airstrips are very unlikely to have 100LL AvGas either.
-
Operating costs are high.
Non-operating costs are pretty high, too.
-
Again, where are you getting these 90% and 75% figures?
I have been in the the aircraft engine business and part owner in aircraft kit business for several years and we have used considerable amount of resources on market studies...
I have also had the use of a MU 2K for some time and have run into the "no jet a problem a few times. In a turbo prop you can use avgas in a pinch, can't do that with a diesel.
No successful aviation diesel engine (operational or financial) since WWII(Jumo 6cylinder 12 piston 2cycle inline)and its because of the reasons I have mentioned. One I didn't mention is that Jet A is highly susceptible to biological organisms growth in the fuel tanks.
I like the diesel cycle but disadvantages outweigh the advantages by a bunch for flight. There isn't much advantage in fuel consumption either. Jet A is heaver per gal than avgas and when you compare fuel consumption its only about 10% to 11 % different. An aircooled piston aircraft engine can be leaned to about .450 lbs/hp/hour(or a bit better) and a typical diesel will be about .350 to .360 lbs/hp/hour.
Data on airports is available on line from DOT/FAA sources. Last number I have seen was 4700 public airports of which about 3200 have 3000 to 5000'paved runways. If you count ALL general aviation airstrips, private as well there are about 12,000. A few will have Jet-A like at airport communities or ranch/business strips that regularly fly turbine helos.
Only sure way to verify Jet-A is available call them ahead if time. I have found you sometimes need to prearrange Jet-A because they can get a Jet-A truck/fueler if needed.(no storage on site).
I have no interest in getting into a Google fight here...
-
I used to drive a Morgan +8 with a LPG-fueled engine (Morgan didn't make enough cars to certify their 215 cu in aluminum V8 for the USA).
You'd have thought it would be a huge hassle. It wasn't. You just planned ahead. You found out all the places on the route or in your community that had LPG, and you tanked up there. You can almost get an LPG tank filled in more places than you can get a gasoline tank filled.
In a sense, it was a little like an electric car, with the two blazing counterexamples that it only took a couple of minutes to fuel it up, and you could go 300 miles between refuelings.
I understand that you don't have as much flexibility in where you fuel up in an airplane, which means maybe that you can't just meander around the country and say "Hey, there's a grass strip and a hanger and a shed down there, let's stop in and ride into town for dinner", but surely, with a fast plane with that range, you've got plenty of options. The 70 to 90% figure surely includes a lot of tiny grass strips that you wouldn't be flying a hot twin-engined plane into very often anyhow; those are for Piper Cubs and Cessna 152s ....
Lannis
Edit:
I never intended my comments to be construed as a SAFETY issue, its more of a practical/convenience issue.
I've flown a 10,000 lb turbo prop aircraft into very short remote grass fields, so it does happen.
:-)
-
Edit:
I never intended my comments to be construed as a SAFETY issue, its more of a practical/convenience issue.
I've flown a 10,000 lb turbo prop aircraft into very short remote grass fields, so it does happen.
:-)
I suspect you wouldn't need to take your shoes off to count the number of crop dusting operations still running reciprocating engines.
-
Despite being fuel efficient, the Diesels are very expensive to run. They are throw away engines after a certain operating or calendar time, they can’t be overhauled or field serviced, and liquid cooling is a bigger issue than you might imagine, for example periodic hose replacements are outrageously expensive. Then there’s the turbos and automated controls that aren’t usually necessary for a light aircraft engine, redundant electrical system, and for the plane itself the extremely long wingspan that makes a reasonably priced hangar unavailable.
I’m professionally involved with these engines, or actually very similar versions of the same - they are fine for military users with deep pockets but I wouldn’t want to own one (I do own an aircraft with something else installed).
-
Despite being fuel efficient, the Diesels are very expensive to run. They are throw away engines after a certain operating or calendar time, they can’t be overhauled or field serviced, and liquid cooling is a bigger issue than you might imagine, for example periodic hose replacements are outrageously expensive. Then there’s the turbos and automated controls that aren’t usually necessary for a light aircraft engine, redundant electrical system, and for the plane itself the extremely long wingspan that makes a reasonably priced hangar unavailable.
I’m professionally involved with these engines, or actually very similar versions of the same - they are fine for military users with deep pockets but I wouldn’t want to own one (I do own an aircraft with something else installed).
Although I'm an aircraft engineer by profession and frankly know nothing about aero diesels I do know that these light automotive common rail diesels are by and large rubbish. Seriously, diesels are fantastic for heavy equipment, and other stationary functions where being massively heavy and robust isn't a negative because thats what they need to be to be bullet proof but in my experience all these modern common rail diesels are far less sensible for the average person.
I mean there are particulate filters, inlets manifolds that coke up MEGA expensive fuel pumps and componentry and here at least more expensive fuel. And the up side? better fuel economy. I've seen plenty of theses thing go wrong in small ways and in big and my conclusion is that a light diesel isn't practical for the everyday user. Too expensive to repair, too dirty, less tolerance to everyday muppett mistakes, and horrendously expensive,read impractical, to repair if something major occurs.
In my view the fitment to light vehicles was primarily a European idea when fuel prices were horrendously expensive for them so they developed the light diesel. Fine I guess if you flip your vehicle every 3 years or so but I've seen so many horror stories with them from friends and work colleagues that I've sworn off them. Never for me.
Ciao
-
Everyone is missing the point. In an era of --19, rich folks don't want to fly commercial any more. Not even in first class. Corporate jets, turboprops, fractional ownership like Netjets, and privately owned light aircraft like the one shown are where the action is today. Fly commercial? Strictly for the hoi polloi. As evidence, all you have to do it search for all the many Youtube videos of fights and altercations that take place on commercial aircraft on a seemingly weekly basis. The rich and well-to-do have opted out. Can't say as I blame them.
-
Everyone is missing the point. In an era of --19, rich folks don't want to fly commercial any more. Not even in first class. Corporate jets, turboprops, fractional ownership like Netjets, and privately owned light aircraft like the one shown are where the action is today. Fly commercial? Strictly for the hoi polloi. As evidence, all you have to do it search for all the many Youtube videos of fights and altercations that take place on commercial aircraft on a seemingly weekly basis. The rich and well-to-do have opted out. Can't say as I blame them.
Really, ok didn't know the private business flying was doing well in these times, thought the opposite would be the case. Then again I'm not that surprised. I guess the really expensive car market is still probably quite buoyant as well.
Ciao
-
Beautiful a/c..
I thought for that money, it may have had the benefit of contra rotating engines (props).
I was messing around with a Seminole the other day an interestingly, it does. The reduced drag you inherit by not having to wind on aerodynamic trim tabs, would surely add to performance.
Also that colour would hide nicely against a gloomy storm cloud filled sky. But have it washed and brought to my tent..
I’ll take it...!
-
From Murray:
I suspect you wouldn't need to take your shoes off to count the number of crop dusting operations still running reciprocating engines.
They are getting rare but there is a radial engine one still working the area here in SC Kansas. This picture taken by my house.
(https://i.ibb.co/hLMNdgw/DSC04332.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hLMNdgw)
GliderJohn
-
From Murray:They are getting rare but there is a radial engine one still working the area here in SC Kansas. This picture taken by my house.
(https://i.ibb.co/hLMNdgw/DSC04332.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hLMNdgw)
GliderJohn
Would make a good glider tug GJ.
-
Fly commercial? Strictly for the hoi polloi.
Our company used to charter a pair of Cessna Citation jets so that if we needed to provide instant customer service across the country, we could have a team on site anywhere on the continent in a few hours.
When they weren't being used for critical issues, they were available for project review teams, and other less time-critical jobs. If you filled the plane up, it was a little more money to the company than flying commercial, but since the plane was there anyway, and the pilots on call, might as well use them.
It was the greatest luxury to us since sliced bread, peanut butter, and hot running water.
If we had to travel from, say, Lynchburg, Virginia to Scottsboro, Alabama we could either drive 8 hours, or book a commercial flight, drive to the airport, get molested by TSA goons, hurry-up-and-wait, then squeeze into a cattle car, fly to Charlotte, NC, change planes, get to Huntsville, Alabama 6 hours after you started, rent a car, and drive an hour to Scottsboro. The same 8 hours total it takes to drive.
OR you could drive to the airport, walk STRAIGHT onto the Citation, wheels up 10 minutes after you got there, 55 minute flight in luxurious leather seats with drinks and snacks, land in Scottsboro a mile from your meeting room, get off the plane, and you're at your destination an hour and a half after you left your office in Lynchburg.
It's the biggest lifestyle discriminator that I know. Bill Gates uses the same kind of toilet I do, eats the same kind of food, sleeps in the same kind of bed, his hot water is the same 120 degrees as mine is. Except when he travels .... then the difference between my normal American lifestyle and his billionaire lifestyle reaches late Roman Empire decadence levels. No crowds, no gloved hands invading his loose bits, no nasty drunks next to you with their head on your shoulder, no screaming kids .... just climb up the steps, relax in a soft seat, and in an hour or two you're there.
Yeah, I know, my great-grandpa had to ride a covered wagon for a month to get to where I go in a day on Delta, but the private jet would be my FIRST PURCHASE if my time was still worth anything to me!
Lannis
-
Lannis gets it. Early in his wealth accumulation phase, Warren Buffet always flew first class, and frequently castigated Corporate types that spent stockholder money on private jets. Shortly after 9/11, Warren relented, mostly to assuage his security and insurance folks, and purchased a corporate jet. He said he'd name it "The Indefensible." After a few months, he said he renamed it to "The Indispensable." Oh yes, and Berkshire Hathaway owns the fractional jet charter company NetJets.
-
Beautiful a/c..
I thought for that money, it may have had the benefit of contra rotating engines (props).
I was messing around with a Seminole the other day an interestingly, it does. The reduced drag you inherit by not having to wind on aerodynamic trim tabs, would surely add to performance.
Also that colour would hide nicely against a gloomy storm cloud filled sky. But have it washed and brought to my tent..
I’ll take it...!
IMO
I don't like the looks at all. Looks like the people that design the newest crop of sport bikes had a hand, or maybe a computer generated design using AI...ugh!
The Beech Baron is a MUCH better looking aircraft me thinks plus the baron has 6 seats and is constructed in metal...
:-)
-
IMO
I don't like the looks at all. Looks like the people that design the newest crop of sport bikes had a hand, or maybe a computer generated design using AI...ugh!
The Beech Baron is a MUCH better looking aircraft me thinks plus the baron has 6 seats and is constructed in metal...
:-)
I take your point Kirb.
Having said that, I think a Piper Super Cub looks better than anything. If I was operating an a/c and could afford anything I wanted..?
P 51 Mustang
PBY 5A Catalina
Piper Super Cub
Then I’d be like a rat with a platinum tooth...!
Oh... and an ASW 22 Silplane.... :thumb:
-
IMO
I don't like the looks at all. Looks like the people that design the newest crop of sport bikes had a hand, or maybe a computer generated design using AI...ugh!
The Beech Baron is a MUCH better looking aircraft me thinks plus the baron has 6 seats and is constructed in metal...
:-)
This. Friends don't let friends fly plastic airplanes.
-
The Baron may seat six but the Diamond seats SEVEN.
-
Yeah the Mustang is a beauty, a bit uncomfortable w/noise and sitting on a giant radiator (hot) but expensive to buy and maintain.
I used to be able to buy sparkplugs surplus (WWII stuff) for 1$ a piece. I bought a brand new prop crated for $400, a carb sealed in a can for $100. Even had a crated brand new Merlin dash 9 that had never been opened $500.
This was in the late 70s'. Nowdays its a rich mans game (REALLY rich).
:-)
-
The Baron may seat six but the Diamond seats SEVEN.
Wow I'm impressed, but I guess that # 7 gets to sit dead center all alone in the rear. Bet that would be fun in an emergency egress...
Actually from the picture it looks as though the back 3 seats would only be suitable for children or very small folks...
I still take the Baron..no contest.
Ha!
:-)
-
IMO
I don't like the looks at all. Looks like the people that design the newest crop of sport bikes had a hand, or maybe a computer generated design using AI...ugh!
The Beech Baron is a MUCH better looking aircraft me thinks plus the baron has 6 seats and is constructed in metal...
:-)
Flew back from site on one a month ago it was everything I expected, loud, slow, cold quiet happy to get out of it after two hours. Having messed around in gliders and worked in aircraft maintenance quiet some time ago the advantages of composite aircraft which have been around 40 plus years the reasoning of people hanging onto the idea that metal aircraft are better is fundamentally flawed.
-
Flew back from site on one a month ago it was everything I expected, loud, slow, cold quiet happy to get out of it after two hours. Having messed around in gliders and worked in aircraft maintenance quiet some time ago the advantages of composite aircraft which have been around 40 plus years the reasoning of people hanging onto the idea that metal aircraft are better is fundamentally flawed.
Guilty!
Not better, preferred.
-
This. Friends don't let friends fly plastic airplanes.
What do you wanna bet that those plastic wings will hold up just as many (or more) bricks than your wooden ones? :thumb:
Lannis
-
What do you wanna bet that those plastic wings will hold up just as many (or more) bricks than your wooden ones? :thumb:
Lannis
For how many cycles? (Whistling)
-
For how many cycles? (Whistling)
I'm way past any of my areas of technical expertise or engineering here, but I AM very familiar with regulators and rule-based testing, so I'll venture a guess that they'll cycle the same weight that the wooden wings will for as many cycles as the FAA requires to certify it to fly!
Lannis
-
I'm way past any of my areas of technical expertise or engineering here, but I AM very familiar with regulators and rule-based testing, so I'll venture a guess that they'll cycle the same weight that the wooden wings will for as many cycles as the FAA requires to certify it to fly!
Lannis
You guessed wrong. :smiley: Wooden wings have an indefinite life time. Plastic airplanes are life limited. It *is* a lot of hours. I've lost track, but the last one I *knew* was 5000 hours. That would still be a baby if it was a DC3.
I'll freely admit that I'm prejudiced. I can inspect a wood or metal wing and say whether it is airworthy or not. I can't inspect that plastic wing that went through a T storm and the very lucky pilot bondoed up the cracks, repainted it, and put it up for sale. <snapping suspenders, chomping on corncob pipe> :smiley:
-
I should just stay out of this (I mean, talk about non-Guzzi content...)
but, there are two things that make certifying composite stuff more troublesome and expensive than aluminum:
1) if you drop a wrench on an aluminum wing; you'll know immediately if something bad has happened that needs to be fixed. But, drop that same wrench on a composite wing and you'll likely not see anything at all without a bit of close inspection (and somebody not as honest as you might not report even dropping the wrench).
2) If you buy a roll of 2024-T3 from Kaiser, you'll get something that's known and trusted and incredibly consistent. But, with composites, the entire process including layup, humidity, heat, pressure--workmanship--is all up to the factory, and you cannot look at the finished product and know that it's good. You must have rigid (and trustworthy) quality control.
Composites will far outperform aluminum in fatigue, but making sure you've covered the above two points (which can be done) tends to bring things back to a pretty close balance (measured by cost and weight).
In short; you shouldn't fall in love with any approach; go by the numbers (and the skill level of the people making the parts).
-
You guessed wrong. :smiley: Wooden wings have an indefinite life time. Plastic airplanes are life limited. It *is* a lot of hours. I've lost track, but the last one I *knew* was 5000 hours. That would still be a baby if it was a DC3.
I'll freely admit that I'm prejudiced. I can inspect a wood or metal wing and say whether it is airworthy or not. I can't inspect that plastic wing that went through a T storm and the very lucky pilot bondoed up the cracks, repainted it, and put it up for sale. <snapping suspenders, chomping on corncob pipe> :smiley:
DC3....50,000 rivets flying in close formation :laugh: I went out to the hangar one day to have a look at an A330 we flew after the side of the Vertical stab had contacted the front of the hangar during a towing incident. Externally there appeared to be no damage at all but the boys thought it prudent to pull a few panels and look at the structure internally. Inside they found broken ribs and inner skin surfaces with carbon plies ruptured.
Got to be careful with carbon composite structures, they can take a hit and look externally fine but the damage is internal. An alloy skin would have had an obvious contour change under the same impact. IE...dented.
Ciao
-
OK, so here's my thinking about "plastic aircraft", or composites such as carbon fiber. The FA-18 is a carbon fiber plane, it was designed in the '70s and is still the front line Navy fighter.
My thinking is that carbon fiber is a superior material vs metal. The drawback could be life limits, what amount of cyclical use and UV exposure would degrade the airframe structure? Metal can be rebuilt, piece by piece indefinitely. OTOH, there are economic reparable limits that apply as well, to the point where the cost of repair isn't worth the cost.
-
OK, so here's my thinking about "plastic aircraft", or composites such as carbon fiber. The FA-18 is a carbon fiber plane, it was designed in the '70s and is still the front line Navy fighter.
I really don't know the details of the F-18 sub-structure, but I'm pretty sure it's conventional built, although it does likely have composite skins. You'll find a lot of aluminum on that airplane. Compared to commercial airplanes, fighters always seemed to me to be designed to really low life limits. It's all a balancing game, and I guess they didn't want to give up the good fighter stuff just to be able to fly for decades. That's why you'll often hear of major re-winging programs on attack and fighter planes when they want to push the lives out longer. But, even "all composite" planes will often come together with titanium fittings, so it's hard to get away completely from metal.
-
I wonder if any m/c helmets are made from carbon fiber?
-
I wonder if any m/c helmets are made from carbon fiber?
Yes they are
Ciao
-
DC3....50,000 rivets flying in close loose formation :laugh:
Fixed!
As for metal having an indefinite life this is most defiantly BS high stressed air frames (i.e. not pussbox Dakota's :P ) as found in older fighter jets and pressurized aircraft have a fatigue life then they are ground up for scrap, commercial aircraft usually reach the point of uneconomical to actual run before this point, military aircraft typically reach combat obsolescence before they reach it or their other systems end up costing so much to maintain the loss of the cost of the air frame is irrelevant.
-
As for metal having an indefinite life this is most defiantly BS high stressed air frames (i.e. not pussbox Dakota's :P )
I think nobody on this thread said metal has an indefinite life (Chuck did use that word for wood). The DC-3/Dakota was certainly designed to as high a stress as Douglas could get away with (else that airplane wouldn't have the capability that it does) -- there's not one flying DC-3 today that isn't full of straps and doublers to keep it going. That airplane most definitely had a fatigue life (even if it wasn't certified with one). Physics is physics, regardless of the regulation at the time. Today, the DC-3 has FAA ADs that insist on it.
-
I have 1/3 interest in a C 45 (Beech 18) built in '45. Has over 20K hours. Has cargo doors and was a mail hauler in the 70s' but w/AD it has remained airworthy.
One was lost in the late 70s' from what was determined as a spar cap failure which caused the wing to fail. Beech came up with a fix and an AD was issued and all? airworthy 18s today have a spar cap straps (an expensive AD).
The fact that we can really get inside the structure to inspect everything gives me the confidence to trust the old machine. Same for the DC 3 in which I am typed. If something failed then it was fixed and life goes on, one advantage of the metal aircraft structures or bridges for that matter.
-
I really don't know the details of the F-18 sub-structure, but I'm pretty sure it's conventional built, although it does likely have composite skins. You'll find a lot of aluminum on that airplane. Compared to commercial airplanes, fighters always seemed to me to be designed to really low life limits. It's all a balancing game, and I guess they didn't want to give up the good fighter stuff just to be able to fly for decades. That's why you'll often hear of major re-winging programs on attack and fighter planes when they want to push the lives out longer. But, even "all composite" planes will often come together with titanium fittings, so it's hard to get away completely from metal.
yes, an important distinction regarding the FA-18 vs the Diamond.
-
I have 1/3 interest in a C 45 (Beech 18) built in '45....a spar cap failure...
I always liked the 18 (not a fan of the looks of the nose gear version). That airplane and a whole lot of others of that vintage went down the road of using extrusion alloys w/heat-treats that gave them an aluminum with the strength of steel. But, the price of that high strength is very low fracture toughness and that leads to straps and other fixes to try to contain the cracking problem. Some planes were bad enough that they needed steel straps over the aluminum, which eventually leads to other issues of cracks at the fastener holes of the hidden aluminum part. Lots of 18s had a nice career (and many young pilots gained flight-hours) by hauling cancelled checks for the banks.
-
I have 1/3 interest in a C 45 (Beech 18) built in '45. Has over 20K hours. Has cargo doors and was a mail hauler in the 70s' but w/AD it has remained airworthy.
One was lost in the late 70s' from what was determined as a spar cap failure which caused the wing to fail. Beech came up with a fix and an AD was issued and all? airworthy 18s today have a spar cap straps (an expensive AD).
The fact that we can really get inside the structure to inspect everything gives me the confidence to trust the old machine. Same for the DC 3 in which I am typed. If something failed then it was fixed and life goes on, one advantage of the metal aircraft structures or bridges for that matter.
Dad had 3 Beech 18's flying the mail & Chi Tribune around country, hunters & fisherman groups to Canada. A family friend still owns one of them. I liked the De Havelland Dove that was in w/Beech's flying. You ought to like this----
https://www.facebook.com/PeachStateAerodrome/videos/vb.1251310215001066/325160558856653/?type=2&theater
A little airport south of Griffin, GA
-
A single engine Bonanza (Beech) will spec about $950K and its twin engine brother the Barron about $1.3+M. Of course this is new.
In '80 you could buy a new Bonanza for around $75K and right now I could buy a used baron (twin engine non pressurized.) for about $200K.
Operating costs are high.
They are lovely, a Baron Trumps most things...
-
Dad had 3 Beech 18's flying the mail & Chi Tribune around country, hunters & fisherman groups to Canada. A family friend still owns one of them. I liked the De Havelland Dove that was in w/Beech's flying. You ought to like this----
https://www.facebook.com/PeachStateAerodrome/videos/vb.1251310215001066/325160558856653/?type=2&theater
A little airport south of Griffin, GA
Nice!
I used to like to fly up the Mississippi river at 10'..great fun.
Its like the Brits used to say about the Bristol Beaufighter... "two bloody good engines hotly pursued by a bloody good airframe"
The old 18 is a real warrior!!
-
The old 18 is a real warrior!
Weren’t they a Piper ?
-
Weren’t they a Piper ?
Sacrilege. Walter Beech was an airplane guy. Started out with Matty Laird. Piper was a money guy that stole Mr Taylor's cub design (and the company) during hard times. He didn't know nuthin about airplanes. <grumbling and shuffling off>
:smiley:
-
Dad had 3 Beech 18's flying the mail & Chi Tribune around country, hunters & fisherman groups to Canada. A family friend still owns one of them. I liked the De Havelland Dove that was in w/Beech's flying. You ought to like this----
https://www.facebook.com/PeachStateAerodrome/videos/vb.1251310215001066/325160558856653/?type=2&theater
A little airport south of Griffin, GA
I worked a little bit on a Dove as an apprentice, inverted Gypsie 6 engines. You had to step over the wing main spar in the cabin isle and the cockpit door was shaped like a coffin lid and it had the carbon pile voltage regulators in the cockpit behind the f/0's head. Thats all I've got on them:)
Ciao
-
Sacrilege. Walter Beech was an airplane guy. Started out with Matty Laird. Piper was a money guy that stole Mr Taylor's cub design (and the company) during hard times. He didn't know nuthin about airplanes. <grumbling and shuffling off>
:smiley:
Piper Warrior.... :wink:
-
I'm watching a programme on the design and development of the Spitfire. It's Wings Day in the UK, the day we remember the role of the RAF in defending the country during the Battle of Britain.
Polish airmen who'd escaped to Britain when their country fell played a huge part. And we send thanks to the guys of the Eagle Squadrons.
-
Wonderful airplane. Designed to be flown and *maintained* off of sod fields by ordinary working stiffs. :smiley: :thumb:
-
Polish airmen who'd escaped to Britain when their country fell played a huge part. And we send thanks to the guys of the Eagle Squadrons.
[/quote]
When I was younger I had a friend whose grandfather was one of the Polish airmen. He always wore a suit and was hilarious. He told us when the Germans invaded his officer told him and a friend to steal 2 planes and fly to Britain. They flew during the day and stole fuel form airfields or were helped along the way. After the war he went back to his village and they had all become Communists so he decided to get as far away as he could. He came to Australia after the war. He became a real estate agent in Kings cross in Sydney.
-
Spoken by the guy who owns a motorcycle with very few dealers! :boxing:
What is the cost diff between diesel and Jet A? And the diff between 100LL?
Remember the Diamond burns less than half the fuel as the Baron.
-
Man I know , every time we fly the WG Diamond to the private island we have to get a delivery of fuel . Pain in the butt for sure .
Dusty
-
Quote from: Zoom Zoom on Today at 11:49:50 AM (https://wildguzzi.com/forum/index.php?topic=107368.msg1703107#msg1703107)I don't need a dealer every time I need gas. Bad analogy.
John Henry
But when you need a dealer....
Jet A is widely available and if you fly into an airport that is remote enough it has no kero or even no fuel there will be airports close by that does.
And if you have the money to afford a $1.5 mil aircraft you ain't gonna worry about the price diff! :cool:
-
Man I know , every time we fly the WG Diamond to the private island we have to get a delivery of fuel . Pain in the butt for sure .
Dusty
That presupposes that any sane person wants to fly General Aviation. Myself, I'll stick with the airlines when I HAVE to fly. Otherwise, I'd rather keep my two feet on the ground or on the pegs.
-
:clock:
That presupposes that any sane person wants to fly General Aviation. Myself, I'll stick with the airlines when I HAVE to fly. Otherwise, I'd rather keep my two feet on the ground or on the pegs.
No one knows where the private island is and we're keeping it that way .
-
:clock:
No one knows where the private island is and we're keeping it that way .
Fine, and if you crash in the ocean don't ask me for a row boat!
-
The fuel issue is that most people buy small piston engined planes for the flexibility to go exactly where they want to go. In the US we have thousands of small airports, one close to almost any place you’d want to go, free to use and perfect for the purpose. Most of them don’t have Jet-A, which is what this plane is designed to use, so if that’s what you need you are often constrained to another, usually more expensive airport which is further away from your destination, thereby defeating the purpose of most people in the US buying a plane of this type. The only advantage of the Diesels is higher efficiency, offset by their complexity and life cycle cost issues.
In most other countries there are few airports, few light aircraft and almost no Avgas to fuel them. Where you can buy Avgas, it is expensive. In Europe for example over €2 per liter or $9 per gallon would be typical. As a result, if you do have a light aircraft you tend to fly where the jets go anyway and would like to use jet fuel, which in addition to being available also enjoys a huge tax discount in those countries, in support of the airline industry. In the US tax on both is similar with the retail price for either roughly $3 to $5 per gallon, depending on the airport. Burning jet fuel in a small piston aircraft therefore has a different effect in different markets: in most of the world instead of limiting a tremendously high level of access from the air as it does in the US, it allows limited access that would otherwise be zero access or close, plus provides for use of relatively untaxed fuel, riding on the coat tails of the airlines.
-
Wonderful airplane. Designed to be flown and *maintained* off of sod fields by ordinary working stiffs. :smiley: :thumb:
You mean a Spitfire Chuck??
Ciao
-
You mean a Spitfire Chuck??
Ciao
Yes. Certainly not the Diamond. :grin: I'm pretty sure the WG crew has a 5000 ft. paved runway on the island.
-
:clock:
No one knows where the private island is and we're keeping it that way .
Well ya... if everyone knew about it you would need to rename it...
-
That presupposes that any sane person wants to fly General Aviation. Myself, I'll stick with the airlines when I HAVE to fly. Otherwise, I'd rather keep my two feet on the ground or on the pegs.
John, I'm shocked that you would say that..even jokingly.
I suppose that you base that remark on statistics', certainly not experience. Statistically , I suspect that riding a single track vehicle on public roads will class you even more insane?
Maybe some folks should stay away from both, I mean you could get hurt and wrenching also may put you at risk as well.
Sorry, had to comment..
:-)
-
Yes. Certainly not the Diamond. :grin: I'm pretty sure the WG crew has a 5000 ft. paved runway on the island.
Not sure about either of your statements on the Spitfire Chuck. The ground handling was notoriously dodgy due to the narrow track outward folding undercarriage (compare it to a Mustang) esp on grass strips. Lots of TO and landing crashes. And I don't think the Merlin was a doddle to work on. having said that I have a "wing off" image of Western desert maintenance with the Fuse and wing assy propped up on 44 gallon drums.
When they went to the Griffon engine you had to limit takeoff power due to the lack of roll control at low speed.
Ciao
-
That presupposes that any sane person wants to fly General Aviation. Myself, I'll stick with the airlines when I HAVE to fly. Otherwise, I'd rather keep my two feet on the ground or on the pegs.
That’s only due to a lack of understanding of what you’re buggerising around with..
I’ve got 1500 hours in sailplanes wearing parachutes and if I had a partial loss of control, I know I’d back myself to get it down because I’m too scared to jump due to a lack of experience and ability.
A parachutist with 1500 jumps in the same predicament, would casually hop out and sing a song on the way down and not raise his heart rate.
It’s got nothing to do with sanity, just confidence bred from ability and experience.
-
Not sure about either of your statements on the Spitfire Chuck. The ground handling was notoriously dodgy due to the narrow track outward folding undercarriage (compare it to a Mustang) esp on grass strips. Lots of TO and landing crashes. And I don't think the Merlin was a doddle to work on. having said that I have a "wing off" image of Western desert maintenance with the Fuse and wing assy propped up on 44 gallon drums.
When they went to the Griffon engine you had to limit takeoff power due to the lack of roll control at low speed.
Ciao
I think that was also true of the Mustang was it not ?
Rotation into full climb at maximum power could result in an uncommanded roll and subsequent crash, due to lack of aileron authority at the low airspeed.
Is this something you have heard also ?
-
I think that was also true of the Mustang was it not ?
Rotation into full climb at maximum power could result in an uncommanded roll and subsequent crash, due to lack of aileron authority at the low airspeed.
Is this something you have heard also ?
Not sure about the Mustang I'd need to research but the extra 10 litres of the Griffon created the problem with the Spitfire.The Merlin engined version didn't have the issue.
Ciao
-
From Huzo:
I think that was also true of the Mustang was it not ?
Rotation into full climb at maximum power could result in an uncommanded roll and subsequent crash, due to lack of aileron authority at the low airspeed.
Is this something you have heard also ?
I always thought the rudder was the primary control to deal with the P-factor. Incorrect?
GliderJohn
-
There is a guy here that used to have a P51, so he would be the definitive source. From talking to guys that have flown them though, you start the takeoff with full right rudder and keep it on the centerline with the throttle. Too rapid of throttle application will ruin your whole day with a roll to the left. It happened to a guy in Indy with more money than sense.
-
And I don't think the Merlin was a doddle to work on.
Ciao
I remember reading that the Merlin engine had a bunch o' had fitted assemblies. When Packard got the job of building them they re-engineered the blueprints to SAE numbers and eliminated a lot of the hand fitting, making the engine easier to build, repair, r+r parts, etc.
Larry
-
I doubt the rudder could overcome excessive engine torque. I, as an RC flier, need feed in some right rudder on the take off roll until there is enough air moving past the control surface, which you no doubt understand, just like a full scale aircraft. But just brute torque would need ailerons to keep the wing from dipping. Again, without speed, not enough airflow to be useful. Watching some of the guys at the RC field that are big into 3D, you can see how much the control surfaces are working when they are hanging on the prop.
Our local airport used the have a P-51 on site. I believe it belonged to the guy that ran the airport at the time. It was mentioned during an airshow that suddenly jamming the throttle to full on a take off run could cause stability issues. Obviously, air speed has to factor into it, but I'm sure you understand.
John Henry
Vague memory but there was also some weird dynamic on the high HP tail draggers which the wash off the prop effectively stalling the rudder, some designs more prone to it than others. The Beaufighter would occasionally do it on landing, IIRC the solution was full opposite rudder, and it was one way over the other, for example if the left wing was int he process of trying to grind itself into the ground you had to have the presence of mind and do the exact opposite of any normal reaction you had and wind in full left rudder.
I remember reading a veteran saying he was happy it only ever happened to him once and he managed to do the right thing at the right time. I guess when you advance a technology 50 years in 5 you have a few "compromises" along the way.
-
There is a guy here that used to have a P51, so he would be the definitive source. From talking to guys that have flown them though, you start the takeoff with full right rudder and keep it on the centerline with the throttle. Too rapid of throttle application will ruin your whole day with a roll to the left. It happened to a guy in Indy with more money than sense.
A friend here had an S1-T Pitts (the 200 HP version of what I believe Chuck has or had). This year he sold it to a guy who crashed it landing on his first flight. The damage was relatively minor and it was repaired. On his second flight he didn’t lead with enough aileron or rudder on takeoff, ran off the runway and crashed it again, this time to the point of being a major project. No, he wouldn’t listen to anybody because he is a hot shot Extra pilot :wink: :grin: At this point having sold the plane cheap in crashed condition to the guy who repaired it the first time, he is a hot shot Extra pilot with about $50K lighter load in his wallet.
-
To your point on the landing gear Phil, I would guess it was a weight saving measure. The structural support needed by moving the pivot point out would have required more structural strength further out, thereby adding weight to the air frame. I still consider it one of the most aesthetically appealing aircraft ever IMHO.
Not sure that was the whole reason, possibly more of a 'prior art' thing? The Bf109 had the same layout - this was the first generation of monoplane fighters and they still had some features common to biplanes. Though the Hawker Hurricane was probably the most biplanish of the lot and yet did have a better undercarriage layout.
Saw a Mk 14 flying last year, and 2017, what a sight.
-
I don't know that it's true, but I read somewhere that the Luftwaffe lost more 109s on landing accidents then in combat. :smiley:
Gimme a FW any day.
-
John, I'm shocked that you would say that..even jokingly.
I suppose that you base that remark on statistics', certainly not experience. Statistically , I suspect that riding a single track vehicle on public roads will class you even more insane?
Maybe some folks should stay away from both, I mean you could get hurt and wrenching also may put you at risk as well.
Sorry, had to comment..
:-)
No, I meant it. Heck, retired after 36 in air logistics I am not too keen on flying in anything. Then having known folks with private planes and learning to fly, checking statistics and actually flying with them, it ain't for me. I'll probably never go up in private plane again. Perhaps I would in a military plane but only in an emergency. In a commercial flight if I had to get somewhere.
I feel fine when I am in control on my motorcycle. I'm not confident that something as complex as an aircraft that any person is in control.
I've had a dozen joy rides but I just wouldn't do it anymore. BTDT
(https://g2.img-dpreview.com/B3781AED11BD4B989BFF88A431592C05.jpg)
I can't believe I was crazy enough to do that just to take that photo.
-
I'm not confident that something as complex as an aircraft that any person is in control.
Airplanes, by definition are very simple machines. Except for helicopters, of course.. which are a work of the devil. :evil: :smiley:
-
Airplanes, by definition are very simple machines. Except for helicopters, of course.. which are a work of the devil. :evil: :smiley:
I sorta contradicted myself by whining about GA when they are generally simplest (and least maintained) planes. But of course, the plane is only the small part of the equation in that regard.
-
You guessed wrong. :smiley: Wooden wings have an indefinite life time. Plastic airplanes are life limited. It *is* a lot of hours. I've lost track, but the last one I *knew* was 5000 hours. That would still be a baby if it was a DC3.
I'll freely admit that I'm prejudiced. I can inspect a wood or metal wing and say whether it is airworthy or not. I can't inspect that plastic wing that went through a T storm and the very lucky pilot bondoed up the cracks, repainted it, and put it up for sale. <snapping suspenders, chomping on corncob pipe> :smiley:
My dad bought a Cessna bobcat and flew sportsmen to Canada from Chicago.Apparently the wooden wings rotted,a common problem with those.
-
I think the old Stealth Fighter was ultimately retired due to the age & cycles of the composite structure. I think the Stealth Bomber might have solved some of that or at least prolonged it.
-
Airplanes, by definition are very simple machines. Except for helicopters, of course.. which are a work of the devil. :evil: :smiley:
Hey, that's unfair, they've only tried to kill me a couple of times.
As for the original photo/plane in post one, there was an identical one parked on the ramp in Visalia a couple of days ago. Had no idea they were so pricey. Didn't get the 'N' number of that one.
-
To your point on the landing gear Phil, I would guess it was a weight saving measure. The structural support needed by moving the pivot point out would have required more structural strength further out, thereby adding weight to the air frame. I still consider it one of the most aesthetically appealing aircraft ever IMHO.
Now as for the plane in the original post: If someone comes out with an electric powered RC model of it with a 1 to 1.5 meter span, I'll likely be all over it. :cool:
John Henry
From my dodgy memory I believe it it was just a function of the thickness to chord ratio that precluded getting gear mounts and armament into the available real estate. The later fitment of cannon in the wing didn't improve matters either. FWIW that Griffon engine was by all accounts the best piston engine RR ever built. Powerful and could be reliably counted on to do its full on wing service life of around 2000 engine hrs.
They were a hell of a company back then RR. They actually considered themselves an engineering organisation first and foremost in those days and during the war even turned their engineering abilities to making anti aircraft guns in entirety when Vickers advised the new design gun would take 5 years to get into production RR said bugger that we have a war to win and put the thing into production within 12 months.
People of action back then RR.
Ciao
-
They were a hell of a company back then RR. They actually considered themselves an engineering organisation first and foremost in those days and during the war even turned their engineering abilities to making anti aircraft guns in entirety when Vickers advised the new design gun would take 5 years to get into production RR said bugger that we have a war to win and put the thing into production within 12 months.
People of action back then RR.
Ciao
If you have a read of what goes into the current Trent series (the things that make planes like the A380 and 777 possible) i.e. growing the turbine blade so the crystalline atomic structure is at its optimum alignment the aircraft engine company is very much and engineering company, in contrast the automotive division is a subset of BMW.
-
If you have a read of what goes into the current Trent series (the things that make planes like the A380 and 777 possible) i.e. growing the turbine blade so the crystalline atomic structure is at its optimum alignment the aircraft engine company is very much and engineering company, in contrast the automotive division is a subset of BMW.
I've not worked on the Trent but I hold an endorsement on the RB211-524G and H engines. Personally I prefer the GE high bypass engines which I'm also endorsed on as well as the old PW JT9 series and the CFM-56 series. The RR gas turbines are too fussy and fragile for mine.
Ciao