F-1 status

Some Crazy ideas

F1Boss said:

I'm no big fan of the add-on type that slides up out of the wing at about mid-span/mid-chord - I'll take any suggestions as to alternate designs!

Click to expand...

Just a thought

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8531201@N04/3958613217/in/photostream

Just a surface on the fast back lifting, gives you slight nose up attitude when deployed as well.
or
Even a larger version of the wing air break on the top of the fast back
(That may be a crazy idea, I haven't thought about it that much, please don't flame me for it, if it is)

All of this means more stress on the fuse of course so it has to be engineered right.

On Retract
Also, I think that people are under estimating how much of an aesthetic appeal the retract will have. I know that everyone will say that things looking cool are not as important as function but get this, there is a reason people are spending $10k on paint jobs

Human beings are HIGHLY driven by ascetics, to the point of changing a perfectly good design to make it look cooler.

F1Boss said:

Snip...
Like Budd Davison said in his flight test report of my HR2 back in '97: "Not everyone needs a Rocket. Some folks, however, shouldn't live life without one. You know who you are."

Carry on!
Mark

Click to expand...

And some of us couldn't live without one.

One other thing Mark, just because an airplane has been to 245 KTAS, doesn't mean it is flutter tested at 245.... Flutter testing involves establishing a speed and then taking a little hammer and tapping the stick to energize the oscillation. If your hands are on the pedals or stick, the flutter margin is greater, because this provides some dampening....

I doubt you pulled your feet off the pedals and then toe tapped on the rudder when you realized that plastic airplane was going too fast.....

In short this project has the potential to make an amazing airplane even better... But anyway you slice it, it will have less margin for error than the EVO, which has less margin for error than the Sport wing, which has less margin for error than an RV, which has less margin for error than a 182......

The 182 is a great example. I knew a guy that worked for Cessna. He was the person that Cessna sent to every fatal accident to collect data to protect them in the inevitable lawsuit. He shared an interesting bit of knowledge with me. The C-182RG and C-210 are very similar airplanes... The 182RG has a great safety record and the C-210 has a poor record... C-210s are prone to break up in flight. The difference is the struts.... Not the strength the struts add, but the drag they add.... A 182RG at terminal velocity will most likely not come apart. The 210 will. The wings break off on the C210 just out board of the fuel tanks, right where the struts would attach if it had them.....

Same is true for Bonanzas, they don't come apart because the are weak, but because they are fast.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

1st, you and any other qualified pilots will be welcome to take 'er up for some 'testing', but you gonna have to come to Texas to do that. Fair 'nuf?

Click to expand...

You're on!

Like Budd Davison said in his flight test report of my HR2 back in '97: "Not everyone needs a Rocket. Some folks, however, shouldn't live life without one. You know who you are."

Click to expand...

Agreed,
Every time I want to sell the HR3 I inevitably go and fly it around and then don't want to sell it! I just hate seeing it sit around for months on end while I'm off working.
Presently at the US embassy in Iraq with rocket pics floating across my screensaver.

Cessna 210

I am not challengeing Doug on this. I do take issue with the Cessna guy who told him all this nonsense. The first 210 was essentially a 182B with retractable gear. The airplane went through several redesigns but the important issue is that the first 1810 Cessna 210's had wing struts. The cantilever wing, introduced on the 1967 210G, is a completely redesigned wing. Different airfoil, different planform than the 182RG. The ability to reach damaging airspeeds in the 210G or later has very little to do with struts or lack of and nearly everything to do with a completely different wing design.
Finally the airplane that Scott Crossfield died in was a 1961 210A, strut braced wings. If memory serves me both the wings and tail failed in the Crossfield accident.