For you Fly Guys... NGC

[Mr Pootle]

 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.

[Chuck in Indiana]

Wonderful airplane. Designed to be flown and *maintained* off of sod fields by ordinary working stiffs. 

[JukeboxGothic]

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.

[Two Checks]

Spoken by the guy who owns a motorcycle with very few dealers! 


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.

[oldbike54]

 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

[Two Checks]

Quote from: Zoom Zoom on Today at 11:49:50 AM

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!

[LowRyter]

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.

[oldbike54]

 

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 .

[LowRyter]

 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!

[Tusayan]

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.

[lucky phil]

Wonderful airplane. Designed to be flown and *maintained* off of sod fields by ordinary working stiffs. 

You mean a Spitfire Chuck??

Ciao

[Chuck in Indiana]

You mean a Spitfire Chuck??

Ciao

Yes. Certainly not the Diamond.  I'm pretty sure the WG crew has a 5000 ft. paved runway on the island.

[s1120]

 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... 

[kirby1923]

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..

:-)
 

[lucky phil]

Yes. Certainly not the Diamond.  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

[Huzo]

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.

[Huzo]

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 ?

[lucky phil]

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

 

[Gliderjohn]

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

[Chuck in Indiana]

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.

[larrys]

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

[Murray]

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.

[Tusayan]

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    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.

[Kremmen]

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.

[Chuck in Indiana]

I don't know that it's true, but I read somewhere that the Luftwaffe lost more 109s on landing accidents then in combat. 
Gimme a FW any day.

[LowRyter]

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



I can't believe I was crazy enough to do that just to take that photo.

[Chuck in Indiana]

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.   

[LowRyter]

Airplanes, by definition are very simple machines. Except for helicopters, of course.. which are a work of the devil.   

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. 

[Tkelly]

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> 
My dad bought a Cessna bobcat and flew sportsmen to Canada from Chicago.Apparently the wooden wings rotted,a common problem with those.

[LowRyter]

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.