If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
"PhantomView" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:38:02 -0600, "Byker" wrote: "PhantomView" wrote in message . .. But a big touring bike would be much more fun. An Indian, maybe a Goldwing trike :-) I did just fine on a Sportster... I had one of those. It was just a little too small, a little too narrow - and that HURT me. Might be OK for younger people though. I'd go on HOG touring rallies, sometimes up to 2,000 miles from home, and people would say, "You rode THAT all the way from Oklahoma?" I'd reply, "What do you think 900cc is, a moped?" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:44:12 -0500
PhantomView wrote: That relatively large thick-chord wing gave a lot of lift at low speeds. You did not need a huge engine. The one I tried out was an original J-3. I looked it up and I remember the horsepower was in the 30s. The docs say 37hp. The thing would hold altitude even at about 35 knots - speed of horse. The military bought lots of Cubs back in WW-2. They were cheap, they were relatively quiet, they were stable enough to hang cameras on and could use almost any short patch of grass as an airfield. I guess the fabric skin also did not have much of a signature to what passed as German radar. I never loved tail-draggers though ... there was too much risk of hitting a rut during landing and the thing immediately dumping over on its nose. With the J-3 the thing between you and the engine was the fuel tank ...... Still, a hell of a lot of people post-war leared to fly in surplus Cubs. The Super-Cubs are more "super", but large numbers of J-3s are still up there too. Cessna ... good general-avaition planes. Solid design and I liked the over-wing models because you could actually see the ground below. But alas, the death of cheap AvGas put an end to my flying. Now you can take that 16 and turn the numbers around and then a bit. Hey, guess I could buy one of those Gyrocopter kits - but those things seem to crash a lot. Might be the pilots, might be something about the mechanicals ...... Ooooh ! How about a hydrogen-powered Gyro ? Greta might like that ! :-) Flew a J1 only once the fuel tank was over my knees. Not the safest machine And the cylinder heads were hung out in the breeze. A couple of old blokes in the US I used to talk on a group had gyrocopters and seemed quite happy with most of the performance |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:50:39 -0600, "Byker" wrote:
"PhantomView" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:38:02 -0600, "Byker" wrote: "PhantomView" wrote in message ... But a big touring bike would be much more fun. An Indian, maybe a Goldwing trike :-) I did just fine on a Sportster... I had one of those. It was just a little too small, a little too narrow - and that HURT me. Might be OK for younger people though. I'd go on HOG touring rallies, sometimes up to 2,000 miles from home, and people would say, "You rode THAT all the way from Oklahoma?" I'd reply, "What do you think 900cc is, a moped?" I know a guy who rode from Jacksonville FLA as far up the coast into Canada as you can get and then back - with his girlfriend on the pillion ! Amazed they could still walk afterwards. Their ass-ologist will likely make a fortune removing 'roids :-) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:03:02 +1300, George wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:44:12 -0500 PhantomView wrote: That relatively large thick-chord wing gave a lot of lift at low speeds. You did not need a huge engine. The one I tried out was an original J-3. I looked it up and I remember the horsepower was in the 30s. The docs say 37hp. The thing would hold altitude even at about 35 knots - speed of horse. The military bought lots of Cubs back in WW-2. They were cheap, they were relatively quiet, they were stable enough to hang cameras on and could use almost any short patch of grass as an airfield. I guess the fabric skin also did not have much of a signature to what passed as German radar. I never loved tail-draggers though ... there was too much risk of hitting a rut during landing and the thing immediately dumping over on its nose. With the J-3 the thing between you and the engine was the fuel tank ...... Still, a hell of a lot of people post-war leared to fly in surplus Cubs. The Super-Cubs are more "super", but large numbers of J-3s are still up there too. Cessna ... good general-avaition planes. Solid design and I liked the over-wing models because you could actually see the ground below. But alas, the death of cheap AvGas put an end to my flying. Now you can take that 16 and turn the numbers around and then a bit. Hey, guess I could buy one of those Gyrocopter kits - but those things seem to crash a lot. Might be the pilots, might be something about the mechanicals ...... Ooooh ! How about a hydrogen-powered Gyro ? Greta might like that ! :-) Flew a J1 only once the fuel tank was over my knees. Not the safest machine Confirm ... a J-ONE ? I did not know there were any of that model - which was basically a TaylorCraft/Piper prototype - still in service. Cannot be many J-2s either. As for "safe" - I suppose AT THE TIME they were as safe as most other planes. That they were intentionally made to be cheap and minimalistic, well, you get what you pay for. And the cylinder heads were hung out in the breeze. J1 to the original J3 ... yep, out in the breeze. Later variants went to a full cowl. Looked better, but I do not know if it had any functional relevance. The things fly so slow that any wind-resistance factors involved would be rather trivial. A couple of old blokes in the US I used to talk on a group had gyrocopters and seemed quite happy with most of the performance They DO look like good fun. However there also seem to be a lot of crashes. Now with an "X" machine you do not really need much training or anyone to even confirm your heart is beating, so perhaps that is a contributing factor. These things are KITS too, so if you forget to tighten a bolt here, forget a lock-washer there, it could come back to surprise you. I would have to do a lot of research into whether structural issues were a major thing, cracked supports or the rotor popping off. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:18:16 -0500
PhantomView wrote: On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:03:02 +1300, George wrote: On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:44:12 -0500 PhantomView wrote: That relatively large thick-chord wing gave a lot of lift at low speeds. You did not need a huge engine. The one I tried out was an original J-3. I looked it up and I remember the horsepower was in the 30s. The docs say 37hp. The thing would hold altitude even at about 35 knots - speed of horse. The military bought lots of Cubs back in WW-2. They were cheap, they were relatively quiet, they were stable enough to hang cameras on and could use almost any short patch of grass as an airfield. I guess the fabric skin also did not have much of a signature to what passed as German radar. I never loved tail-draggers though ... there was too much risk of hitting a rut during landing and the thing immediately dumping over on its nose. With the J-3 the thing between you and the engine was the fuel tank ...... Still, a hell of a lot of people post-war leared to fly in surplus Cubs. The Super-Cubs are more "super", but large numbers of J-3s are still up there too. Cessna ... good general-avaition planes. Solid design and I liked the over-wing models because you could actually see the ground below. But alas, the death of cheap AvGas put an end to my flying. Now you can take that 16 and turn the numbers around and then a bit. Hey, guess I could buy one of those Gyrocopter kits - but those things seem to crash a lot. Might be the pilots, might be something about the mechanicals ...... Ooooh ! How about a hydrogen-powered Gyro ? Greta might like that ! :-) Flew a J1 only once the fuel tank was over my knees. Not the safest machine Confirm ... a J-ONE ? I did not know there were any of that model - which was basically a TaylorCraft/Piper prototype - still in service. Cannot be many J-2s either. 1963 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:08:27 +1300, George wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:18:16 -0500 PhantomView wrote: On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:03:02 +1300, George wrote: On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:44:12 -0500 PhantomView wrote: That relatively large thick-chord wing gave a lot of lift at low speeds. You did not need a huge engine. The one I tried out was an original J-3. I looked it up and I remember the horsepower was in the 30s. The docs say 37hp. The thing would hold altitude even at about 35 knots - speed of horse. The military bought lots of Cubs back in WW-2. They were cheap, they were relatively quiet, they were stable enough to hang cameras on and could use almost any short patch of grass as an airfield. I guess the fabric skin also did not have much of a signature to what passed as German radar. I never loved tail-draggers though ... there was too much risk of hitting a rut during landing and the thing immediately dumping over on its nose. With the J-3 the thing between you and the engine was the fuel tank ...... Still, a hell of a lot of people post-war leared to fly in surplus Cubs. The Super-Cubs are more "super", but large numbers of J-3s are still up there too. Cessna ... good general-avaition planes. Solid design and I liked the over-wing models because you could actually see the ground below. But alas, the death of cheap AvGas put an end to my flying. Now you can take that 16 and turn the numbers around and then a bit. Hey, guess I could buy one of those Gyrocopter kits - but those things seem to crash a lot. Might be the pilots, might be something about the mechanicals ...... Ooooh ! How about a hydrogen-powered Gyro ? Greta might like that ! :-) Flew a J1 only once the fuel tank was over my knees. Not the safest machine Confirm ... a J-ONE ? I did not know there were any of that model - which was basically a TaylorCraft/Piper prototype - still in service. Cannot be many J-2s either. 1963 Cannot confirm the existence of a "J-1" Cub - either under the Taylor and/or Piper name. A cursorary search of the aircraft registry reveals none. According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Cub What one might call a "J-1", aka a "Taylor TigerKitten", aka "Taylor E-1", was essentially a prototype fitted with a 20hp engine. The engine was not strong enough to allow the plane to clear the runway and it crashed. With a few embellishments, and a stronger (albeit more expensive) engine the Taylor "E-2" was then produced in limited numbers (353 ). The Taylor J-2 was a slightly spiffed-up version. http://www.aviation-history.com/taylor/j2cub.htm When Piper, an early investor, bought-out the bankrupt TaylorCraft, it became known as the "Piper J-2" instead. There were some other "J-1" aircraft out there in the early days, including one built by the creator of the beloved "Jenny"s. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fwench Pwess Weview 09/30/2010: "French taxpayer is going to besqueezed, wrung-out, spin dried...put through a mangle", "Bread and waterwill be the new 'haute cuisine'...","Social injustice strangled growth","Pakist | PJ Himselff | Europe | 1 | September 30th, 2010 02:04 PM |
DC rally by conservatives: "tens of thousands?" "three hundredthousand?" "five hundred thousand?" "A million people came?" The only thingagreed upon was that it was a "vast crowd" and it spells big tr | O'Donovan, PJ, Himself | Europe | 16 | August 31st, 2010 04:16 AM |
"liberalism" to "socialism" to "communism": The "end" justifies the "means" in America | PJ O'Donovan[_1_] | Europe | 5 | February 24th, 2007 05:57 PM |