Enlighten my wife..........
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thread that would not die
It lives on!
Here is a related thread that may be of some interest: www.ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=21907
Here is a related thread that may be of some interest: www.ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=21907
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're going to be ditching then low wing is preferable
to high wing as (modulo a very poor landing) the cockpit
of the low wing will be above the waterline with the
high wing cockpit below...
-- Andrew
to high wing as (modulo a very poor landing) the cockpit
of the low wing will be above the waterline with the
high wing cockpit below...
-- Andrew
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that depends andrew - the aircraft is most likely to go inverted (or cartwheel (sp?)) upon striking the water - what plane would you prefer now? 
Btw, it doesn't matter what plane is the safest. The plane is only as safe as the pilot flying it! The wright brothers' flyer could be the safest plane in the world, if the pilot knows what the hell he is doing.
Btw, it doesn't matter what plane is the safest. The plane is only as safe as the pilot flying it! The wright brothers' flyer could be the safest plane in the world, if the pilot knows what the hell he is doing.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point there from mattpilot.
Surely the level of maintenance that thea/c has been receiving is important too.
Having just bought a PA28 after owning a 172 I personally don't think there's much in it except for the fact that people definitely perceive the Piper as a proper looking aircraft.
One thing is certain though, the hershey bar wing of the Cherokee is no where near as stable in bumpy air as the 172 which has got acres of wing to smooth things out.
Surely the level of maintenance that thea/c has been receiving is important too.
Having just bought a PA28 after owning a 172 I personally don't think there's much in it except for the fact that people definitely perceive the Piper as a proper looking aircraft.
One thing is certain though, the hershey bar wing of the Cherokee is no where near as stable in bumpy air as the 172 which has got acres of wing to smooth things out.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: U.K
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statistically speaking, having a low wing or a high wing makes no difference to the number of mid air collisions. Its all down to lookout.. or lack of it
I read a paper showing that the PA-38 has the lowest number of fatal accidents.. though I find that hard to believe having flown the damn things. I imagine they have a higher than average number of non fatal or minor accidents.
The Taylor Monoplane has the highest number of fatal accidents in the light aircraft class.
I read a paper showing that the PA-38 has the lowest number of fatal accidents.. though I find that hard to believe having flown the damn things. I imagine they have a higher than average number of non fatal or minor accidents.
The Taylor Monoplane has the highest number of fatal accidents in the light aircraft class.
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AOPA Air Safety Foundation has done VERY detailed reports comparing safety, accident rates, causes of accidents etc etc of 172s and PA-28 series (and others).
Check the link http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/highlights.cfm
Check the link http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/highlights.cfm
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Midlands
Age: 71
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bean Cans
Pipers, Cessnas - all 50's designs.
At least the Robin DR400 design is newer by 20 odd years.
I have flown them all but bought a Robin Regent. Wonderful, marvellous, fantastic. Look at the performance figures. Fly one. Read the reviews.
Even better, look at the smile on your wifes face when you sit her in a Robin. The ladies love 'em!
Wood - Natures Composite.
Nooooooooo Contest!
(make sure you tell her its made of wood and covered with a bed sheet after you've landed and not before!)
A brand new - like 50 hours on the clock! - Regent complete with HSI and more bells and whistles than you can shake a stick at is for hire at Turweston.
Lucky owner bought it and has now decided to go and work in Honkers
Contact Vince - [email protected]
Safety? I am told that the Robin has flown for 10 million hours. I see one regularly that I used to instruct on at Rochester - 12,000 hours and in wonderful condition.
THere are 25,000+ hour examples in France that only see the inside of a hangar during maintenance.
Not a huge number in the UK, very few on hire fleets so be the first to muddy the carpets/ scratch the new paint on the one at Turdy.
HP
At least the Robin DR400 design is newer by 20 odd years.
I have flown them all but bought a Robin Regent. Wonderful, marvellous, fantastic. Look at the performance figures. Fly one. Read the reviews.
Even better, look at the smile on your wifes face when you sit her in a Robin. The ladies love 'em!
Wood - Natures Composite.
Nooooooooo Contest!
(make sure you tell her its made of wood and covered with a bed sheet after you've landed and not before!)
A brand new - like 50 hours on the clock! - Regent complete with HSI and more bells and whistles than you can shake a stick at is for hire at Turweston.
Lucky owner bought it and has now decided to go and work in Honkers
Contact Vince - [email protected]
Safety? I am told that the Robin has flown for 10 million hours. I see one regularly that I used to instruct on at Rochester - 12,000 hours and in wonderful condition.
THere are 25,000+ hour examples in France that only see the inside of a hangar during maintenance.
Not a huge number in the UK, very few on hire fleets so be the first to muddy the carpets/ scratch the new paint on the one at Turdy.
HP
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aren't aircraft with wood very expensive to maintain? The chief mechanic at this flight school here has one, and he needs a termite inspection every 50 hours.
Personally, i aint fond of wood - you aint' gonna find me in one of them
Get a bird strike and half your wing will be gone hehe
Personally, i aint fond of wood - you aint' gonna find me in one of them
Get a bird strike and half your wing will be gone hehe
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mattpilot, if you look at the stats on ditching, it is actually a
reasonably survivable procedure, particularly if you do some
advance planning on the process.
http://www.avweb.com/articles/ditching/
The interesting probable myth is that high-wing aircraft
are more likely to flip than low-wing aircraft...however
it is certainly true that if the aircraft lands reasonably
the crew compartment will be below the water
in a high-wing and above in a low-wing, assisting
evacuation no-end.
-- Andrew
reasonably survivable procedure, particularly if you do some
advance planning on the process.
http://www.avweb.com/articles/ditching/
The interesting probable myth is that high-wing aircraft
are more likely to flip than low-wing aircraft...however
it is certainly true that if the aircraft lands reasonably
the crew compartment will be below the water
in a high-wing and above in a low-wing, assisting
evacuation no-end.
-- Andrew
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mattpilot
You have obviously never seen or flown one.
They are the best thing that money can buy and have excellent performance; good loadhaulers and economy.
Show me any other true four seater that will haul 4 adults around at 130kts excellent vis good access through the sliding canopy burning a measly 8 US GPH.
FD
You have obviously never seen or flown one.
They are the best thing that money can buy and have excellent performance; good loadhaulers and economy.
Show me any other true four seater that will haul 4 adults around at 130kts excellent vis good access through the sliding canopy burning a measly 8 US GPH.
FD
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not quite true - i did fly a tomahawk before and yes, they are cheap (like $40 USD compared to a 152 at $55 USD).
Though i do agree it looks better to be in a low wing aircraft (i do like how beech aircrafts look), i'm just a cessna guy Besides, i enjoy the view down.
Though i do agree it looks better to be in a low wing aircraft (i do like how beech aircrafts look), i'm just a cessna guy
Besides, i enjoy the view down.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi MP
I was referring to the Robin DR400 series.
For your entertainment:
http://www.navaid.demon.co.uk/clubrobin/home.htm
FD
I was referring to the Robin DR400 series.
For your entertainment:
http://www.navaid.demon.co.uk/clubrobin/home.htm
FD
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mattpilot's entertaining views on wooden aeroplanes remind me of the ATPL stude (who had already passed commercial exams, allegedly) who wouldn't get into my group's Cap 10, because it is made of wood, when it was being borrowed by a commercial school. Presumably, he had not heard of delicate, fragile machines such as the De Haviland Mosquito (which were of course notorious for blowing up and crashing if a bird flapped its wings within a mile of one).
Science quiz: which of these two substances is strong, bendy, strong, twisty, strong, resilient, strong, light, strong, strong and also strong? Is it (1) wood or (2) aluminium?
OK, if you park your wooden wonder outside the cows will eat the glued-up bedsheets off the wings or fuselage, but this is just nature's way of telling you to pay out some zloties for a hangar space.
Science quiz: which of these two substances is strong, bendy, strong, twisty, strong, resilient, strong, light, strong, strong and also strong? Is it (1) wood or (2) aluminium?
OK, if you park your wooden wonder outside the cows will eat the glued-up bedsheets off the wings or fuselage, but this is just nature's way of telling you to pay out some zloties for a hangar space.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Benefits of wood
The following is from the www.jodel.com site (specifically from an article entitled "When building an airplane - why build it from wood?", by Erik Eldegard):
"Wood may be the most durable material that can be found to build a plane from. Some people tend to object to this one, so I'll dwell a little here.
"First to the qualities of the wood. Wood is a natural composite. Selected well, wood has an impressing strenght for its weight. A good designer (like M. Delemontez) taking full advantage of its qualities can design light yet strong and stable structures. If taken care of, there will be no problems caused by moisture.
"If a piece of wood looks in order, it is in order. Hidden damage in a wooden structure is very rare indeed - in fact I have never seen such a case. This also implies that an old piece of wood is as good as a new one - or better. In my country, we have wooden buildings that are about 1,000 years old. Taking wood from these (God forbid, by the way), you should have material by no means inferior to exotic / American timber for aircraft use.
"Contrary to this, in an old metal airplane severe corrosion problems often set in. Knowledge of metal fatigue now enables us to calculate a metal airplane's lifelenght. Besides, the structure of any metal is ageing. This process starts when the metal is made, and in fact limits a metal airplane's lifelenght. Very few people seem to realise this. Only the SR-71 might be an exception on these points.
"We have made composite planes since the late 60's, and started out believing they should last forever. Now we know that composites are prone to cracking and crack growth, and vulnerable to ultraviolet rays and moisture."
"Wood may be the most durable material that can be found to build a plane from. Some people tend to object to this one, so I'll dwell a little here.
"First to the qualities of the wood. Wood is a natural composite. Selected well, wood has an impressing strenght for its weight. A good designer (like M. Delemontez) taking full advantage of its qualities can design light yet strong and stable structures. If taken care of, there will be no problems caused by moisture.
"If a piece of wood looks in order, it is in order. Hidden damage in a wooden structure is very rare indeed - in fact I have never seen such a case. This also implies that an old piece of wood is as good as a new one - or better. In my country, we have wooden buildings that are about 1,000 years old. Taking wood from these (God forbid, by the way), you should have material by no means inferior to exotic / American timber for aircraft use.
"Contrary to this, in an old metal airplane severe corrosion problems often set in. Knowledge of metal fatigue now enables us to calculate a metal airplane's lifelenght. Besides, the structure of any metal is ageing. This process starts when the metal is made, and in fact limits a metal airplane's lifelenght. Very few people seem to realise this. Only the SR-71 might be an exception on these points.
"We have made composite planes since the late 60's, and started out believing they should last forever. Now we know that composites are prone to cracking and crack growth, and vulnerable to ultraviolet rays and moisture."
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Midlands
Age: 71
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MMMMmmmm Wood!!
I flew my 1936 wooden wonder to Sweden recently.
Funnily enough, my plane - A Swedish based machine from new - was outlawed there in 1961 'because some wooden planes were dropping to bits' (the super duper new glue some manufacturers used at around that time (Germans!) seemed the Muts Nuts but alas - not so...)
Funny that they welcomed my machine back some 40 years later and were perfectly happy to have it whirling around Stockholm..
All reglued? Nope! OK - some bits have been replaced, and it has been dinged a few times over the years (nothing really serious) but the major structure is original.
Head above parapet time here - anybody with any prejudices about wood that suggest it is other than a wonderful material for aircraft structures is talking out of their ask (!) the craftsmen at Shuttleworth, SkySport etc. THey'll tell you.
If you are lucky - and you might need to pretend you are going to buy one! - get yourself a guided tour around the Robin factory and watch artisans at work.
We are talking spokeshaves, mallets and chisels here.
THe 172 is an OKish sort of a machine - easy to fly but challenging to fly really nicely. I am not biased against composites either - I had a wonderful 109b Grob for 8 years - but given the choice its wooooood for me! - any time!
HP
Funnily enough, my plane - A Swedish based machine from new - was outlawed there in 1961 'because some wooden planes were dropping to bits' (the super duper new glue some manufacturers used at around that time (Germans!) seemed the Muts Nuts but alas - not so...)
Funny that they welcomed my machine back some 40 years later and were perfectly happy to have it whirling around Stockholm..
All reglued? Nope! OK - some bits have been replaced, and it has been dinged a few times over the years (nothing really serious) but the major structure is original.
Head above parapet time here - anybody with any prejudices about wood that suggest it is other than a wonderful material for aircraft structures is talking out of their ask (!) the craftsmen at Shuttleworth, SkySport etc. THey'll tell you.
If you are lucky - and you might need to pretend you are going to buy one! - get yourself a guided tour around the Robin factory and watch artisans at work.
We are talking spokeshaves, mallets and chisels here.
THe 172 is an OKish sort of a machine - easy to fly but challenging to fly really nicely. I am not biased against composites either - I had a wonderful 109b Grob for 8 years - but given the choice its wooooood for me! - any time!
HP
