Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:19 AM - Re: Wooden aircraft vs. metal (Noel Loveys)
2. 08:40 AM - Re: Wooden aircraft vs. metal (Chris In Madison)
3. 09:08 AM - Re: Re: Wooden aircraft vs. metal (Joseph Larson)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wooden aircraft vs. metal |
When I was teenager my father built a Volmer Jensen Design VJ22 Sportsman
Amphib. This was a wood fuselage but he installed Aeronca Champ wings. As
I remember it too get everything to fit right took about ten hours of
thinking for every hour of actual doing. I lot of the "grunt" work I got to
do. While dad did all the fitting and planning into shape.
The most difficult part of the actual hands on work was getting the aircraft
grade mahogany plywood and then driving those tiny soft brass nails through
such incredibly hard wood. Every joint was glued with waterproof resorcinol
glue, Nailed with brass nails (much longer than tacks) and then clamped
tightly until the glue set.
After all the wood work was done there was a lot of finish work done with
fibre glass. When you get to that stage I can recommend a good sealed suit
to keep the dust from getting into your clothes. And a good respirator. The
new epoxies in some ways are far superior and easier materials to work with
than the old poly-urethane but you can develop a sensitivity to them very
easily.
Some of the metal planes are self jigging (Zenith) and except for the
compressor and the riveter should be buildable with the tools found around a
well equipped garage. I won't tell you they can be built with a Swiss army
knife as the first line tool. But construction should be fairly easily if
you pay very close attention to the construction manual. There's lots of
grunt work there too. I figure about a bazillion holes have to be de-burred
edges rounded and chamfered Etc.Etc.
If you don't mind buying a frame, tube and rag will probably get you in the
air the fastest. I only recommend starting from a supply of 4130 steel tube
if you are a very accomplished welder and have all the welding equipment.
That type of construction lends itself more to assembly but there is still a
surprising amount of fabrication that needs to be done.
Composite aircraft really need to be bought in kit form. The building of
moulds for a "one of plane is immensely expen$$$$ive!!! Bought as a kit you
can have a great plane. The important thing is to ensure all your glue
joints are good with no voids any where Again a proper Composites closed
suit and respirator will be a first line requirement. Bring money, a lot of
these designs also like to use large engines to drive the planes even
faster!
Depending on the type of flying you expect to be doing you may want to check
into the "Sport Pilot" class of aviation. Planes are small, relatively
inexpensive compared to GA, available BUT there are many restrictions which
you personally may find too limiting.
On April 12, 2007 that's the way I see it.
Good luck
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-homebuilt-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-homebuilt-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Homebuilt-List Digest Server
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:27 AM
> To: Homebuilt-List Digest List
> Subject: Homebuilt-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 04/11/07
>
>
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete Homebuilt-List Digest can also be found in
> either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the
> Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features
> Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain
> ASCII version
> of the Homebuilt-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic
> text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&Vie
> w=html&Chapter 07-04-11&Archive=Homebuilt
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&Vie
> w=txt&Chapter 07-04-11&Archive=Homebuilt
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Homebuilt-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Wed 04/11/07: 3
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 09:10 AM - Wooden aircraft vs. metal (Chris In Madison)
> 2. 09:24 AM - Re: Wooden aircraft vs. metal (Steve Eldredge)
> 3. 06:40 PM - Re: Wooden aircraft vs. metal
> (EuropaXSA276@aol.com)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:10:09 AM PST US
> Subject: Homebuilt-List: Wooden aircraft vs. metal
> From: "Chris In Madison" <cowens@cnw.com>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've had my eye on several wooden aircraft as of late, one
> being completely wooden,
> and a couple having wooden wings and metal bodies. I've
> started considering
> them as potential project candidates because I've got plenty
> of woodworking
> tools, but would have to invest in a fair amount of tooling
> if I were to build
> a sheetmetal aircraft or an aircraft with sheetmetal wings.
>
> At first, from reading various articles and postings here and
> there across the
> Net, I'd have thought that the cost to construct a wooden
> aircraft would be less
> than a metal one. However, after looking at the current
> prices of wood versus
> the sheets of aluminum, it doesn't look like I'd be gaining
> much in the way
> of cost savings (tool costs not withstanding). But I haven't
> done a complete
> cost analysis since I don't have any particular wooden
> aircraft plans to work
> with.
>
> Does anyone here have experience with both types that can
> offer any kind of comparison
> between them, cost or otherwise? I'm not tied to any
> particular construction
> method, but am partial to high-wing aircraft such as the
> Bearhawk (disclaimer:
> I have plans for this one in hand), Christavia Mk-IV,
> Falconar S14 Maranda,
> and Bakeng Deuce.
>
> Thanks for any thoughts you may have.
>
> Best regards,
> Chris
>
> --------
> Chris Owens
> Waunakee, WI
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=106287#106287
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:24:20 AM PST US
> Subject: RE: Homebuilt-List: Wooden aircraft vs. metal
> From: "Steve Eldredge" <steve@byu.edu>
>
>
> Chris,
> Just get started. Forget about counting cost. I have neither time or
> money and I still do it. Any costs you can anticipate will be
> overshadowed by unforeseen ones later. If you really are concerned
> about steel vs Aluminum vs wood, buy someones' half-finished project.
> Every material has gone up in price since I started in this hobby 10
> years ago. It is still worth it. I started by building a
> pietenpol for
> $5000 in materials, including engine and paint. I bet I
> could still do
> it for less than $10K.
>
> Advice: worth what you paid for it....
>
>
> Steve E
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-homebuilt-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-homebuilt-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Chris In
> Madison
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:10 AM
> Subject: Homebuilt-List: Wooden aircraft vs. metal
>
> <cowens@cnw.com>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've had my eye on several wooden aircraft as of late, one being
> completely wooden, and a couple having wooden wings and metal bodies.
> I've started considering them as potential project candidates because
> I've got plenty of woodworking tools, but would have to
> invest in a fair
> amount of tooling if I were to build a sheetmetal aircraft or an
> aircraft with sheetmetal wings.
>
> At first, from reading various articles and postings here and there
> across the Net, I'd have thought that the cost to construct a wooden
> aircraft would be less than a metal one. However, after
> looking at the
> current prices of wood versus the sheets of aluminum, it doesn't look
> like I'd be gaining much in the way of cost savings (tool costs not
> withstanding). But I haven't done a complete cost analysis since I
> don't have any particular wooden aircraft plans to work with.
>
> Does anyone here have experience with both types that can
> offer any kind
> of comparison between them, cost or otherwise? I'm not tied to any
> particular construction method, but am partial to high-wing aircraft
> such as the Bearhawk (disclaimer: I have plans for this one in hand),
> Christavia Mk-IV, Falconar S14 Maranda, and Bakeng Deuce.
>
> Thanks for any thoughts you may have.
>
> Best regards,
> Chris
>
> --------
> Chris Owens
> Waunakee, WI
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=106287#106287
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:40:15 PM PST US
> From: EuropaXSA276@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Homebuilt-List: Wooden aircraft vs. metal
>
> Chris:
> Have you considered a composite aircraft? Many of your on
> hand wood working
> tools and skills will apply to that type of construction.
> In my humble opinion you get the best bang for the buck with
> composite
> construction.
> But the other gentleman had it right. Start a project that
> you want to fly.
> You are in this for the long haul and the money does not go
> away all at once.
> So build something that will keep your interest for a number
> of years. That's
> how long it will take to build the darn thing!
>
> Brian Skelly
> Europa XS TriGear #A276
> North Texas USA
> You can see my build photos at:
> http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS
>
>
> ************************************** See what's free at
> http://www.aol.com.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wooden aircraft vs. metal |
I appreciate your thoughts and insights, everyone.
It seems everyone has their own favorite airframe type, and that's great. Each
has its own advantages.
>From what I can see and from the replies I've seen here, there's really no cost
benefit of choosing one form over another. Each is fraught with monetary peril
and has its own set of advantages, so I should just choose the aircraft I
like the most and roll with it.
Now I just have to explain all the good stuff to my wife :D
Thanks and best regards,
Chris
--------
Chris Owens
Waunakee, WI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=106509#106509
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wooden aircraft vs. metal |
Chris,
If cost is the overdriving concern but you want a "real" airplane (as
opposed to something made out of tube and fabric and a lawnmower-
sized engine), then my recommendation would be to consider choice of
engines.
The RV-9 can be built more economically than some other airplanes out
there, but still gives you fabulous performance. The economy comes
from allowing a smaller, less expensive engine.
Stick in a basic VFR-only panel and you don't have to spend an arm
and a leg.
Another choice would be to first find an engine, then pick a design
that takes the engine.
If you manage the cost of the panel (which can be done if you go
basic VFR), then the next biggest cost is usually the engine. The
engine for my -6A will cost more than the airframe (at least that
part of the airframe that goes to Van's). Your biggest savings comes
from smart engine choice.
-Joe
On Apr 12, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Chris In Madison wrote:
> <cowens@cnw.com>
>
> I appreciate your thoughts and insights, everyone.
>
> It seems everyone has their own favorite airframe type, and that's
> great. Each has its own advantages.
>
>> From what I can see and from the replies I've seen here, there's
>> really no cost benefit of choosing one form over another. Each is
>> fraught with monetary peril and has its own set of advantages, so
>> I should just choose the aircraft I like the most and roll with it.
>
> Now I just have to explain all the good stuff to my wife :D
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Chris
>
> --------
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|