For you Fly Guys... NGC

[kirby1923]

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...

:-)

[Huzo]

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....

[Chuck in Indiana]

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.

[Two Checks]

The Baron may seat six but the Diamond seats SEVEN.

[kirby1923]

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).

:-)

[kirby1923]

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!

:-)

[Murray]

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.

[kirby1923]

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.

[Lannis]

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?   

Lannis

[Chuck in Indiana]

What do you wanna bet that those plastic wings will hold up just as many (or more) bricks than your wooden ones?   

Lannis

For how many cycles? (Whistling)

[Lannis]

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

[Chuck in Indiana]

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.  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> 

[Daniel Kalal]

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).

[lucky phil]

You guessed wrong.  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> 

DC3....50,000 rivets flying in close formation 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         

[LowRyter]

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.

[Daniel Kalal]

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.

[Two Checks]

I wonder if any m/c helmets are made from carbon fiber?

[lucky phil]

I wonder if any m/c helmets are made from carbon fiber?

Yes they are

Ciao

[Murray]

DC3....50,000 rivets flying in close loose formation

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.

[Daniel Kalal]

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.

[kirby1923]

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.

[LowRyter]

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. 

[Daniel Kalal]

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.

[guzzisteve]

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

[Huzo]

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...

[kirby1923]

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!!

[Huzo]

The old 18 is a real warrior!

Weren’t they a Piper ?

[Chuck in Indiana]

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>
 

[lucky phil]

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   

[Huzo]

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>
 

Piper Warrior....