Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 12
#1797530
skydriller wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote:
Bill McCarthy wrote:Carbon Cub
Or an Escapade fitted to swap from tail wheel to tri gear (for when you’re fed up going though hedges when ground looping it), or vice versa. :twisted:


Uniquely, the Escapade is much more likely to ground loop in the nosewheel than the tailwheel configuration.


So how does that work then? Serious question.

Because the tailwheel is steerable through the rudder pedals but the nosewheel is free castoring.

G
#1797540
TheFarmer wrote:... do you want the bush plane look to do bush plane flying, or juts for the look.


Being a yeoman of the land you'll understand my predicament when I tell you a little about our strip. It's an ex-WW2 airfield, the concrete runways were grubbed up in the 1960s for use as hardcore on the new motorways. Some bright spark first back-filled them with rubble from the last of the London bombsites and topped that off with nine inches of clay.

The clay makes a nice pond liner, last winter some Mallards took up residence in the small lake that persisted on the highest point of the runway. We can't put drains in because of the bricks, concrete, asbestos and gawd knows what else from the backfill.

Having something with a soft footprint will mean I won't be grounded October-April and with a high wing won't be scraping mud off the undersides at the end of each flying day. I've also come to enjoy shooting and have several opportunities for stalking and extended range targets in places like Snowdonia. Dropping in on those would be useful and quicker than a 5-hour drive, even at 90 knots or so.

It's a happy coincidence that I like the look but I think I can justify the configuration.
#1797557
Flintstone wrote:...
Having something with a soft footprint will mean I won't be grounded October-April and with a high wing won't be scraping mud off the undersides at the end of each flying day.

You’re going to be disappointed there.
Our Vagabond is quite capable of flinging mud on the wing underside. Washing it off usually results in wet sleeves.
Last edited by Ian Melville on Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Charles Hunt liked this
#1797569
Ian Melville wrote:
Flintstone wrote:
TheFarmer wrote:...
Having something with a soft footprint will mean I won't be grounded October-April and with a high wing won't be scraping mud off the undersides at the end of each flying day.

You’re going to be disappointed there.
Our Vagabond is quite capable of flinging mud on the wing underside. Washing it off usually results in wet sleeves.


Err, I didn’t say that. :scratch:
#1797586
G-BLEW wrote:
GtE wrote:Because the tailwheel is steerable through the rudder pedals but the nosewheel is free castoring.


Presumably this is an Escapade specific problem as there are plenty of other aircraft with fully castoring nosewheels?

Ian


Yes. I was involved in the certification of both - the tailwheel aeroplane was the baseline, and has a very conventional setup which handles extremely well.

The nosewheel and moveable maingear were not quite an afterthought, but not the core design intent, and adding steering mechanism to the nosegear was deemed to add too much weight and complexity.

The combination of a castoring nosewheel, particular CG range relative to the wheels and (on some builds) heel brakes on the Escapade nosegear mean you have to be aware of the risk of a ground loop and at times more ahead of the aeroplane than, say, on an AA5 which also has a castoring nosewheel, but tends to track straight rather better.

We all on the team considered the nosegear aeroplane acceptable, and it's still very nice to fly - but we also all agreed that the tailwheel aeroplane has the better ground handling. The nosegear aeroplane is very much there because, well, some people just want a nosewheel and otherwise wouldn't have bought the aeroplane.

G
G-BLEW liked this
#1797588
Ian Melville wrote:
Flintstone wrote:Having something with a soft footprint will mean I won't be grounded October-April and with a high wing won't be scraping mud off the undersides at the end of each flying day.

You’re going to be disappointed there.
Our Vagabond is quite capable of flinging mud on the wing underside. Washing it off usually results in wet sleeves.


Better wet sleeves than a muddy back!
#1797651
dmarti32 wrote:Sonex

Aeronca Chief, we have a Hangar Queen at Andrewsfield. The owner possibly would want to sell. There's a guy up north who offers A65 starter conversions (Harry Haig?) . You also would have money left in the Bank.


Unless it were, in eBayspeak, a 'bargin' I think I've made the decision to avoid the vintage aircraft. Might be work asking though, "So how much is this £5000 Aeronca going to cost me?".
#1797661
Well, he won’t like it, but it fits his budget and performance requirements, and I think they’re brilliantly capable and reliable machines...

The mighty Skyranger.

On paper they’re annoyingly 9/10 for everything, and will be a reliable jalopy for him to jump in, skit across the wet grass, and go shooting at 100 mph for 6 hours without any hassles.

I’d buy one.

Yes, I know they’re nosewheel, but if I didn’t have to land on rough fields quite often, I’d have one.

Yes, BMAA too, but that’s no issue with the latest PPL rule changes too.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 12