Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1856990
RisePilot wrote:You've angered the Gods of Sky by giving aircraft masculine names; they must be feminine names.

Similar to the fact that you shouldn't rename a yacht without the requisite procedure and ceremony to King Neptune or Poseidon.


I knew a Charlotte who was known as Charlie to her friends.
Ben K liked this
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1857065
patowalker wrote:Nigel Beale knows a thing or two about Rotax engines. When I asked him which 912 to fit in my Eurostar, he recommended the 80hp. If the Rotax rep recommends the cheaper engine, there must be a good reason.


Some aeroplanes just can't use the power. The 912 X'Air was one of the most pointless aeroplanes I've ever flown - it works far better with a 582 (or even a Jabiru, in between engine failures).

G
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1857410
Sooty25 wrote:
RisePilot wrote:You've angered the Gods of Sky by giving aircraft masculine names; they must be feminine names.

Similar to the fact that you shouldn't rename a yacht without the requisite procedure and ceremony to King Neptune or Poseidon.


I knew a Charlotte who was known as Charlie to her friends.


So CBs are female. That's consistent with mammatus clouds I guess. And if Viv reads this I can look forward to some sturm-und-drang. :D

Back to topic - congrats, Leia.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1857421
Genghis the Engineer wrote:
patowalker wrote:Nigel Beale knows a thing or two about Rotax engines. When I asked him which 912 to fit in my Eurostar, he recommended the 80hp. If the Rotax rep recommends the cheaper engine, there must be a good reason.


Some aeroplanes just can't use the power. The 912 X'Air was one of the most pointless aeroplanes I've ever flown - it works far better with a 582 (or even a Jabiru, in between engine failures).

G

Tell me about it. I had a 503 Quantum, which I later fitted with a 582. Complete waste of money. It only climbed a bit faster and had little more range.
User avatar
By kanga
#1857529
patowalker wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote:..
Some aeroplanes just can't use the power. The 912 X'Air was one of the most pointless aeroplanes I've ever flown - it works far better with a 582 (or even a Jabiru, in between engine failures).

G

Tell me about it. I had a 503 Quantum, which I later fitted with a 582. Complete waste of money. It only climbed a bit faster and had little more range.


At the other end of the performance spectrum, I've heard that the equivalent was true of the Gloster Javelin with reheat (FAW8/9), but with the original wing: a bit more acceleration, a tiny bit more speed, a huge increase in fuel consumption. One result was adding AAR probes and external tanks to the FAW9s, whose drag largely negated the original speed increase :?

Now, if the proposed 'thin-wing' variant had ever gone into production ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Javelin#Variants
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1857533
Boats and ships are the same, aren't they? There is an optimum power and speed - push harder with bigger engines and you use lots more fuel, create a lot of churned up water and don't go any faster.

I agree with @Genghis the Engineer about the 912 on an Xair - pointless and also turned it into a dog to handle in comparison to other variants because the weight and balance was at the limit of what is acceptable. Too nose heavy - at least subjectively.

Just as with the Skyranger, the original design and engine combination is hard to beat (ie "vanilla" MK1 Xair with a 582).
User avatar
By leiafee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1858113
Rob P wrote:"Charlie Splatt"!
I'm loving the names you give your aircraft

Look if I wanted a 'serious' aeroplane I'd need to be earning more money ;-)

lobstaboy wrote:PS split doors - good for opening for photography and balmy summer evenings...

Yes, looking forward to that if balmy ever arrives...

ArthurG wrote:Charlie Splott, surely, Shirley? :-)

:lol:

On brand...

MattL wrote:Congrats! Looks great fun. What’s the performance like on a machine like that?


It rather appears to depend who you ask! The mate who ferried for us came back at around 75mph

RisePilot wrote:You've angered the Gods of Sky by giving aircraft masculine names; they must be feminine names.


I think I actually know more girl Charlie's than boy Charlies...

Paul_Sengupta wrote:It's not as pretty as the last one, but it should be a good performer, and with the four stroke you've got a fighting (flighting?) chance of the engine not stopping at inopportune times!


It was beginning to get tiresome...

Genghis the Engineer wrote:Looked after properly, there's not a lot of difference in reliability between Rotax 2 and 4 stroke engines (and both are massively better than a certain Australian 4-stroke brand.)


In fairness to the engine, only one was an outright "a part disintegrated"- vapour lock, which was the final guess on our last stoppage can't really be blamed on the engine itself as such.

lobstaboy wrote:Not many folk would call an Xair pretty, but I do think they look good in a cheeky sort of way.


I thought so. If we hadn't lost a years flying to the pandemic and a rotten winter already we'd have rebuilt but the thought of losing another summer was too much.

lobstaboy wrote:One bit of advice for Leia, if I may be excused being presumptuous -
look after the nose leg - they look long and they are. You need very definitely to land on the mains first and keep the nose off the ground as long as possible or sure as eggs the nose wheel will go down a rabbit scrape and bend the nose leg, or turn you over.


Our inspector has already popped down to the hangar to give a similar piece of advice!
Rob P, ArthurG, Genghis the Engineer and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By townleyc
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1858117
leiafee wrote:I think I actually know more girl Charlie's than boy Charlies...

But are they 'proper' Charlies?
KE
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1858139
lobstaboy wrote:Boats and ships are the same, aren't they? There is an optimum power and speed - push harder with bigger engines and you use lots more fuel, create a lot of churned up water and don't go any faster.

I agree with @Genghis the Engineer about the 912 on an Xair - pointless and also turned it into a dog to handle in comparison to other variants because the weight and balance was at the limit of what is acceptable. Too nose heavy - at least subjectively.

Just as with the Skyranger, the original design and engine combination is hard to beat (ie "vanilla" MK1 Xair with a 582).


I think you will find the Skyranger was designed for the 503.
lobstaboy liked this
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1858424
patowalker wrote:
lobstaboy wrote:Boats and ships are the same, aren't they? There is an optimum power and speed - push harder with bigger engines and you use lots more fuel, create a lot of churned up water and don't go any faster.

I agree with @Genghis the Engineer about the 912 on an Xair - pointless and also turned it into a dog to handle in comparison to other variants because the weight and balance was at the limit of what is acceptable. Too nose heavy - at least subjectively.

Just as with the Skyranger, the original design and engine combination is hard to beat (ie "vanilla" MK1 Xair with a 582).


I think you will find the Skyranger was designed for the 503.


As in "can just about cope with that little power", I don't think I'd be a great fan of flying with anything smaller than a 582 in one myself.

I test flew, many years ago the HKS700E engined X'Air Mk.1, It was safe, but not a successful aircraft, and I am quite happy to extrapolate to a hypothetical 503 engined Skyranger.

G
User avatar
By kanga
#1858511
ISTR that the Pietenpol plans as originally sold in the 1920s were for a 40hp Ford car engine. I rather doubt many are now built with an engine of that low power, although the airframe and materials have not otherwise (much ?) changed :)
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1858521
kanga wrote:although the airframe and materials have not otherwise (much ?) changed :)


Can't say the same for people. There aren't many 5'6" 8 stone Pietenpol pilots any more.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1858522
townleyc wrote:
leiafee wrote:I think I actually know more girl Charlie's than boy Charlies...

But are they 'proper' Charlies?
KE


All this talk of girls and Charlies in the same sentence is getting pretty close to donk-territory :oops:
By Bill McCarthy
#1858533
There has been just one instance that I know of where there had been a reduction of power to achieve full speed - as referenced before - HMS Dreadnought pushed through the drag, and thus, power required reduced by 30%.

For speed on minimal power, I’ve always fancied the Quickie Q1 - 120 knots on the 18hp Onan donk.
mick w liked this