Fisher Celebrity VS Hatz CB-1
Jeff Danda
I am looking to build my first plane. I would like to have a
simple two-place biplane. I have narrowed my search down to two
choices - Fisher Celebrity or the Hatz CB-1. Spec-wise they both
appear to be about the same, with the useful load and a bit more
speed going to the Hatz. The problem is that the Hatz is a plans
built plane and this makes me nervous. Does anyone know if getting
all the parts to this plane is difficult? What about getting some
help, if needed? Should a plans only plane make me elimate it
when the full kit ( the Fisher Celebrity ) is readily available?
Does any one have any knowledge of how the purchase of the Mike
Fisher product line has affected, if any, the quality of the Fisher
Flying Products kits?
Does anyone have any experiance comparing the Celebrity against
the Hatz?
Thanks for any info!!
Jeff
--
** Jeff Danda **
** Diagnostic Software Engineer **
** LTX Corp **
** (913) 895-9332 **
Richard Lamb
I know there are a lot of beautiful airplanes built this way, but
(having
been shot down in Viet Nam twice) the question of crash worthiness is
always
right near the top of my requirements.
Visited a neighbor EAA chapter meeting last month at Seguin and saw a
really
nice Classic. But if I were going to build one, I'd use Chuck Beeson's
riveted extruded aluminum angle construction technique for the fuselage.
It would actually come out a little bit lighter, and a hell of a lot
stronger.
(hey - I guess I'm one of the converted disciples)
Wood wings are wonderful. Wood cockpits make me real nervious.
But then that's me - and my silly ideas.
Besides - I saw Billy Dawson's Grand Champion Hats a while back.
No Comparison.
Duncan Charlton
Richard Lamb wrote in message <36383B7E...@flash.net>...
>Besides - I saw Billy Dawson's Grand Champion Hats a while back.
>No Comparison.
I saw it too. I wonder if he'd sell plans and a manual showing his
modifications. Those Cessna-style ridged aluminum ailerons were
interesting.
Duncan
char...@flash.net
Hatz630
There is a lot of support out there for the Hatz Biplane. Check out the Hatz
CB-1 web page at: http://www.weebeastie.com/hatzcb1/
You will find a bunch of information there, plus a ton of pictures. If you
decide on the Hatz you will want to join the American Hatz Association. You
will get a quarterly newsletter that it top notch. The editor is Slyvia
Shoemake. She and her husband Jeff also produce kits for Dawson's Hatz
classic. Shoemake's e-mail address is hatzkit@gvtc. Good luck.
Scott Morrison
leo_p...@my-dejanews.com
1. I wouldn't have cared to be in those recovered wrecks at Vung Tau
whether they were made of metal or wood or whatever. In some ways it
may have been safer in a wood a/c - at least no molten a/c metal flying
about. Wood doesn't present a good radar target either.
And how about this: My friend blacked out (insulin problem) in an
all-wood Luton Minor at 5,000 ft. He came to in the wreckage on the
ground. There was almost not a single stick of undamaged wood in the a/c.
The wood structure absorbed the crash energy. If he hadn't had a
broken angle he could have climbed out of the wreck. Try that in a metal
a/c.
2. Chuck Beeson's "riveted extruded aluminium angle" technique sounds
interesting - can you tell me where I can get more information on it?
Thanks,
Leo
VN '69
lam...@flash.net wrote:
> Don't mean to offend anyone, but I just don't care for wooden fuselages.
> (having been shot down in Viet Nam twice) the question of crash worthiness is
> always right near the top of my requirements.
> But if I were going to build one, I'd use Chuck Beeson's
> riveted extruded aluminum angle construction technique for the fuselage.
> It would actually come out a little bit lighter, and a hell of a lot
> stronger.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
highflyer
>
> Hi,
> I am looking to build my first plane. I would like to have a
> simple two-place biplane. I have narrowed my search down to two
> choices - Fisher Celebrity or the Hatz CB-1. Spec-wise they both
> appear to be about the same, with the useful load and a bit more
> speed going to the Hatz. The problem is that the Hatz is a plans
> built plane and this makes me nervous. Does anyone know if getting
> all the parts to this plane is difficult? What about getting some
> help, if needed? Should a plans only plane make me elimate it
> when the full kit ( the Fisher Celebrity ) is readily available?
>
> Does any one have any knowledge of how the purchase of the Mike
> Fisher product line has affected, if any, the quality of the Fisher
> Flying Products kits?
>
> Does anyone have any experiance comparing the Celebrity against
> the Hatz?
>
> Thanks for any info!!
>
>
First, the Fisher Celebrity is NOT in the same class as the Hatz.
The Hatz is much more airplane and will be worth MUCH more when it
is finished.
Yes, the Hatz is plans built. Why does that make you nervous. The
only difference is that YOU have to buy the materials separately.
That allows you to do a bit of scrounging and save yourself thousands
of dollars in the construction. Generally the kits for aircraft are
not much more than materials kits anyway.
You CAN buy materials kits from places like Wicks, but you would be
better off to just buy the materials and cut them up yourself. It
really isn't all that hard.
There is a pretty active Hatz support group and a lot of Hatz flyers
around. I see the Hatz boys every year at flyins. They are nice
folks. Good old country boys.
HF
Richard Lamb
> all-wood Luton Minor at 5,000 ft. He came to in the wreckage on the
> ground. There was almost not a single stick of undamaged wood in the a/c.
> The wood structure absorbed the crash energy. If he hadn't had a
> broken angle he could have climbed out of the wreck. Try that in a metal
> a/c.
Hey, Leo. No argument that wood structures are strong.
My thing is that once the wood breaks it can absorb no
more stress. And that's ignoring the problem of splintering.
I heard the old-timers used to wrap the longerons with cloth
tape and varnish to reduce splintering in a crash.
Ronald James Wanttaja
Richard Lamb <lam...@flash.net> wrote:
>Don't mean to offend anyone, but I just don't care for wooden fuselages.
> worthiness is always right near the top of my requirements.
One of Seattle's long-time EAA Tech Counselors built a Fisher (mumble),
the single-seat high-wing Kawasaki-powered ultralight. He had a control
problem that led to a rather horrendous crash right at the feet of his
wife...who was running a video camera at the time.
The airplane was reduced to kindling...but Cecil got out of it with a
couple of cracked ribs and a broken collarbone. The video even starts
up again, showing him limping around the airplane looking at the various
parts.
The Fisher kept him alive by absorbing the energy by the crunching of
the wood, much like an aluminum plane crumples. I think wood is at
least about equal to metal, as far as crash-worthiness is involved. But
poor design feature in either medium can negate that.
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Praising Jesus
>only difference is that YOU have to buy the materials separately.
>That allows you to do a bit of scrounging and save yourself thousands
>of dollars in the construction. Generally the kits for aircraft are
>not much more than materials kits anyway.
Ah, but I don't have to learn about wood grading, evaluating condition, etc.
Several years ago I had a fellow work for me. His job was Quality Assurance
and his specialty was wood products. This fellow could walk through a
forest and tell you more about the wood than I'd ever thought possible. The
wealth of his knowledge went up 100 fold inside a factory. He could tell
you everything you wanted to know about wood. Things like where the wood
likely grew, chemical content of the soil, mositure content, age, hardness,
etc., etc., etc. - no books - he'd just rattle it off from the top of his
head. If you wanted to know why some particular finish wouldn't stick to
some particular wood, or you wanted to know why you just used 15 gallons of
sealer when you'd budgeted for five - he'd look at you like you were an
idiot and "everybody knows that". Top notch guy, but he was under the
impression everbody knew what he did - he wasn't special, just another QA
guy (sigh!).
There is value in having a knowledgeable person pick the best materials for
a given design.
>You CAN buy materials kits from places like Wicks, but you would be
>better off to just buy the materials and cut them up yourself. It
>really isn't all that hard.
Hah! Open heart surgery isn't that hard either. Just stick in a knife, cut
out what you don't want, sew together everything you left open and you're
done! Viola!! But I don't think I'd like my life to depend on that kind of
simplicity.
Been there - done that! You are probably very good at this, perhaps an ol'
hand that's done it several times. For me, I'll have my hands full figuring
out how to build the thing, let alone learning all the vagaries of locating,
evaluating, buying and processing raw materials (which is not to mention
I'll end up doing a bunch of that anyway). I suppose if I had such profound
knowledge, I too would value my judgement over a disinterested third party.
But without that knowledge, I'm better off in the hands of someone who knows
what all this means.
IMHO,
---Mike
Robert Chilcoat
>
> The airplane was reduced to kindling...but Cecil got out of it with a
> couple of cracked ribs and a broken collarbone. The video even starts
> up again, showing him limping around the airplane looking at the various
> parts.
>
> The Fisher kept him alive by absorbing the energy by the crunching of
> the wood, much like an aluminum plane crumples. I think wood is at
> least about equal to metal, as far as crash-worthiness is involved. But
> poor design feature in either medium can negate that.
>
If you think wooden airplanes are deathtraps, have a look at this url -
a Falco that went in in France and both occupants made it out without
serious injury - you may wonder how, given the almost total destruction
of the fuselage. BTW, the aircraft was repaired and was flying again in
just over two years.
http://www.seqair.com/Hangar/Gane/CestLaVie/CestLaVie.html
Bob
May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
-- George Carlin
David Munday
>>You CAN buy materials kits from places like Wicks, but you would be
>>better off to just buy the materials and cut them up yourself. It
>>really isn't all that hard.
>
>Been there - done that! You are probably very good at this, perhaps an ol'
>hand that's done it several times. For me, I'll have my hands full figuring
>out how to build the thing, let alone learning all the vagaries of locating,
>evaluating, buying and processing raw materials (which is not to mention
>I'll end up doing a bunch of that anyway). I suppose if I had such profound
>knowledge, I too would value my judgement over a disinterested third party.
>But without that knowledge, I'm better off in the hands of someone who knows
>what all this means.
If you buy from Wicks or Aircraft Spruce and buy the materials
specified in the plans then all the materials Q&A is done for you.
The spruce I've bought that way is the most beautiful, close and even
grained stuff you'll ever see. It's costy though.
What flyer likely meant was that rather than buying a materials kit
from Wicks or Spruce you can save money by buying materials from
aircraft grade suppliers individually. You might buy your steel from
Dillisburg, your hardware from WingNut, your spruce from that place in
Kansas that does all the stearman wings Western Spruce is the name
isn't it? If you buy each piece as aircraft grade from an aircraft
supply vendor, and check prices you'll save over a "materials kit".
You'll also get to spread the cost out over time by buying stuff as
you need it so you won't have a whole pile of money sitting on the
floor of the basement until you get to the part of the plane where
you'll consume it all.
If you want to consider grading your own wood, then get the EAA Wood
book. The aircraft wood spec was written in the 30s and was designed
for some sargent at the depot to apply. It wasn't designed so that
advanced training was required. You have to count rings, check grain
direction, and measure size and proximity of knots and defects one to
another. It ain't rocket science. BUT! if you are not comfortable
with doing it, there are plenty of aircraft parts vendors who will do
it for you.
--
David Munday - mund...@muohio.noise.edu
My email address is not noisy.
Webpage: http://www.nku.edu/~munday
PP-ASEL - Tandem Flybaby Builder - EAA-284 (Waynesville, OH)
"A member shall not speak oftener than twice, without special leave, upon the same question; and not the second time, before every other, who had been silent, shall have been heard, if he choose to speak upon the subject."
- Rules of the American Constitutional Convention, 1787.
br...@vision-technology.com
I recently completed four years building on a Fisher Classic, which I've now
flown 60 hours in the past 3 months. Slow but FUN!
As I consider the next project, the Hatz & Celebrity both come to mind.
(Actually I want a MA-5 Charger) I do suspect the Hatz is a bit more
airplane; but the Fisher factory support, materials and plans are all
excellent. The Fisher buyout has likely improved customer service and I know
they're doing some upgrading in the kits purchased from Mike (better
hardware, etc.). I flew my Classic to the Fisher factory last week and got a
good look at everything, including the Celebrity.
If I were to build a Celebrity, it'd include:
- O200 or O235
- Single Piece Landing Gear
- Rear Canopy & Raised Turtle Deck
- Cockpit Heat
I saw one Celebrity equipped like this and the thing almost looked like a
Starduster. Very Nice. (Might have been very heavy too).
I think your choice comes down to time or money; so it depends which you have
more of. Both are good airplanes, easy to fly and have reasonable
performance.
..brad.
In article <3637E9A2...@ltx.com>,
Jeff Danda <da...@ltx.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I am looking to build my first plane. I would like to have a
> simple two-place biplane. I have narrowed my search down to two
> choices - Fisher Celebrity or the Hatz CB-1. Spec-wise they both
> appear to be about the same, with the useful load and a bit more
> speed going to the Hatz. The problem is that the Hatz is a plans
> built plane and this makes me nervous. Does anyone know if getting
> all the parts to this plane is difficult? What about getting some
> help, if needed? Should a plans only plane make me elimate it
> when the full kit ( the Fisher Celebrity ) is readily available?
>
> Does any one have any knowledge of how the purchase of the Mike
> Fisher product line has affected, if any, the quality of the Fisher
> Flying Products kits?
>
> Does anyone have any experiance comparing the Celebrity against
> the Hatz?
>
> Thanks for any info!!
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> ** Jeff Danda **
> ** Diagnostic Software Engineer **
> ** LTX Corp **
> ** (913) 895-9332 **
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Bertie the Bunyip
Ronald James Wanttaja <want...@halcyon.com> wrote
> The Fisher kept him alive by absorbing the energy by the crunching of
> the wood, much like an aluminum plane crumples. I think wood is at
> least about equal to metal, as far as crash-worthiness is involved.
Flies in the face of conventional wisdom, Ron.
I've always understood that a steel tube structure was "the thing" to have
if you were determined to crash.
After all, they add that stuff to dusters and race cars specifically for
that, eh? Hard to imagine a stocker with some 2x4 s wrapped around the
cockpit!
To the original poster I would say:
BUILD THE HATZ! Great airplane.
Bertie
Ronald James Wanttaja
Bertie the Bunyip <B...@ha.ha> wrote:
>
>
>Ronald James Wanttaja <want...@halcyon.com> wrote
>
>> The Fisher kept him alive by absorbing the energy by the crunching of
>> the wood, much like an aluminum plane crumples. I think wood is at
>> least about equal to metal, as far as crash-worthiness is involved.
>
>Flies in the face of conventional wisdom, Ron.
One of my favorite flights... :-)
>I've always understood that a steel tube structure was "the thing" to have
>if you were determined to crash.
>After all, they add that stuff to dusters and race cars specifically for
>that, eh? Hard to imagine a stocker with some 2x4 s wrapped around the
>cockpit!
No, it's EASY to imagine a stocker with 2x4s wrapped around the cockpit.
My brother-in-law races. :-)
It *is* tough to imagine a stocker's cockpit surrounded by a
properly-engineered, well-fitted, properly-glued, weatherproofed wood
crash cage.
Don't confuse ease of use with suitability. It's far easier and faster
to weld a roll bar than laminate up a wood one. Though I'll grant you
that a steel tube plane/roll bar is lighter when both are designed to
the same specs.
Bertie the Bunyip
Ronald James Wanttaja <want...@halcyon.com> wrote
> >Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >I've always understood that a steel tube structure was "the thing" to
have
> >if you were determined to crash.
> >After all, they add that stuff to dusters and race cars specifically for
> >that, eh? Hard to imagine a stocker with some 2x4 s wrapped around the
> >cockpit!
>
> No, it's EASY to imagine a stocker with 2x4s wrapped around the cockpit.
> My brother-in-law races. :-)
OK, I have a BinL like that too!
>
> It *is* tough to imagine a stocker's cockpit surrounded by a
> properly-engineered, well-fitted, properly-glued, weatherproofed wood
> crash cage.
>
> Don't confuse ease of use with suitability. It's far easier and faster
> to weld a roll bar than laminate up a wood one. Though I'll grant you
> that a steel tube plane/roll bar is lighter when both are designed to
> the same specs.
OK, what about the crushability, though? DH Moths (wooden fuse ones) in
particular are known for killing their crew when the impact is such that it
collpses the cockpit. I'm not saying that I wouldn't fly a wood airplane, I
would, and have, but given my druthers, I druther fly a steel tube machine.
Bertie
Ronald James Wanttaja
Bertie the Bunyip <B...@ha.ha> wrote:
>
>particular are known for killing their crew when the impact is such that it
>collpses the cockpit.
The trouble is separating the impact of the materials vs. the design
itself. Do DH Moths crush the crews because the material is wood, or
because the design of the fuselage routes impact forces to the cockpit?
If later Moths used steel tubing and DON'T crush the cabin, is it
because of the steel tubing or because the designers were aware of the
problem and changed the design at the same time they converted to steel
tube?
I don't know the answer. The problem is, all we can do in this case is
throw (plug yer ears for a second, Garfield :-) anecdotal stories at
each other. I've got a friend who lived through a Fisher crash that
totally demolished the airplane. Would he have been better off if it
had been steel tubing? Who knows? I've got another friend who got bad
lacerations from the steel tubing when he crashed his Stolp Starlet.
Would he have been less injured in a wooden airplane? Who knows?
It's just about impossible to prove either way. You prefer to fly steel
tube aircraft over wooden ones; I respect that. My problem is I haven't
seen any scientific sort of explanation as to why wood would be more
dangerous, other than splinters. The limited number of crashed wooden
airplanes I've seen had pretty even breaks.
In any case, few homebuilts are designed with crashworthiness in mind.
Tell ya what, Bertie, I won't crash mine if you won't crash yours....
Shelly
over 25K , but we never did skimp! Nothing beats building from plans for
my satisfaction, but buying all your supplies from ASS and Wicks, etc,
will test your devotion!
--
Chris Hinch
airfield, New Zealand with members of IATM (International Association of
Transportation Museums). It was a very real privilege to meet and talk to
people like Michael Fopp of RAF Hendon (home of one of the two remaining Hawker
Tempest Mk Vs), and Chris Terry of National Aviation Museum (Canada) (home of
the mortal remains of the Avro Arrow)
Colin Smith and his team at Croydon restore vintage de Havilland aircraft, and
landing at this small grass strip was like stepping back in time to 1920s-30s
England. Colin is a gentleman in every sense of the word, and he is a
perfectionist - the quality of the work they are doing on these aircraft
literally takes your breath away. Five museum directors and yours truly turn up
at the strip in a Islander, we're welcomed like family, then after a tour of
the workshop, he turns and asks us if we all want to go for a flight in the
1936 de Havilland Puss (?) Moth - a five seater twin engined biplane with all
the elegance, attention to detail, and very, very British way of doing things.
Huge grins all around, and we hadn't even taken off yet! I can tell you that
the de Havilland grin is very close to the RV grin!
Colin was talking about the importance of good wood, and from what I
understood, the direction of the grain of the wood is one of the critical
factors in crash survivability. If the grain runs along the longerons, a wooden
structure can compress and absorb tremendous impact energies, whereas the grain
across the wood can cause the structure to simply shatter. My interpretation
of his comments was that it can literally make the difference between life and
death.
Chris Hinch
chi...@arl.co.nz
Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
> In article <01be05ab$23a95900$a9e7869f@default>,
> Bertie the Bunyip <B...@ha.ha> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Ronald James Wanttaja <want...@halcyon.com> wrote
> >
> >> The Fisher kept him alive by absorbing the energy by the crunching of
> >> the wood, much like an aluminum plane crumples. I think wood is at
> >> least about equal to metal, as far as crash-worthiness is involved.
> >
> >Flies in the face of conventional wisdom, Ron.
>
> One of my favorite flights... :-)
>
> >I've always understood that a steel tube structure was "the thing" to have
> >if you were determined to crash.
> >After all, they add that stuff to dusters and race cars specifically for
> >that, eh? Hard to imagine a stocker with some 2x4 s wrapped around the
> >cockpit!
>
> No, it's EASY to imagine a stocker with 2x4s wrapped around the cockpit.
> My brother-in-law races. :-)
>
> It *is* tough to imagine a stocker's cockpit surrounded by a
> properly-engineered, well-fitted, properly-glued, weatherproofed wood
> crash cage.
>
> Don't confuse ease of use with suitability. It's far easier and faster
> to weld a roll bar than laminate up a wood one. Though I'll grant you
> that a steel tube plane/roll bar is lighter when both are designed to
> the same specs.
>
Chris Hinch
Chris Hinch wrote:
[snip]
> the workshop, he turns and asks us if we all want to go for a flight in the
> 1936 de Havilland Puss (?) Moth - a five seater twin engined biplane with all
> the elegance, attention to detail, and very, very British way of doing things.
> Huge grins all around, and we hadn't even taken off yet! I can tell you that
> the de Havilland grin is very close to the RV grin!
>
Now I knew that was wrong when I wrote it. I meant, of course, a 1936 de Havilland
Dragonfly.
Chris "showing my ignorance" Hinch
chi...@arl.co.nz
Bertie the Bunyip
Chris Hinch <chi...@arl.co.nz> wrote
of
> the workshop, he turns and asks us if we all want to go for a flight in
the
> 1936 de Havilland Puss (?) Moth - a five seater twin engined biplane
Sounds like a Dragonfly. the Puss moth was a single engined monoplane. The
Leapord Moth was a single bipe and the Fox Moth was a single engine bipe
with an open cockpit for the pilot and a cabin for the Pax (ala Boeing 40
and such)
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
Ronald James Wanttaja <want...@halcyon.com> wrote
> The trouble is separating the impact of the materials vs. the design
> itself. Do DH Moths crush the crews because the material is wood, or
> because the design of the fuselage routes impact forces to the cockpit?
Hmm. don't know. I always assumed it was because it was wood. They were
pretty conventional wood structures. Not unlike a Piet. The Moth (as
opposed to Tiger Moth) in particular has this reputation, and I suppose
that the cabane would apply a force in this area causing it to collapse in
the case of an accident.
> If later Moths used steel tubing and DON'T crush the cabin, is it
> because of the steel tubing or because the designers were aware of the
> problem and changed the design at the same time they converted to steel
> tube?
Well, that's a bit of an apple and oranges situation since the designs
would have to have been changed to accomadate the different materials. Kind
of negates the purpose of having a steel tube fuse if you cover it with
plywood.
> It's just about impossible to prove either way. You prefer to fly steel
> tube aircraft over wooden ones; I respect that.
Well, I wouldn't turn my nose up at a wood airplane. I do fly one pretty
regularly. I do think it's pretty hard to beat steel tube for a fuselage,
though.
I suppose statistics could prove it one way or the other, but as you have
pointed out, other design features would influence them as well.
My understanding has always been that tubes bend and deform helping to
cushion impact and reduce the G that the passenger area experiences,
whereas wood, being less flexible, either stops the structure immediatly or
snaps, allowing very little deceleration.
Not very scientific, I grant you, but that's always been the scuttlebut.
I'm not saying that it's so because of that, but often this kind of hangar
wisdom has some basis in fact.
Any engineers care to chip in here?
> Tell ya what, Bertie, I won't crash mine if you won't crash yours....
OK! Deal.
Bertie
highflyer
>
> >Yes, the Hatz is plans built. Why does that make you nervous. The
> >only difference is that YOU have to buy the materials separately.
> >That allows you to do a bit of scrounging and save yourself thousands
> >of dollars in the construction. Generally the kits for aircraft are
> >not much more than materials kits anyway.
>
> Ah, but I don't have to learn about wood grading, evaluating condition, etc.
> Several years ago I had a fellow work for me. His job was Quality Assurance
> and his specialty was wood products. This fellow could walk through a
> forest and tell you more about the wood than I'd ever thought possible. The
> wealth of his knowledge went up 100 fold inside a factory. He could tell
> you everything you wanted to know about wood. Things like where the wood
> likely grew, chemical content of the soil, mositure content, age, hardness,
> etc., etc., etc. - no books - he'd just rattle it off from the top of his
> head. If you wanted to know why some particular finish wouldn't stick to
> some particular wood, or you wanted to know why you just used 15 gallons of
> sealer when you'd budgeted for five - he'd look at you like you were an
> idiot and "everybody knows that". Top notch guy, but he was under the
> impression everbody knew what he did - he wasn't special, just another QA
> guy (sigh!).
>
> There is value in having a knowledgeable person pick the best materials for
> a given design.
>
> >better off to just buy the materials and cut them up yourself. It
> >really isn't all that hard.
>
> out what you don't want, sew together everything you left open and you're
> done! Viola!! But I don't think I'd like my life to depend on that kind of
> simplicity.
>
> hand that's done it several times. For me, I'll have my hands full figuring
> out how to build the thing, let alone learning all the vagaries of locating,
> evaluating, buying and processing raw materials (which is not to mention
> I'll end up doing a bunch of that anyway). I suppose if I had such profound
> knowledge, I too would value my judgement over a disinterested third party.
> But without that knowledge, I'm better off in the hands of someone who knows
> what all this means.
>
>
That makes sense up to a point Mike. You can buy aircraft grade
materials from many sources. YOu do not HAVE to do your own grading.
When you buy a kit for most homebuilts, you merely get a materials
kit. Many are cut oversize so that you do not buy full lengths.
When you buy the same materials yourself, you do not have to pay
them for sorting out the Bill of Material for you and putting it
all together. That money you can save by reading the BofM yourself.
It doesn't take any special knowledge. Just a little extra effort.
HF
Dave Sutton
> It *is* tough to imagine a stocker's cockpit surrounded by a
> properly-engineered, well-fitted, properly-glued, weatherproofed wood
> crash cage.
>
> Don't confuse ease of use with suitability. It's far easier and faster
> to weld a roll bar than laminate up a wood one. Though I'll grant you
> that a steel tube plane/roll bar is lighter when both are designed to
> the same specs.
I always thought that a large part of the crash protection of metal
structures was based on the plasticity of the material, IE: that
a steel/aluminum structure would deform and absorb some of the crashloads
while a non metal (composite -or- wood) structure would not deform but would
rather maintain its shape until loads cross a critical threshold at which
point the structure fails catastrophically. Compare this to a glass rod
which when under a load does not deform until it snaps, VS a
steel rod that gives plenty of warning. This is one of the problems in
inspecting in-service wood or composite structures (it's one of the
points I needed to address in the inspection/restoration of my
only wooden airplane, the Vampire..) The point is that even -after-
failure, a metal structure provides some crash protection (and indeed,
if so designed, derives crumple-zone protection due to the failure and
the associated energy loss) while once a wood or composite structure
fails its structure and protection is all gone instantly, with the remaining
energy then directed to the remaining part of the system (like my bones, for
example).
It takes energy to wrap that roll bar around a tree. That energy is subtracted
from the gross available energy and the structure is sacrificed to (partially)
protect the occupants. iI'm not going to remove the 4130 steel full roll cage
from the 911RS anytime soon to replace it with a wooden one, I can tell ya.
I'd love to see a racer show up at an SCCA race claiming the superiority of
wooden structures for crash protection.
Dave Sutton pil...@planet.net
Yak-50, Fouga Magister, DeHavilland Vampire, MiG-17
"There is no substitute for horsepower...."
Jeff Danda
>
> Praising Jesus wrote:
> >
> > >Yes, the Hatz is plans built. Why does that make you nervous. The
> > >only difference is that YOU have to buy the materials separately.
> > >That allows you to do a bit of scrounging and save yourself thousands
> > >of dollars in the construction. Generally the kits for aircraft are
> > >not much more than materials kits anyway.
>
I have been renovating my current house for going on over two years
now.
What drives me nuts is getting to a certain point in a job and finding
that I dont have the correct pipe, wood, paint, etc. Then I have to
stop everything and head to my local home center. What I am looking to
avoid is having my airplane project progress without having to stop
and make a phone call to my favorate parts supplier. I hate having to
wait x days just because I am waiting for materials.
I guess that is the nature of the beast with a plans-built airplane.
Thanks for all of the advice. I'll have to decide on the trade-offs
involved but it looks like I am leaning towards the Hatz.....now if
I could only learn to weld!
thanks!
Ronald James Wanttaja
Dave Sutton <nospam...@planet.net> wrote:
>
>I always thought that a large part of the crash protection of metal
>structures was based on the plasticity of the material, IE: that
>a steel/aluminum structure would deform and absorb some of the crashloads
>while a non metal (composite -or- wood) structure would not deform but would
>rather maintain its shape until loads cross a critical threshold at which
>point the structure fails catastrophically.
Hmmmm...ever seen a tree in a strong wind, Dave? :-)
I'm an orbit wonk, not a structural engineer, but it seems to me that
wood absorbs impact by bending, converting the kinetic energy into
potential energy. When the loading gets too much, the wood breaks
from the stored energy destroying the cohesiveness of the layers of
cement and organics that all wood is composed of. An aluminum
component doesn't break as spectacularly, but that doesn't mean it
absorbed more energy.
But you hit the key point: *Structure*. A properly-designed wooden
*structure* should also deform sequentially and absorb some of the
crashloads. Do a mental experiment and imagine a structure undergoing a
crash. The loading is not even over the entire structure. One point
becomes overloaded and fails. In doing so, it has absorbed some of the
load. Then the next point becomes overloaded, and *it* fails, having
done its part to reduce the overall loading.
On that basis, most wooden airplanes should be even SAFER than
Cessna-type semi-monocoque construction. When the aluminum skin breaks
or tears, that's it. But plywood skin is a lamination; it can
progressively fail. Besides, the aluminum is held to the bulkheads by
rivets spaced three quarters of an inch or more apart, while the plywood
is glued solidly to the underlying structure.
Whether the failure mode is a wood longeron delaminating or a metal
angle bending is immaterial (no pun intended). The issue is how much of
the load is aborbed by each failure and the number of components between
the impact force and the occupants.
I'm sorry, I don't quite agree with your "protection after failure"
argument for metal. A failed piece of metal tubing cannot protect you,
but of course the UNFAILED portions of that same tube can still contribute
some benefit. By the same token, though, the unbroken portion of a
wooden longeron can supply the same benefit.
In my opinion, a *properly designed* wooden structure will be just as
crashworthy as a *properly designed* steel tube one. The trouble is,
most of the wooden-structured airplanes were designed back in the '30s,
or by later amateur designers who usually don't take crashworthiness
into account.
There might be a way to directly compare wood and metal structures: The
Falco was designed by Frati, who ALSO designed the SF-260, which, I
believe, is all-metal. Anybody have any data on Falco vs. SF-260
fatalities?
John Oliveira
>
> Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
> >
> > The airplane was reduced to kindling...but Cecil got out of it with a
> > couple of cracked ribs and a broken collarbone. The video even starts
> > up again, showing him limping around the airplane looking at the various
> > parts.
> >
> > the wood, much like an aluminum plane crumples. I think wood is at
> > poor design feature in either medium can negate that.
> >
>
> If you think wooden airplanes are deathtraps, have a look at this url -
> a Falco that went in in France and both occupants made it out without
> serious injury - you may wonder how, given the almost total destruction
> of the fuselage. BTW, the aircraft was repaired and was flying again in
> just over two years.
>
> http://www.seqair.com/Hangar/Gane/CestLaVie/CestLaVie.html
>
> Bob
>
> May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
> -- George Carlin
About all I can say to the UK Falco site is Wow!
KBoatri144
>What drives me nuts is getting to a certain point in a job and finding
>that I dont have the correct pipe, wood, paint, etc. Then I have to
>stop everything and head to my local home center. What I am looking to
>avoid is having my airplane project progress without having to stop
>and make a phone call to my favorate parts supplier. I hate having to
>wait x days just because I am waiting for materials.
I suspect that my experience is typical, but if you only work on 1 assembly at
a time, you WILL come to a point where you mess up a part and need to order
another one, need a special tool, etc. This will put your project on hold for
a day or three... guaranteed. This is irrespective of if you are scratch
building, building from a kit, etc.
To solve this, keep a couple of things going. If one is held up because of a
need for a widget, no problem... work on the other assembly.
KB
Michael A. Pilla
spun in from approximately 75 to 100' right over the center of the
strip. His glider was a wooden homebuilt purchased from someone
"N-times" removed from the original builder.
The sad thing, after examining the wreckage, was that the *glue* joints
failed. So much of the fuselage and wing structure remained intact.
I.e., the fuselage bulkheads simply broke off, cleanly, at the glue
lines. There was very little "crushing" of the structure. We all
wonder if the accident wouldn't have been survivable had the structure
been able to do what it had been *designed* to do instead of the way
this particular example had been *built*.
Michael Pilla
Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
>
> In article <71ktkk$h...@jupiter.planet.net>,
> Dave Sutton <nospam...@planet.net> wrote:
> >
> >I always thought that a large part of the crash protection of metal
> >structures was based on the plasticity of the material, IE: that
> >a steel/aluminum structure would deform and absorb some of the crashloads
> >while a non metal (composite -or- wood) structure would not deform but would
> >rather maintain its shape until loads cross a critical threshold at which
> >point the structure fails catastrophically.
>
> Hmmmm...ever seen a tree in a strong wind, Dave? :-)
>
> I'm an orbit wonk, not a structural engineer, but it seems to me that
> wood absorbs impact by bending, converting the kinetic energy into
> potential energy. When the loading gets too much, the wood breaks
> from the stored energy destroying the cohesiveness of the layers of
> cement and organics that all wood is composed of. An aluminum
> component doesn't break as spectacularly, but that doesn't mean it
> absorbed more energy.
>
> But you hit the key point: *Structure*. A properly-designed wooden
> *structure* should also deform sequentially and absorb some of the
> crashloads. Do a mental experiment and imagine a structure undergoing a
> crash. The loading is not even over the entire structure. One point
> becomes overloaded and fails. In doing so, it has absorbed some of the
> load. Then the next point becomes overloaded, and *it* fails, having
> done its part to reduce the overall loading.
>
> snip ---
RobertR237
In article <71lrq8$2e2$1...@halcyon.com>, want...@halcyon.com (Ronald James
Wanttaja) writes:
>
>In article <71ktkk$h...@jupiter.planet.net>,
>Dave Sutton <nospam...@planet.net> wrote:
>>
>>I always thought that a large part of the crash protection of metal
>>structures was based on the plasticity of the material, IE: that
>>a steel/aluminum structure would deform and absorb some of the crashloads
>>while a non metal (composite -or- wood) structure would not deform but would
>>rather maintain its shape until loads cross a critical threshold at which
>>point the structure fails catastrophically.
>
>Hmmmm...ever seen a tree in a strong wind, Dave? :-)
>
>I'm an orbit wonk, not a structural engineer, but it seems to me that
>wood absorbs impact by bending, converting the kinetic energy into
>potential energy. When the loading gets too much, the wood breaks
>from the stored energy destroying the cohesiveness of the layers of
>cement and organics that all wood is composed of. An aluminum
>component doesn't break as spectacularly, but that doesn't mean it
>absorbed more energy.
>
>But you hit the key point: *Structure*. A properly-designed wooden
>*structure* should also deform sequentially and absorb some of the
>crashloads. Do a mental experiment and imagine a structure undergoing a
>crash. The loading is not even over the entire structure. One point
>becomes overloaded and fails. In doing so, it has absorbed some of the
>load. Then the next point becomes overloaded, and *it* fails, having
>done its part to reduce the overall loading.
>
Ron made a good point on the wood construction and it's ability to absorb
energy. The same could be said for a composite structure as well. The
crashworthiness of composites can in fact be controled and improved by the
choice of the composite materials. I use as an example the longerons and roll
cage on the KIS Cruiser which I am constructing. The standard structure if the
KIS is glass but carbon fiber was used for the longerons and roll cage to
improve the crash worthiness since the crabon fiber will absorb much more
energy before failure. The value of this was proven when the KIS Prototype
blew an engine and crashed in a plowed field. The plane broke the nose gear
and flipped on it's back. It broke the windshield, cracked the support brace
around the door and broke a wing tip. The plane was air lifted out by chopper
hanging by it's tail. It's now flying again with only minor repairs. I have
never seen a spam can fly again after similar circumstances.
Bob Reed
KIS Cruiser in progress...Oshkosh 2000 by Gosh!
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the
Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
highflyer
>
> highflyer wrote:
> >
> > Praising Jesus wrote:
> > >
> > > >Yes, the Hatz is plans built. Why does that make you nervous. The
> > > >only difference is that YOU have to buy the materials separately.
> > > >That allows you to do a bit of scrounging and save yourself thousands
> > > >of dollars in the construction. Generally the kits for aircraft are
> > > >not much more than materials kits anyway.
> >
>
> I have been renovating my current house for going on over two years
> now.
> that I dont have the correct pipe, wood, paint, etc. Then I have to
> stop everything and head to my local home center. What I am looking to
> avoid is having my airplane project progress without having to stop
> and make a phone call to my favorate parts supplier. I hate having to
> wait x days just because I am waiting for materials.
>
> Thanks for all of the advice. I'll have to decide on the trade-offs
> involved but it looks like I am leaning towards the Hatz.....now if
> I could only learn to weld!
>
> thanks!
>
> Jeff
>
Actually you would be surprised how often that is the case also
with a kit. For example, most kits do NOT include things like
instruments, fittings, plumbing, finishing materials, etc.
Also, you are almost guaranteed to ruin some material or make a
part that you do not really want to trust your life to. Then
you have to go out and buy more material.
There really is NO simple solution.
HF
highflyer
>
>
> There might be a way to directly compare wood and metal structures: The
> Falco was designed by Frati, who ALSO designed the SF-260, which, I
> believe, is all-metal. Anybody have any data on Falco vs. SF-260
> fatalities?
That is a good thought Ron. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a
statistically significant data set available on either, much less on
each for comparision purposes.
HF
Bertie the Bunyip
Ronald James Wanttaja <want...@halcyon.com> wrote
> On that basis, most wooden airplanes should be even SAFER than
> Cessna-type semi-monocoque construction. When the aluminum skin breaks
> or tears, that's it. But plywood skin is a lamination; it can
> progressively fail. Besides, the aluminum is held to the bulkheads by
> rivets spaced three quarters of an inch or more apart, while the plywood
> is glued solidly to the underlying structure.
OK. Agian conventional wisdom has it that aluminum structures are safer
than wooden ones, but we were (at least I was) comparing steel tube to
wood. I can't see longerons defoming the same way a steel tube does. I have
seen a good few bent steel tube airplanes,and there is usually very little
fracturing in the structure. I've only seen a couple of smashed up wooden
ones (including a Stampe an aquantence died in a while back) and these were
matchsticks after the fact. Of course, my experience is pretty limited in
the bigger picture, but it still seems to me that wood is not elastic
enough to absorb impact as well as a steel tube structure.
Are you sure this isn't a religious thing with you, Ron?
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
RobertR237 <rober...@aol.com> wrote
> Ron made a good point on the wood construction and it's ability to absorb
> energy. The same could be said for a composite structure as well. The
> crashworthiness of composites can in fact be controled and improved by
the
> choice of the composite materials. I use as an example the longerons and
roll
> cage on the KIS Cruiser which I am constructing. The standard structure
if the
> KIS is glass but carbon fiber was used for the longerons and roll cage to
> improve the crash worthiness since the crabon fiber will absorb much more
> energy before failure. The value of this was proven when the KIS
Prototype
> blew an engine and crashed in a plowed field. The plane broke the nose
gear
> and flipped on it's back. It broke the windshield, cracked the support
brace
> around the door and broke a wing tip. The plane was air lifted out by
chopper
> hanging by it's tail. It's now flying again with only minor repairs. I
have
> never seen a spam can fly again after similar circumstances.
I think having the airplane fly againis besides the point. The argument, as
I see it, is centered around sacrificing the structure to save the
occupants.
Besides, you'd be amazed at what can be made fly again!
Bertie
Ronald James Wanttaja
Ah sponsored this wooden nag in this here hoss race, and ahm'a stickin'
by him! :-)
In all honesty, my gut feel tells me that the aluminum structure would
be the most crashworthy. But I'd just as soon have a good, solid,
technical basis for my gut feeling. I'd rather see a good comparative
study, or at least an technical explanation (in plain English, thank
you :-) why that is the case. Tube vs. wood I ain't so sure about.
From the scientific viewpoint, there are too many variables. The
Falco/SF-260 comparison would be ideal, except, as HF pointed out, there
just isn't any statistically significant data to compare.
Without such statistics, all that's left to us is discourse. I suspect
the readers out there probably prefer a civilized discussion on
crashworthiness than what USUALLY passes for debate here, hmmmmm....?
Ron "And another thing..." Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
RobertR237
In article <01be0766$73540f60$89e7869f@default>, "Bertie the Bunyip" <b...@ha.ha>
writes:
>
>I think having the airplane fly againis besides the point. The argument, as
>I see it, is centered around sacrificing the structure to save the
>occupants.
>Besides, you'd be amazed at what can be made fly again!
>
>Bertie
>
>
That was simply an illustration of the glass structures ability absorb the
energy involved in one particular case. The fact that I was trying to get
across is that composites have just as much or more ability to absorb the
energy during a crash as would wood, steel tube or metal structures. It's more
of an element in design and cost than necessarly materials.
I also am aware that many a total wreak of an airplane has been made to fly
again. It's not so much a question of CAN it be made to fly again but how
easily can it be made to fly again.
Bertie the Bunyip
RobertR237 <rober...@aol.com> wrote
> That was simply an illustration of the glass structures ability absorb
the
> energy involved in one particular case.
The point I was making is that if the fuse didn't deform, than it probably
didn't absorb much of the impact. The only glass airplane I have seen
crash, though, actually did absorb quite a bit, mostly by shedding it's
engine, wings and canard as it slewed to a stop on some pretty inhospitabe
terrain after an engine failure. BTW, it was back in the air in a year. I
think that an impact involving a serious amount of energy taken on the
nose, it would be more likely to kill than a steel tube airplane.
> The fact that I was trying to get
> across is that composites have just as much or more ability to absorb the
> energy during a crash as would wood, steel tube or metal structures.
It's more
> of an element in design and cost than necessarly materials.
While I agree that design is a huge factor, I still think that the more
elastic the structur, the better the chances that the pax wil survive.
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
Ronald James Wanttaja <want...@halcyon.com> wrote
> >Are you sure this isn't a religious thing with you, Ron?
>
> Ah sponsored this wooden nag in this here hoss race, and ahm'a stickin'
> by him! :-)
Heh heh.
>
> In all honesty, my gut feel tells me that the aluminum structure would
> be the most crashworthy. But I'd just as soon have a good, solid,
> technical basis for my gut feeling. I'd rather see a good comparative
> study, or at least an technical explanation (in plain English, thank
> you :-) why that is the case. Tube vs. wood I ain't so sure about.
As I think I said, I'd put sheet well below tube in the crashability
stakes.
I think thousands of dusters would agree. Even the sheet ones have tubes
around the cockpit.
On the day, of course, it'll all come down to luck. One intrusion into the
cockpit of any material in the wrong place and it's all over.
>
> From the scientific viewpoint, there are too many variables. The
> Falco/SF-260 comparison would be ideal, except, as HF pointed out, there
> just isn't any statistically significant data to compare.
Or a wood vs steel tube Piet comparison. Do they even go fast enoght to
hurt you if you crash?
>
> Without such statistics, all that's left to us is discourse. I suspect
> the readers out there probably prefer a civilized discussion on
> crashworthiness than what USUALLY passes for debate here, hmmmmm....?
I hope you're not insinuatiing that I am difficult?
:)
Bertie
highflyer
>
> Or a wood vs steel tube Piet comparison. Do they even go fast enoght to
> hurt you if you crash?
Lots of people have been killed in car accidents at speeds well below
the cruising speed of even a Model A powered Piet. ( In the for what
it is worth category ) Once again there are not enough steel tube
Piets in the database either, to be significant statistically.
> >
> > Without such statistics, all that's left to us is discourse. I suspect
> > the readers out there probably prefer a civilized discussion on
> > crashworthiness than what USUALLY passes for debate here, hmmmmm....?
>
> I hope you're not insinuatiing that I am difficult?
> :)
>
Nah. Flat out SAID it!
Actually, I personally prefer a good steel tube cage for crash
worthiness. One of the reasons that steel tube aircraft are so
robust in a crash is that the great majority of steel tube aircraft
were either engineered before stress analysis was as sophisticated
as it is these days, and so were seriously OVER built for their job,
or they were "eyeball" engineered by taking one of the earlier over
engineered designs and beefing it up.
Many steel tube aircraft were designed to the strength limitations
of 1020 steel tubing and are now built with 4130 as a direct replace.
The 4130 has exactly the same weight and modulus of elasticity and
can replace 1020 directly without worry. It has over twice the
strength though. This adds significantly to the "surviveability"
of the structure in a crash.
Of course, the REAL problem is always incursion of high energy foreign
objects into the space currently occupied by your tender bawd.
HF
highflyer
>
> That was simply an illustration of the glass structures ability absorb the
> across is that composites have just as much or more ability to absorb the
> energy during a crash as would wood, steel tube or metal structures. It's more
> of an element in design and cost than necessarly materials.
>
Bob,
I think you will find that the reason the composite structures are
robust in a crash situation also has to do with engineering margins
and the conservative design that assumes always the worst case in
construction. Of course they do not assume that you will leave the
peelply in the middle of your laminate, but they do add a safety
margin for using the incorrect amount of resin or for less than
perfect bonding. The result is usually a structure that is somewhat
stronger and heavier than it would have to be.
Burt Rutan mentioned to me one time, that the lightest structure for
an airplane is aluminum sheet. The reason for that is the heavy
emphasis of structural engineering and research that has rather more
precisely defined exactly what is required with aluminum sheet to
meet the structural requirements. Steel tube is still designed
pretty much like a nineteenth centure bridge, although we are better
able to define the strength increases resulting from continuous
structural menbers instead of the hinged joints usually assumed in
the preliminary structural analysis.
There has been virtually NO work on wooden aircraft structures
since WWII, even though the Forest Products Labs have done a lot
of work on glue formulations for wood, and have done a lot of
research on building structures and wooden foundation and wood
treatment to delay the onset of decomposition. ( rot )
Glass composite is relative new on the scene and there is a LOT of
work going on NOW about different fibers embedded in different
matric materials to engineer composites with specific structural
characteristics. The composites are also getting more uniform in
their strength characteristics, which reduces the safety margins
required in the structural engineering. Unfortunately most of the
reduction in the local variation in strength comes from using
prepreg fibers and autoclaved vacuum layups in white rooms. All
a little beyond the usual homebuilders garage environment.
HF
highflyer
>
> While I agree that design is a huge factor, I still think that the more
> elastic the structur, the better the chances that the pax wil survive.
>
Actually, Bertie, you mean the LESS elastic the structure, the better
the chances that the pax will survive. If the structure were perfectly
elactic it would not deform at all but would return ALL the energy and
spring back to its exact original shape. The thing that makes metal
good for absorbing energy is the broad range between the point where
elasticity stops and rupture occurs! The initial yield point is where
elasticity stops. That is where deformation begins to occur and the
structure will remain bent after the load is removed. With metal
it takes a LOT more load before the structure rips, tears, and breaks.
A "brittle" material, like a concrete block, has its yield and rupture
points close together. Whenever I start to bend one the darn thing
breaks on me. :-) However, a good concrete block is quite elastic.
I can hit it pretty hard without leaving a dent!
HF
Richard Lamb
I guess the bottom line is, "how much energy is left
after the structure breaks".
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> Ronald James Wanttaja <want...@halcyon.com> wrote
>
> > On that basis, most wooden airplanes should be even SAFER than
> > Cessna-type semi-monocoque construction. When the aluminum skin breaks
> > or tears, that's it. But plywood skin is a lamination; it can
> > progressively fail. Besides, the aluminum is held to the bulkheads by
> > rivets spaced three quarters of an inch or more apart, while the plywood
> > is glued solidly to the underlying structure.
>
> OK. Agian conventional wisdom has it that aluminum structures are safer
> than wooden ones, but we were (at least I was) comparing steel tube to
> wood. I can't see longerons defoming the same way a steel tube does. I have
> seen a good few bent steel tube airplanes,and there is usually very little
> fracturing in the structure. I've only seen a couple of smashed up wooden
> ones (including a Stampe an aquantence died in a while back) and these were
> matchsticks after the fact. Of course, my experience is pretty limited in
> the bigger picture, but it still seems to me that wood is not elastic
> enough to absorb impact as well as a steel tube structure.
> Are you sure this isn't a religious thing with you, Ron?
>
> Bertie
Booboo
<char_nos...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>Richard Lamb wrote in message <36383B7E...@flash.net>...
>>Besides - I saw Billy Dawson's Grand Champion Hats a while back.
>>No Comparison.
>
>I saw it too. I wonder if he'd sell plans and a manual showing his
>modifications. Those Cessna-style ridged aluminum ailerons were
>interesting.
>Duncan
>char...@flash.net
>
>
I think that would be the Hatz Classic - my Kitplanes directory issure
gives the address as:
Makelan Corp
P.O. Box 312142
New Braunfels, TX 78130
800-688-2158
Beaux Graham
Austin, TX
Hatz630
>I think that would be the Hatz Classic - my Kitplanes directory issure
>gives the address as:
>
>Makelan Corp
>P.O. Box 312142
>New Braunfels, TX 78130
>800-688-2158
You can also e-mail them at hat...@gvtc.com
Scott