[David H]

You'll be OK after the operation, I felt no pain !!

[hatzflyer]

I have owned 2 condors, jodel120,119,d9 and 1050.emeraude and minicab.
All round I would say the minicab is the best for strip flying
I have said many times before this thread that I believe the minicab to be one of the best kept secrets in permit a/c, I just don't understand why there aren't more flying in this country.
My son has flown most of the above and bought a minicab and is delighted with it .
I suppose some clever dick will ask why he is selling it , so I might as well tell you...to make way for an RV4.

[MichaelP]

The Minicab is small inside, very cosy, and that's why it hasn't caught on as well as it should.
I have a lot of time in all sorts of Jodels and they are very efficient.
I'd take a Jodel 150 Mascaret over most of them, though the most competent strip aeroplane of them all is the Jodel 140 Mousquetaire.

You need to be careful with rot in the older french built Jodels, especially around the top undercarriage leg area. Water can rot the wood out on the top of the spar... Keep the Jodel in a hangar!

All these aeroplanes are susceptible to water damage in the rear fuselage by the stern post.

G AWEI was my second Condor. I restored her and painted her in an attractive red white and blue scheme.
Since I was hiring out my aeroplanes, the Condor was the best all round aeroplane. It was strong and friendly, it was the best training aeroplane I have ever flown.
I have not yet flown another trainer that has been as honest and to the book as the Condor, the Condor did everything right.
As a wooden aeroplane it had the least amount of airframe trouble too.

[hatzflyer]

M,I agree the Jodel 140 is the best of the bunch mentioned, but you are not really comparing apples with apples.The 140 is a massive 5 seater with 180 hp.You could hangar 2 minicabs in the same space!
The Masceret is superb I agree, but you could buy 2 or even 21/2 minicabs for the price of one of those.
As you said, the condor is tough as old boots, and an excellent trainer,I have done many taildragger conversions in them.They are worse than the minicab at biting fools though.We used them to demonstrate the "hallo mum ".This is where students fly over their own house waving at someone on the ground and increase the bank and pull a little too hard to tighten the turn.The condor will flick over on its back in the opposite direction quicker than you can say it.Its a well known party trick to those that know it ,but a killer in the wrong hands.
As a tourer it's lack of range make it a non starter.
I don't know where you are coming from on the minicab, its a tardis, tiny on the outside (= low hangaredge) but quite suprising on the inside. Matt flies his regularly (he is 6ft 2, 15stone ) with a similar sized passenger and 4/5 hrs fuel. 350yds is ample. Are we talking about the same plane?

[MichaelP]

I suppose it depends upon the builder...
I'm 5 foot 7 inches and it was somewhat cosy for me... I've seen Minicabs built with a blown canopy to give more headroom.

I've done a lot of stalls off steep turns in the Condor... I must have more than 2,000 hours in these aeroplanes! All it would do for me was flick to level or a little beyond.
Of course you can accentuate the effect by applying rudder. The rudder is powerful and she'll flick easily.

But the Minicab did flick easily off a turn...
I knew the chap who owned Hook strip at the time and he died **** off the final turn in his Minicab.
Such things make me aware... I like the Minicab but I'm also aware of its character.

Matt flies his regularly (he is 6ft 2, 15stone ) with a similar sized passenger and 4/5 hrs fuel. 350yds is ample.

Then he is flying well over gross!

[MichaelP]

Let's see:

30 stone = 420lbs
4 hours at 4gph = 16 x 6 = 96lbs (Please excuse the USG, I could use IMP @ 7lbs/gallon and a bit less fuel consumption)
No baggage I hope!
516lbs weight.

Example 1:
Empty weight: 265 kg (584 lb)
Gross weight: 480 kg (1,058 lb)
584 + 516 = 1,100lbs I suppose it's only 42lbs over gross...

Example 2:
Max. take off weight: 485 kg | 1069 lbs
Empty weight: 270 kg | 595 lbs

Engine: Continental A65

595 + 516 = 1,111lbs I suppose it's still only 42lbs over gross...

The great strip performance comes from its power:weight ratio... With a C85 this should be a lot better than the A65 examples above, these engines weigh a similar amount unless you add a starter and a generator.

There's a definition of horsepower, and it's the amount of excess horsepower you have that determines acceleration and climb performance.

One of the faults of my training was that there was no real emphasis on weight and balance calculation.
I loaded the Jodel 105A Ambassadeur with 12 gallons in the front, 12 gallons in the back, me 150lbs, right seat passenger 170lbs and rear seat passenger 170lbs. She flew and we did what we did, and I flew many times like this.
Yes we can fly an aeroplane well over its certified weight and get away with it many times.
But should we????

Once at Biggin Hill the student came to the examiner I was talking to at the time and told him they couldn't fly, the Cessna 152 was 40 pounds over gross. The examiner responded "that's OK, let's go", was that a good lesson???



I flew this Condor easily off soft soil in 150 yards lightened to about the same power:weight ratio and perhaps wing loading of a Minicab.
The Vickers VC10 flew out of Brooklands lightened up for its maiden flight!
All aircraft have better performance if their weight is reduced.
Fly them overgross and you should be deadly careful.

[Private Jet]

I did my entire PPL on C152's and as far as instruction went, Weight and Balance might as well have been a comedy double act. If it wasn't for "I learned about flying from that" I probably would never have bothered.

[MichaelP]

I flew this Condor easily off soft soil in 150 yards lightened to about the same power:weight ratio and perhaps wing loading of a Minicab.

So I did some numbers:

Minicab: 108 ft², MTOW 1,058 lb = 9.8lbs/ft²
Condor: 119.8ft², MTOW 1,475lb = 12.3lbs/ft²

40lbs over gross
Minicab 10.18lbs/ft² (+4%)
Condor 12.64 lbs/ft² (+2.8%)

Isle of Grain, Condor G AWEI (~980lbs empty, 30lbs fuel, one Michael @ 150lbs) = 1,160lbs = 9.68lbs/ ft²
Somehow I remember G AWEI as being 932lbs empty... It's been a long time.

Power to weight ratio:

Minicab 65hp = 16.28lbs/hp
Minicab 85hp = 12.45lbs/hp
Condor 98hp = 15.05lbs/hp
Condor 130hp = 11.35lbs/hp

Isle of Grain Condor: 11.84lbs/hp

Numbers are more accurate than pilots when it comes to performance.
Pilots are more accurate than numbers when it comes to appreciating good handling.

[hatzflyer]

Most mincabs are NOT a65 powered ! you shouldn't come on here posting advice based on assumptions and giving false information.As you said, "numbers are more accurate..when it comes to performance."
The power to weight ratios you have quoted are assuming max engine power is available at take off .That is not the case unless you have a VP prop. With a cruise prop on a 0-200 you will be lucky to get 80hp on take off because the 0-200 develops max hp at 2550rpm (from memory) .The C90 delivers 90hp at 2400rpm,so taking 2300 static max revs the C90 actually gives more hp for take off. It is also lighter than the 0-200 which is an added bonus.
minicabs are more often flown with C90's nowadays, some have been re enginged with 0-200 s some have the heavier but more powerfull GPU conversion and I have seen one at least with 130 hp.

[PeteM]

Sorry Hatz the O-200 is much worst than that. It generates 100hp at 2750rpm. The usual static rpm is about 2300 - which represents about 60% of the max hp (75% is 2475rpm or thereabout). Which is largely why the C90 is often considered a 'better' engine as it can generate more power at take-off than its 'more modern' successor!

From memory the C90 actually makes 95 hp at 2475 with a 5 minute(?) limitation - if you could make it spin that fast!

[hatzflyer]

Thanks Pete, as I said I was working from memory, I didn't have the figures in front of me.
All this is really thread drift, The op asked about minicabs and as I have access to one I offered him a ride in one.
Just for the record I made the same offer to Keef at our last curry meet when I was extolling the virtues of the minicab that night long before this thread came about.He loves his jodel and I was telling him that the minicab is better in my opinion and he was welcome to try for himself.
The proof of the pudding......

[MichaelP]

The power to weight ratios you have quoted are assuming max engine power is available at take off .That is not the case

I agree!

So the situation is of a different degree to what I have portrayed as far as power to weight ratio, but you get the idea.
Probably only 70% of the power is available on takeoff, and 100% is only available in straight flight at red line at sea level on an ISA day with clean fresh spark plugs!
But the sense is true, it takes a certain amount of power to weight ratio to produce a certain performance.

We have not even considered Reynolds numbers yet!
Smaller wings have different qualities to larger ones.

Most mincabs are NOT a65 powered !

Which is why I put in the C85 version.

the 0-200 develops max hp at 2550rpm

2,750 RPM. It's etched in my memory.
The Evra D11 28 4C propeller (memory again) would give you about 2,350 to 2,400 RPM on takeoff, I'd have to look at the power curve to determine the horsepower... The thrust curve would be different however as the propeller efficiency would change.

You are correct about CSU propellers... I watch the 80hp Rotax Katana out climb the 98hp O-200 Cessna 150 easily in the hot temperatures of Thailand even though the Cessna's prop is a 'climb' prop.

Does the Minicab's MTOW change with the larger engine?

you shouldn't come on here posting advice based on assumptions and giving false information

True, I agree, the use of 98/85/65 horsepower for takeoff is inaccurate.
However, all aircraft perform within their own limitations.
I'm as guilty as anyone of flying overloaded, but I've also learned a lot of lessons about CG and weight and their effects on performance.
We get away with a lot of things...

Hatz wrote: "Matt flies his regularly (he is 6ft 2, 15stone ) with a similar sized passenger and 4/5 hrs fuel."
This advice on the capabilities of the Minicab is based on an overgross situation, I know of very few small aeroplanes that can carry the above load. 4/5 hours of fuel is anywhere from 16 to 30 US gallons depending on the engine fitted so the weigh of fuel alone would be up to 180lbs.
Is it correct to suggest an aeroplane be operated above its MTOW in order to prove why one should buy such an aircraft?
Shouldn't one buy an aircraft that can legally carry a desired payload?

I'm sorry we're having this argument Hatz, we all like our aeroplanes, but this discussion should reflect the reality of each type.
We all have our opinions and that is why there's a forum like this.
One thing is for certain however, and that is you are far more current in the Minicab than I am!

O-200 is much worst than that. It generates 100hp at 2750rpm

Rollasons never got more than 98bhp out of an O-200, that's why I used that figure.

All of the French wooden aeroplanes of late 40's and 1950's were good in their own ways.
Even the Condor was originally built with a smaller engine (in France) but this aeroplane is too big and heavy for anything less than an O-200.
My opinion for what it's worth is that each of these aeroplanes has its own good and bad points and none of them is the perfect all around aeroplane (though the Condor came close ). Not that I'm biased!

Each person should choose an aeroplane based on the merits that most suit that person.

I bought Condors because they were the best aeroplanes for what I had in mind.

The Minicab is a brilliant personal aeroplane but it has its limitations.
Take a little more runway and a Jodel Mascaret will take you to the South of France easily and very efficiently.
The Emeraude is delightful.

So to conclude this.
Check the aircraft thoroughly, ensure you know the empty weight, and determine whether it can carry what you want to carry.
Ensure the performance is what you want.
Short strip, local flying, occasional long cross country, the Minicab may be the best aeroplane for you.
Not so short strip, long distance touring, economy, CG tolerance, go for a Jodel.

I have advised on many aircraft in my lifetime and had happy customers always.
I have no problem recommending the Minicab where appropriate.

I advised someone recently not to buy a Lancair 320... He did anyway and I flew it back for him... The 'Reynolds' numbers for this 'hot ship' mean it has no tolerance for bad technique, it shouldn't be for someone who's done his first solo in a C172 recently.

[hatzflyer]

"I'm sorry we're having this argument hatz".. I wasn't aware we were having an argument.People have differing views and their own favourites.
That will always be the case.
However when some one asks for information about a particular type (as was the case with this thread ) surely it is better to point them in the direction of a current owner in their locale in order that they can see for themslves ( which is what I did ).
Side tracking and recommending aircraft that cost 4 times as much (Jodel 140 ) is not really much use to the orginal poster who asked a specific question.
I could have said buy an RV7, its much better than a minicab,that would have been true but it wouldn't have helped much would it ?

Anyway I wasn't arguing and certainly didn't take any offense from your comments which I respect. I have sent a PM to the original poster with an invitation to look around a minicab and the possibility of a flight in order that he can make up his own mind.
I respectfully suggest that answers the original question and draws this thread to a succesful conclusion

[Adrian]

We have not even considered Reynolds numbers yet!

Why over-complicate things with aerodynamic scientific terminology? Reynolds number is to all intents and purposes the same for the Gardan and the Condor. At a given airspeed, it is proportional to the mean chord of the wing. These two aircraft which cruise at about the same speed and have chords that are the same to within a few inches both have similar Reynolds numbers - in both cases ones that are a lot lower than notorious hot ships like the Cessna 150 or PA28.

Handling is more related to the airfoil used (virtually identical on both aircraft, and in the case of the Gardan exactly the same NACA 23015 as the Jodel D140) and the wing loading.

The 'Reynolds' numbers for this 'hot ship' mean it has no tolerance for bad technique...

That makes no sense. A Beech Bonzanza has a much higher Reynolds number than a Lancair 320 at typical cruise speeds, yet more benign handling. That's because it uses essentially the same airfoil as the Condor and Gardan, while the Lancair uses a natural laminar flow airfoil and also has a higher wing loading.

[MichaelP]

Thanks Adrian,

My understanding of the effect of Reynolds numbers was to do with scale.
The smaller the aircraft the more one needs to be aware.

In a scale model aeroplane for free flight this meant increasing the size of the tail surfaces to slightly bigger than scale.

What I have experienced with smaller aircraft is their less forgiving tendancies.
The first case was the Turbulent. This aeroplane would build up drag very quickly, and a stall with any bank on such as from a climb, was very hazardous.
With the Lancair 320 the Australians required much larger tail surfaces because the aircraft is over sensitive in pitch with the original 'scale' surfaces. The one I flew has the original surfaces, and it is dodgy, really dodgy!

I had a lot of time in the Gardan GY30 SuperCab, I flew it up and down from Scotland, and I enjoyed it very much. But this is the one aeroplane I have flown where I ended up in an accidental spin, taught me right, I was playing silly b*ggers!
At the time I knew that three other SuperCabs had crashed, one was burnt in a hangar fire, and the one I flew spun in later.

The other dodgy aeroplane I have a lot of time in is G WULF... If you pitch this aeroplane up you can feel the aeroplane hint at a flick roll... I displayed this aeroplane, rolled along the crowd line, even doing gentle barreled rolls, but I never looped it at a display, sometimes I would half cuban it but the pull up into this manoeuvre had to be very gentle.
The WAR FW190 has all the characteristics of a small aeroplane with a relatively high wing loading.

How do you explain the much nice handling characteristics of the Jodel 140 as compared with a Jodel 120?
Does scale have nothing to do with it?

I'm sorry about this thread drift, but I was only responding to someone else's question of comparison.

Yes, the original questioner should get to fly the Minicab and get an honest appraisal of the type (i.e. without suggesting it be flown overloaded), but anyone buying an aircraft should also make comparisons and learn about as many aircraft within the same performance area.