Aluminium Dreaming

[Nico13]

This is from a male perspective and not intended to be sexist.

 

As a new flyer but one who has admired and worked on a number of planes over the years there is a time that comes when you start considering, if I was to purchase a plane what would it be. Thinking LSA now, I've looked at a few and thought wow that one looks nice and then the practical side pops up and you consider a few others. A high wing perhaps, most practical. And then the low wings come past and the wow factor pops up again.

 

And then, now this is the sexist part, the lady of your dreams rolls by and she is a stunner.

 

Well we've all heard it and even from the lips of the lady's themselves "She's a real beauty isn't she"

 

So what would be the lady in your life, forgetting practicality but not going silly with the dollars.

 

Tell us about your dream.

 

My recent aluminium dream lady came past the other day while surfing the web as we do and yes she's a stunner alright, well in my eyes anyway and she is an RV3, a hot little lady.

 

 

 

[Litespeed]

If money and sense was no object.............

 

A Risen- very sexy, fast and a real smooth skinned beauty, Mmmmmmmmmmm

 

 

[bexrbetter]

A high wing perhaps, most practical. And then the low wings come past and .....

.... and I'll take both thanks, cause i'm greedy.

 

Griffon Lionheart (strutless), with the strutted wing Beech Staggerwing a close second ...

 

 

 

 

[mnewbery]

Any Mooney built before 1970 but specifically the Mooney M22 Mustang. Not to fly. Just to look at

 

 

[Nico13]

If money and sense was no object.............

A Risen- very sexy, fast and a real smooth skinned beauty, Mmmmmmmmmmm

Ahhh I see what you mean about the Risen, very nice

 

 

[Yenn]

A bit bigger than the RV3.

 

This is my RV4.

 

 

[Nico13]

[ATTACH=full]49865[/ATTACH]A bit bigger than the RV3.This is my RV4.

Nice one Yenn, I'd have to fly it solo to stay under the RAA 600 kg or hope they have a win with the new weight limits and that would be nice.

 

 

[Nico13]

Any Mooney built before 1970 but specifically the Mooney M22 Mustang. Not to fly. Just to look at

Always liked the look of the Mooney's they had a pretty good reputation as very nice plane to fly.

 

 

[rgmwa]

What about this one? Not an RV3/4 but it's aluminium, 600 kg and you don't need to win Lotto to have one (although that would be nice).

 

 

 

[rgmwa]

Here's another LSA contender. I like the look of this one.

 

 

 

[Nico13]

Here's another LSA contender. I like the look of this one.

Ah the red ones go faster but what is it?

Looks RV3ish at first glance but the undercarriage amongst other things says it's not.

 

 

[rgmwa]

Ah the red ones go faster but what is it?Looks RV3ish at first glance but the undercarriage amongst other things says it's not.

Panther: https://flywithspa.com/

 

 

[Peter Anson]

Hate to suggest practicality, but first decide what what sort of flying you want to do and how much money you are prepared to spend. If you are never going to carry a passenger and want something fast you can't go past an RV3, and they do appear on the used market. If the panther looks the goods you'll have to build it yourself. If it must be registered RAA and you want to be able to carry a passenger there is a huge range. Here's my option:

 

 

The Sonex is good fun to fly and it's faster than most of the plastic fantastics but it's not to everyone's taste. The price for the performance is a compact cabin and limited load but the financial cost is lower.

 

 

[pylon500]

Here's another LSA contender. I like the look of this one.

Saw the prototype of this (probably that one) at Oshkosh '13.

Slick as an RV, simple as a Sonex, designed around a Corvair engine, but would take a Jab3300.

 

Folding wings.

 

Was very tempted...

 

It is currently a single seater, but I think a two seat could be in the works, but would compete with old RV4's.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Not saying I don't find almost all of the aforementioned (mostly aluminium constructed) aircraft very very attractive in a veteran car sort of way - I do - BUT have you stopped for a moment to think;

 

• Why stick with aluminium in this day/age when far more aerodynamic friendly materials are available ?
   
   
  
• Most of your aly fantastics are American designed, need lots of HP's , US buckets of petrol and are very noisy.
   
   
  
• Mainly Europeans, but basicly the rest of the World, is building way more efficient/ easy care airframes out of non aly materials.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[rgmwa]

For the average homebuilder, aluminium is much easier to work with than composites.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[IBob]

Not saying I don't find almost all of the aforementioned (mostly aluminium constructed) aircraft very very attractive in a veteran car sort of way - I do - BUT have you stopped for a moment to think;

 

• Why stick with aluminium in this day/age when far more aerodynamic friendly materials are available ?
   
   
  
• Most of your aly fantastics are American designed, need lots of HP's , US buckets of petrol and are very noisy.
   
   
  
• Mainly Europeans, but basicly the rest of the World, is building way more efficient/ easy care airframes out of non aly materials.
   
   
  

Perhaps you would could lead all we veteran car sort of people out of our dark ages and into the light by recommending some mainly European, low HP, economical, quiet, efficient and easy care airframes...so that we can see what we are missing, and mend our ways?

 

 

[Nico13]

Not saying I don't find almost all of the aforementioned (mostly aluminium constructed) aircraft very very attractive in a veteran car sort of way - I do - BUT have you stopped for a moment to think;

 

• Why stick with aluminium in this day/age when far more aerodynamic friendly materials are available ?
   
   
  
• Most of your aly fantastics are American designed, need lots of HP's , US buckets of petrol and are very noisy.
   
   
  
• Mainly Europeans, but basicly the rest of the World, is building way more efficient/ easy care airframes out of non aly materials.
   
   
  

The title was just a generic description really and yes I do admire them all from fabric to carbon

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Perhaps you would could lead all we veteran car sort of people out of our dark ages and into the light by recommending some mainly European, low HP, economical, quiet, efficient and easy care airframes...so that we can see what we are missing, and mend our ways?

Its not a question of "mending your ways" more of opening your minds to other possibilities.

 

Quit by accident, I made one of my better landings in front of a beautiful yellow Cub (style?) aircraft the other day. The pilot was gobsmacked at how quiet my Zephyr is, that it runs on ULP, does 100 knots at less than 13 L/h (one pilot). Can stooge around at 7- 8L/h at 50 knots or do 120 knots @ 18L/h. Climb at 1000 +ft/min. Take off with full fuel in 100m and if I get my act together, land in 200m (minimal wind). This is a 17 year old advanced kit built 19 Rego made of the original composite (wood) fiberglass and some fabric with a two blade ground adjusted prop set to climb advantage.

 

I dont pretend to be an expert or have any more than a small bit of knowledge, but in the two seat Rotax ULS (100hp) powered composite world there are several genuine 130 knot + cruise aircraft.

 

Dont be fooled by exaggerated claims of performance - if the aircraft can not do 100 knots @ 13 litres per hour (or less) it is unlikely to do 130 knots @ 20 + litres per hour.

 

At least one of these plastic fantastics has independent verification of performance figures and has flown around the world.

 

Many are factory built but some come as "advanced" kits.

 

For starters you might like to check out the ATEC Faeta (T tail) & Faeta NG (conventional tail). There are others but I must ask you to discover them for yourself.

 

Many of these aircraft are made in countries formerly behind the "Iron Curtain".

 

 

[rgmwa]

The Sling 2 and 4 have both flown around the world, and they are conventional alum aircraft. Not disputing the aerodynamic efficiency of composite aircraft, nor the remarkable ability of the Eastern Europeans to produce excellent aircraft, but all aircraft designs are compromises and for home building, aluminium aircraft kits are still hard to beat for ease of construction and performance.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[IBob]

Its not a question of "mending your ways" more of opening your minds to other possibilities.Quit by accident, I made one of my better landings in front of a beautiful yellow Cub (style?) aircraft the other day. The pilot was gobsmacked at how quiet my Zephyr is, that it runs on ULP, does 100 knots at less than 13 L/h (one pilot). Can stooge around at 7- 8L/h at 50 knots or do 120 knots @ 18L/h. Climb at 1000 +ft/min. Take off with full fuel in 100m and if I get my act together, land in 200m (minimal wind). This is a 17 year old advanced kit built 19 Rego made of the original composite (wood) fiberglass and some fabric with a two blade ground adjusted prop set to climb advantage.

 

I dont pretend to be an expert or have any more than a small bit of knowledge, but in the two seat Rotax ULS (100hp) powered composite world there are several genuine 130 knot + cruise aircraft.

 

Dont be fooled by exaggerated claims of performance - if the aircraft can not do 100 knots @ 13 litres per hour (or less) it is unlikely to do 130 knots @ 20 + litres per hour.

 

At least one of these plastic fantastics has independent verification of performance figures and has flown around the world.

 

Many are factory built but some come as "advanced" kits.

 

For starters you might like to check out the ATEC Faeta (T tail) & Faeta NG (conventional tail). There are others but I must ask you to discover them for yourself.

 

Many of these aircraft are made in countries formerly behind the "Iron Curtain".

All aircraft designs are a balance of performance compromises.

 

Most aircraft purchases/builds are also compromises of means.

 

It's really good that you are happy with the compromises you personally chose.

 

This, however, does not make other people's choices 'wrong' or our minds 'closed'.

 

It probably just means that, for all sorts of reasons, we don't all share your priorities.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

The Sling 2 and 4 have both flown around the world, and they are conventional alum aircraft. Not disputing the aerodynamic efficiency of composite aircraft, nor the remarkable ability of the Eastern Europeans to produce excellent aircraft, but all aircraft designs are compromises and for home building, aluminium aircraft kits are still hard to beat for ease of construction and performance.rgmwa

As with many of the very "sexy" looking small aircraft that are available these days, I am quite sceptical of the Sling performance figures. If you want real world figures see how they have performed in independent competition/assessments (most don't enter for obvious reasons). Quite often the highly optimistic performance figures don't "stack up" under close analysis.

 

I don't actually have a problem with aluminium. Most of the current crop of aluminium aircraft have a high component of composite (plastic).

 

I think it would be fair to argue, in this context, that the true meaning of "composite" should be "made of many materials".

 

I accept that aluminium is probably an easier material to work with, particularly when supplied pre bent, cut & punched.

 

Going back to the original post, even the RV3 featured will have a lot of plastic components.

 

All materials have their positive & negative features - I guess its up to the individual to weigh the options for their particular circumstances. In the 100 (+/-) hp aircraft range, I believe that for shear economy (inc long term maintenance costs ) of operation, quietness (in/out) its hard to beat a Rotax powered, mainly plastic aircraft (there are exceptions see Robin Austin's Soneri VH-SGS)

 

(Give me a Mooney M20 Turbo)

 

 

[eightyknots]

 

As with many of the very "sexy" looking small aircraft that are available these days, I am quite sceptical of the Sling performance figures. If you want real world figures see how they have performed in independent competition/assessments (most don't enter for obvious reasons). Quite often the highly optimistic performance figures don't "stack up" under close analysis.I don't actually have a problem with aluminium. Most of the current crop of aluminium aircraft have a high component of composite (plastic).

 

I think it would be fair to argue, in this context, that the true meaning of "composite" should be "made of many materials".

 

I accept that aluminium is probably an easier material to work with, particularly when supplied pre bent, cut & punched.

 

Going back to the original post, even the RV3 featured will have a lot of plastic components.

 

All materials have their positive & negative features - I guess its up to the individual to weigh the options for their particular circumstances. In the 100 (+/-) hp aircraft range, I believe that for shear economy (inc long term maintenance costs ) of operation, quietness (in/out) its hard to beat a Rotax powered, mainly plastic aircraft (there are exceptions see Robin Austin's Soneri VH-SGS)

 

(Give me a Mooney M20 Turbo)

The true meaning of composite is "made of two or more materials" ...so glass fibre and polyester resin would easily qualify as a composite. It doesn't necessarily have to be "many materials".

 

I still would like to hear of a better-than-aluminium aeroplane (with a composite streamlined cowl) that I can build in a backyard shed with relative ease that will be durable, and have a wide flight envelope as well; additionally, I would like a history of many such planes to be flying with proven reliability ...I am not interested in one-off flights of fancy. If such examples can be given, I will mend my way as well.

 

BTW: Nowhere can I see how many ATEC Faeta aircraft are flying.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

The true meaning of composite is "made of two or more materials" ...so glass fibre and polyester resin would easily qualify as a composite. It doesn't necessarily have to be "many materials".

 

I still would like to hear of a better-than-aluminium aeroplane (with a composite streamlined cowl) that I can build in a backyard shed with relative ease that will be durable, and have a wide flight envelope as well; additionally, I would like a history of many such planes to be flying with proven reliability ...I am not interested in one-off flights of fancy. If such examples can be given, I will mend my way as well.

 

BTW: Nowhere can I see how many ATEC Faeta aircraft are flying.

Composite - In your words " ...two or more ...." my words "... many materials...." hardly worth commenting on the difference.

 

"....aluminium aeroplane (with a composite streamlined cowl) ...." - I think you will find most (which allows for not all) aluminium aircraft will also have plastic wing & empennage tips, spats, tail cone, wing to fuselage fillets, bucket seat bases, etc etc. It's a lot easier to fabricate a streamlined 3 D shape out of plastic than it is out metal.

 

I think I conceded that aluminium is probably easier to build with than the variose "glass/plastic" materials. If its ease you are after stick to aly. If you want something that truly has a usable (low stall/ high cruise, quiet, low fuel(ULP) consumptions) wide flight envelope you may just have to compromise.

 

In recreational flying the discipline that is most concerned with performance would have to be gliding - does it seem strange to you that the metal glider is now a museum piece?

 

I think I also agreed that each builder/pilot will make whatever decision suits their needs (budget, aircraft performance etc).

 

History is when a "happening" moves into the past. It is right and proper that pilots should be cautious about new aviation technologies, however (in my humble opinion) if we all took your view, aviation would not have got "off the ground" nor would we have progressed much beyond the worthy Tiger Moth.

 

I gave you but one example (from my personal bias) - do a bit of Googling and you will find quite a few more.

 

ATEC have been building small aircraft since1996. My Zephyr is a 2000 model with nearly 750 hrs of trouble free operation. The Fayeta range (based on the Zephyr) started in 2003 with the Fayeta NG being the latest development. The present range of aircraft represent conservative incremental development/improvement over time. ATEC are not given to exaggerated performance claims (check these out for yourself).

 

ATEC aircraft enjoy an excellent reputation in Europe. This small company has survived where many a flashier manufacturer has faded away. This is due to the quality and value for money their aircraft represent.

 

There are about eight or so Zephyrs and one Fayeta flying in Australia. A Fayeta NG will be imported about the middle of this year. As far as I know, all airframes imported from the late 1990's to the present day, are still flying.

 

 

[IBob]

Havin' great times back in History here...keeping it Recreational, which means for enjoyment...what a boring world it would be if we all enjoyed the same thing...and insisted every one else did the same???