A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Can aviation go "green"?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 19th, 2020, 05:50 PM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.travel,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation,talk.politics.misc
Byker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default 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  
Old February 19th, 2020, 07:03 PM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.travel,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation,talk.politics.misc
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default 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  
Old February 20th, 2020, 02:57 AM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.travel,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation,talk.politics.misc
PhantomView
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default 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  
Old February 20th, 2020, 03:18 AM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.travel,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation,talk.politics.misc
PhantomView
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default 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  
Old February 20th, 2020, 07:08 PM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.travel,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation,talk.politics.misc
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default 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  
Old February 26th, 2020, 03:00 AM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.travel,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation,talk.politics.misc
PhantomView
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.