Fiesler Storch?
Tony W,
site. It shows a plane that looks large enough for me and a passenger. The
stall speed is listed as 14mph but there is little more information. Is
anybody else selling plans for a Fiesler Storch replica? I think even a
full sized FS would be a good homebuilt plane for me. Not exactly vintage
looking but from the description, it sounds like it's easy to fly.
Tony
Craig C.
Tony: Do a DejaNews search on the Fiesler. We've had a couple of
threads in the last couple of months on the Storch and I've posted
several times about working with a couple of real ones here stateside.
BTW...the only way to fit a full size Fi-156 in a standard T hangar is
to fold the wings, and door height must be at least 14'.
Craig C.
Stevens R. Miller
>
> >I was looking at a 3/4 scale Fiesler Storch replica at Carlson Aircraft
> >site. It shows a plane that looks large enough for me and a passenger. The
This is OT, but could someone help me understand why aircraft are always
spec'ed in terms of "stall speed" and not "stall angle"? I gather it is
because there is some airspeed, below which the plane can no longer
generate enough lift to avoid descent while still keeping the AOA below
the critical angle, but my books don't explicitly say so. Instead, they
go on and on about, "a stall will occur whenever the critical angle is
exceeded, regardless of speed," yet no one ever seems to think of it
that way in practice. Have I figured it out, or am I still missing
something important?
Owen Davies
airshow in New Hampshire a few weeks ago and was much
surprised to see that it had fixed wing slats. I always thought
the Fiesler had either automatic or manually extended slats.
Did I get it wrong, or was this plane a full-sized Storch-alike?
Thanks.
Owen Davies
JDupre5762
I know that the aircraft was actually a postwar built French aircraft. I
forget the designator but after they ran out of Argus V-8's they used Salmson
and then Jacobs radial engines. I think that the design always had fixed slats
but perhaps the French altered the design?
The Bf-108 and 109 always had automatic slats but it would be hard to confuse
those with the Fiesler!
John Dupre'
James L.
The French always showed joie de vivre with their airplanes. From
across the pond they shipped the metric parts for a neat low-wing 4-
place with slats called the Aerospatiale Rallye. She was assembled
here in the USA -- some of them at the airport at Rutherfordton, NC --
and declared after assembly to be certified. With a big tail and huge
rudder and vertical stabilizer, she was designed and advertised that if
you got lost in the soup you trimmed her for slowest speed altitude
hold -- just above the stall, which was obscenely low -- and let her
go, and you were promised to survive, or nearly so, if she hit terra
firma.
The wonderful specimen I took a ride in was powered with a guttural-
sounding 220-horse Franklin engine. Basso profundo. I swannee, I
thought we were almost vertical when the moveable slats deployed with a
loud, jarring BANG! Then she was slowed down and we weathered a
headwind almost hovering as I looked down at a freeze-frame in the
trees below, just like the JAARS people performed this dazzler at
Oshkosh with the Helio Courier. I would like to know the numbers on
that STOL wing, it was so nimble at wafting itself in and out of bush
strips. The character who drove her was a story in himself.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tony W,
Craig C. <valc...@dhc.net> wrote in message
news:C83E1615566D12EE.A310BD1B...@lp.airnews.net...
> Tony: Do a DejaNews search on the Fiesler. We've had a couple of
> threads in the last couple of months on the Storch and I've posted
> several times about working with a couple of real ones here stateside.
>
> BTW...the only way to fit a full size Fi-156 in a standard T hangar is
> to fold the wings, and door height must be at least 14'.
I'll give it a try but DejaNews sucks. I'm also hoping for feedback on
Carlson Aircraft. I may have to get a kit to get the plane I want. On
their website there is a photo of a guy 6"7' sitting in the airframe.
Tony
MNeume3675
75% scale and is using a Geo auto conversion. I helped him put the airframe on
the gear yesterday.
I must say it is a large plane, compared to my RV6A I am building, but it has
a very tight cockpit. Two six footers can fit with a shoehorn.
He has had all kinds of problems with the accuracy of the plans and has had to
rebuild tons of parts because what was shown on the plans just didn't work.
And this builder is very talented. If my RV was like that I would have quit
along time ago.
Slepvich I hear is just selling "kits" now and no longer offering just plans.
Mike
Tony W,
kits? Also I don't think I want to pay shipping from Australia for common
materials easily available in Portland, OR.
Tony
http://www.nor.com.au/business/storch/
MNeume3675 <mneum...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001022150956...@ng-co1.aol.com...
Owen Davies
> I know that the aircraft was actually a postwar built French aircraft. I
> forget the designator but after they ran out of Argus V-8's they used
Salmson
> and then Jacobs radial engines.
This one had what looked like the Argus
> I think that the design always had fixed slats
> but perhaps the French altered the design?
Could be.
> The Bf-108 and 109 always had automatic slats but it would be hard to
confuse
> those with the Fiesler!
Bf-108? I want! I want!
Owen Davies
Dave Hyde
> This is OT, but could someone help me understand why aircraft are always
> spec'ed in terms of "stall speed" and not "stall angle"?
Because given only one and no other information, stall speed (presumably
at 1g and some often unspecified weight) tells you more than stall AOA.
If I tell you stall AOA is 12 deg, you can say "Hmmm....that's nice,"
but
if I tell you stall speed is 40 mph you can (usually) get an idea of
the approach and landing speeds. Implicit in all that is that the specs
show _1g_ stall speed.
There are certainly tricks that are played, intentionally and otherwise,
like publishing (1g) stall speed for less than gross weight, or
publishing
_indicated_ airpeeds (meaningless, particularly at high AOA), but
between AOA and stall speed the all-tricks-aside number that
tells the prospective buyer the most is stall speed.
Aside: Given that I've seen very few homebuilts, prototype or otherwise,
with
a proper (and calibratable) AOA source, it's also likely that many
people,
including amateur designers and testers, don't KNOW that AOA their
airplane
stalls at.
Dave 'tower flyby' Hyde
na...@brick.net
JDupre5762
was flying in Indonesia? Anyone working on one in the U.S.? This was also a
3/4 scale version. I thought the Slepcev Storck was an Ultralight?
John Dupre'
Craig C.
>I saw what appeared to be an original Storch at a small
>airshow in New Hampshire a few weeks ago and was much
>surprised to see that it had fixed wing slats. I always thought
>the Fiesler had either automatic or manually extended slats.
>Did I get it wrong, or was this plane a full-sized Storch-alike?
>
>Thanks.
>
The French version was known as the Cricket if I remember correctly.
There is only one way to tell if it is a postwar Checz or French
airframe, if you don't have complete documentation, and that is by
close visual exam of the vertical tubes at the front edge of the door.
If they show any signs of a weldment other than at joints, it is a
postwar airframe. The reason is that the French and the Checz.'s
changed the door hinge arrangement from a top hinge to a front
hinge...more like a car door. That was about the only change, other
than different engines after the French overran the Fiesler plant
outside of Paris late in the war. They simply remanned the plant and
changed the markings and restarted production until the parts ran out.
At that point, they did the necessary engineering work to change to
the other engines that the Cricket has flown with.
Craig C.
JDupre5762
I was at that show if it was Nashua, N.H. The Storch definitely had an Argus.
The data plate was in French except for the Argus name and location in Germany.
Manufacture date was 1951.
I know that the Storch is one of two owned by the Collings Foundation, (please
note the G). The other one is a basket case, I have seen it, but does include
a lot of spares and an Argus engine and is for sale.
John Dupre'
Craig C.
>
>I'll give it a try but DejaNews sucks. I'm also hoping for feedback on
>Carlson Aircraft. I may have to get a kit to get the plane I want. On
>their website there is a photo of a guy 6"7' sitting in the airframe.
>
>
If you don't come up with much, hit me with an email and I'll see what
I have in my archieve files. I purge my outbox once every two years or
so, so I can probably find most of them. Just understand that I'm on a
stragne travel schedule and only get home a couple of nights a week
now and it might take a couple of days to gather it all and send it,
Craig C.
EZ Man
"Stevens R. Miller" <steve....@loudoun.com> wrote:
>This is OT, but could someone help me understand why aircraft are always
>spec'ed in terms of "stall speed" and not "stall angle"?
Two points. Firstly, when comparing airplane performance the stall
speed specification varies widely among different types of airplanes
while the stall angle generally varies little among different types of
airplanes. When comparing airplane performance, then, stall speeds
are a much more useful specification. Secondly, the stall angle would
be a somewhat useless spec for a pilot in a plane without an angle of
attack indicator. Most planes don't have AOA indicators.
>I gather it is
>because there is some airspeed, below which the plane can no longer
>generate enough lift to avoid descent while still keeping the AOA below
>the critical angle, but my books don't explicitly say so. Instead, they
>go on and on about, "a stall will occur whenever the critical angle is
>exceeded, regardless of speed," yet no one ever seems to think of it
>that way in practice.
Actually, good pilots do think about it that way in practice. They
know that the published stall speed(s) are for unaccelerated flight
and that there are a number of ways to make the plane stall above
those speeds. That is exactly what the books you reference are trying
to drill into your head.
>Have I figured it out, or am I still missing
>something important?
You tell me. :)
EZ Man
David Glauser
Ross Wilson, 12/31/99:
The December issue of Kitplanes (USA) have at least 3 kits that claim
to be smaller scale versions of the Fieseler Storch (Fi-156):
Criquet Carlson Aircraft Co.
USA (330) 426-3934
3/4 scale
RW19 Stork RagWing Aviation
USA (864) 338-1335
80% scale
Slepcev Storch Storch Aviation Australia
Australia (2) 6585-6458
3/4 scale
www.storch.com.au
This web site has links to some information about scale Storch
aircraft: http://pages.prodigy.net/davidvan/
If you don't keep up with Kitplanes, you could get hold of a CD they
publish with lots of info about kitplanes available in the US.
www.kitplanes.com
As to plans of a _real_ Storch, I guess Germany or France (where it
was made under licence) would be where you would start. There was
a moderately recent (less than 1 year ago?) article in a British
magazine with a simple flight review of a real Storch. Tracking that
article down may give you a lead in the UK.
On the other hand, there are modern kits that are "tried and tested".
The RV series comes to mind, for one. Thousands flying.
Try this for information about plans:
http://www.piteraq.dk/flight/storch.html
Ed Buck, 12/31/99:
EAA's Aerocrafter book 6th Edition has several addresses but the Index
is off a page or 2. I have not run across plans/kits for the Westland
Lysander. The wing construction would be complex, = long time to
build. The Fieseler Storch plans for the real thing are the Grail for
would be Storch flyers. There are several companies introducing
about 3/4 scale simulations of the Storch. Also there are a few web
sites dedicated to the Storch.
Ping's Storch Page: www.piteraq.dk/flight/storch is the most
comprehensive.
David's Page http://pages.prodigy.net/davidvan/ is another by a
Slepcev builder
John's Storch Page http://skylite.datanet.ab.ca/users/jbroom/ is by a
Slepcev builder who used a LOM engine and who has a lot of links.
Pazmany PL-9 plans only are listed at US phone 619-224-7330 Fax =
619-224-7358. Ladislao Pazmany is a respected designer with
incredibly detailed, intricate plans. The engine picked, however,
makes the nose like a potato. The grand old man is beginning to fade.
Get a set while you can. There will always be a market for them.
Ken Bauman bought the first Pazmany prototype and is re-engining it.
He intends to kit the Pazmany plane and offer in addition a wing
design not drawn by Pazmany. The relationship between Pazmany and
Bauman on this is not clear. His US phone is 208-934-4177, Fax
208-934-5803. email 303p...@northrim.net.
Nestor Slepcev has to date the most numerous fleet with examples
flying the world over. Some say he can be difficult to deal with, but
with a Rotax 914 the plane flies very well. Factory at
www.nor.com.au/business/storch/main.html His plans are said not as
detailed as Pazmany. John Broom, see above, built from plans. Kits
and all are from Australia.
Roger Mann's Ragwing Storch US phone 864-338-6092 addr 1705 Trail
Road, Belton SC 29627 may or may not still be marketed; perhaps as
plans only. I can't get a working URL to their old site. Of the
Storch simulacra, it was the least Storchy looking but through light
weight had excellent performance.
Ernie Carlson is developing the Criquet (named after the French
version). Like Broom, he uses the Czech LOM engine. Web site
www.skytek.com. It is now flying well with a new engine.
About a year ago I cross tabbed the printed specs of the various
Storch simulacra. This is still posted, I believe, on David Van
Overstraeten's page. Not all nominally 3/4 scale planes are the
same. The Carlson is closest to true 3/4.
The various manufacturers are of course competitors. Posters have bad
mouthed one or the other due to attitude, lateness, etc. . Take up
any questions directly with the manufacturer. Be sure all questions
are answered, including non named allegations of "cheating". Startup
companies always have trouble staying abreast with hopeful delivery
time lines. That includes ALL of them.
Get involved with newsgroups via Ping or David, who use Listbot.
One or another of these would be fine; check them all out.
HTH,
David
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:36:23 -0700, "Tony W," <techn...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>I was looking at a 3/4 scale Fiesler Storch replica at Carlson Aircraft
>site. It shows a plane that looks large enough for me and a passenger. The
Tony W,
Carlson crashed his Storch. Anyway the company doesn't plan to sell kits
for some time and they have no pricing available. I'm still hoping for
plans.
Tony
David Glauser <glau...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:39f35e21....@news.gte.net...
Tony W,
> He intends to kit the Pazmany plane and offer in addition a wing
> design not drawn by Pazmany. The relationship between Pazmany and
> Bauman on this is not clear. His US phone is 208-934-4177, Fax
> 208-934-5803. email 303p...@northrim.net.
I was looking at the Pazmany website, they want nearly $550 for the plans.
Isn't this awfully expensive for plans?
Tony
Kevin O'Brien
>
>> "Tony W," <techn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I was looking at a 3/4 scale Fiesler Storch replica at Carlson Aircraft
>> >site. It shows a plane that looks large enough for me and a passenger. The
>
>This is OT, but could someone help me understand why aircraft are always
>because there is some airspeed, below which the plane can no longer
>generate enough lift to avoid descent while still keeping the AOA below
>the critical angle, but my books don't explicitly say so. Instead, they
>go on and on about, "a stall will occur whenever the critical angle is
>exceeded, regardless of speed," yet no one ever seems to think of it
>something important?
Steve --
You are quite correct that an aerodynamic stall is a function of angle of attack
(alpha) and not airspeed. As you probably know, stall speed rises with weight,
load factor, bank angle (mostly because of load factor) and some other things.
It can go down with deployment of slats and flaps and addition of power. So why
even talk about stall speed?
1) every a/c is instrumented for airspeed per FAR 91. Very few have the
unrequired (but extremely useful) angle of attack indicator that is familiar to
military pilots. So speed is the best approximation to alpha for most planes.
2) stall speed gives us a valuable rule of thumb for comparing dissimilar
aircraft. For instance, consider a craft with a projected stall speed of about
72 kt. Compare Tony W's 14 MPH claimed speed. You can draw a mental picture of
the two ships, can't you, even allowing for some exaggeration (stall speeds,
particularly in XA, are frequently massaged to unrecognisability.
But you are dead on in considering an angle of attack measurement more accurate.
There are at least two available at a reasonable cost for the XA market, so you
need not feel deprived if your project is not an F/A-18 resto. (grin).
About the 14-MPH storch -- see my reply to Tony.
cheers
-=K=-
Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.
Kevin O'Brien
>
>I saw what appeared to be an original Storch at a small
>airshow in New Hampshire a few weeks ago and was much
>surprised to see that it had fixed wing slats. I always thought
>the Fiesler had either automatic or manually extended slats.
>Did I get it wrong, or was this plane a full-sized Storch-alike?
>
>Thanks.
>
>
Ooh. I have studied this plane a wee bit, and have to comment, OD.
Probably a full sized, authentic Storch, the Collings Foundation's:
N-number : N156FC
Aircraft Serial Number : 4621
Aircraft Manufacturer : FIESELER CO
Model : FI-156-C1
Engine Manufacturer : ARGUS
Model : AS10R
Aircraft Year :
Owner Name : COLLINGS FOUNDATION
Owner Address : PO BOX 248
STOW, MA, 01775-0248
Registration Date : 11-Aug-1997
Airworthiness Certificate Type : Experimental
Approved Operations : Exhibition
Data from Landings... I couldn't find it at AvWeb. I got several good photos of
it at the Pease airshow (N156FC, which was _probably_ the one you saw). Most of
the flying Storches are French-built (and indeed this might have been, but it
was a wartime German machine) and date from postwar. A friend of mine swears he
saw one rotting in the weeds in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. During the war
the production was moved to Morane Saulnier because the fieseler factory was
committed to Me 109 and other production, so many German Storches were actually
built in France. The French workers use to pee in the glue and commit other acts
of furtive defiance, the story goes.
The Storch gathered a lot of nicknames in its life. Along with the official
Stork and the French Cricket, its pilots called it 'Ciguena' (Stork in Spanish,
from the Civil War), 'the flying Etagere' and the 'Flying Nightmare' (American
Al Williams, invited to fly German planes by Udet in 1938).
As you noted, the Fi 156 and its Morane follow-ons all had fixed full-span
slats. Fieseler had previously used handley-page slats (if you have ever flown a
Helio, I have, or an Me 109, I wish, you have seen these in action) in the Fi97,
so he had mastered the technology but didn't use it. Presumably the fixed slats
were used because there was no requirement for high speed, only low. The stated
speeds of the Fi 156 in contemporary German documents were not as low as current
legend has it (remember this was a big, heavy... minimum flying weight all up
1320 kilos! plane). here are some numbers from official Luftwaffe testing
(Imperial units conversion mine):
Full control minimum speed 51 km/h 32 mph
Take off distance, no wind 75 m 246 ft
Landing distance, no wind 125 m 410 ft
Landing, plowed field, med. wind 5 m 17 ft
The t/o and landing distances are over an obstacle, height unspec. These are
good numbers... Super Cub numbers... but not supernatural numbers! Around the
time this testing was complete, 1937, they pulled the plug on the FA61
helicopter (the strange machine famous for the inside-the-Deutschlandhalle
flights of Hanna Reitsch). Further development was pointless with the Storch in
hand. Indeed, this stands as an indictment for all who would use complex and
expensive helicopters where STOL done right would suffice.
While the Storch was designed to a mil spec, it was designed in peacetime and
the factory expected to sell many to private parties, because of its great
safety and ruggedness. In the event, war soon broke out and no serious quantity
of Storches ever sold to civilians.
Gerhard Fieseler was an interesting character. In his youth he was fascinated
with flight and built model planes. His dad hated that and wanted him to become
a printer (as the old man was). Then war broke out. In the First World war he
was a sergeant pilot in the Imperial Air Corps. He displayed incredible bravery,
winning two almost unheard of distinctions: a special version of the Blue Max
for other ranks, and a battlefield commission (the Kaiser's army just NEVER did
that). After getting a Fokker D7 and command of a squadron, he came up with the
idea of mounting a gun diagonally and sneaking up under enemy planes (on the
Balkan front the Germans were heavily outnumbered by Allied Italian planes). Not
very sporting, that, but it's hard to argue with success and Fieseler argued 21
Allied planes into the ground that way without taking a single hit on his plane.
At the end of the war Germany had no need for heroes, so he put the medals away
and opened a printing firm. His father's happiness ended when Gerhard saw Ernst
Udet at an airshow -- the print shop fell into neglect while the still-young
aviator hit the show circuit.
In 1927 he invented something we still use today -- aerotowing gliders. (The
first aerotow in history took place in Kassel in January of that year).
he then turned his hand to aerobatics -- he invented a few maneuvers and evolved
standards of precision for others. He was the first one who flew a number of
maneuvers, but as I don't knwo aerobatics I don't know how to put them from
German into English. Sorry.
He won the first German championship in 1928, beating Ernst Udet. And 1929. And
1930. and... well, in 1934, he retired from competition, undefeated. And the
most highly paid pilot in the world to boot. He won European and world
championships during this period.
Sorry for the OT aspect to the post but I thought you Storch fans might have
some interest in the remarkable chap who project managed it and considered it
his 'baby.' (The actual designers were Dr-Ing. Hermann Winter, Ing. Reinhold
Mewes, and Dipl-Ing. Viktor Maugsch). It is a bit ironic that despite all the
peaceful accomplishments I recount above, today Gerhard Fieseler is remembered
most for the Storch and the V-1 'buzz bomb.'
Kevin O'Brien
valc...@dhc.net says...
>
>"Owen Davies" <ow...@davies.mv.com> wrote:
>
>>I saw what appeared to be an original Storch at a small
>>airshow in New Hampshire a few weeks ago and was much
>>surprised to see that it had fixed wing slats. I always thought
>>the Fiesler had either automatic or manually extended slats.
>>Did I get it wrong, or was this plane a full-sized Storch-alike?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>There is only one way to tell if it is a postwar Checz or French
>airframe, if you don't have complete documentation, and that is by
>close visual exam of the vertical tubes at the front edge of the door.
>If they show any signs of a weldment other than at joints, it is a
>postwar airframe. The reason is that the French and the Checz.'s
>changed the door hinge arrangement from a top hinge to a front
>hinge...more like a car door. That was about the only change, other
>than different engines after the French overran the Fiesler plant
>outside of Paris late in the war. They simply remanned the plant and
>changed the markings and restarted production until the parts ran out.
>At that point, they did the necessary engineering work to change to
>the other engines that the Cricket has flown with.
>
>Craig C.
Aha! If memory serves when the pilot exited the Storch the door hinged at the
front. That would gibe with Mr Dupre's recollection of a French 1951 data plate
and not with the data from the Landings database I posted here. As you pointed
out, the data plates by now have been jiggered so much (and this is also true of
your beloved Bf 108, which was also produced in France during and post-war) that
only little details like you remember would let someone be sure.
Kevin O'Brien
> a postwar Checz or French
>airframe,
Oh yeah... Czech storches were called Cap (pronounced chap, meaning stork). It
was only used for a couple of years before being replaced by the L-60 Brigadyr
(I won't insult you with *that* translation). They went to the SVAZARM aviation
clubs, as glider tugs (would have done old Gerhard who invented glider tugging
proud) and seem to have all been off the civil register by 1980. One hangs in
the aviation museum at Prague-Kbely airfield.
Kevin O'Brien
>
> > Ken Bauman bought the first Pazmany prototype and is re-engining it.
> > He intends to kit the Pazmany plane and offer in addition a wing
> > design not drawn by Pazmany. The relationship between Pazmany and
> > Bauman on this is not clear. His US phone is 208-934-4177, Fax
> > 208-934-5803. email 303p...@northrim.net.
>
>
>Isn't this awfully expensive for plans?
>
>Tony
Seems like that's on the high end, Tony, but Paz has a great reputation. I have
his books and have thought of getting the plans just to read 'em (did that with
PL-1 plans but bought them used). You might also try the Storch ring and ask the
webmasters to see if anyone will place your want ad for unused Slepcev plans.
John Broomhall (one of the links you got) did not think the plans were all that
bad although a lot was left to his imagination and a few changes were faxed over
from Oz.
Slepcev discontinued his plans when he discovered that unethical people had
taken his plans and were (1) reselling them as their own and/or (2) making kits
and/or complete aircraft (prebuilt ultralights are legal in most of the world)
as their own.
Someone asked if the Slepcev wasn't an ultralight. In some nations yes.
Including I think it's native Oz. Only the US (that I know of) has the 254 lb.
limit on ultralights. You could never build a Slepcev Storch within the US
ultralight rules, but a Canadian or Brit might.
You are correct that Ernie Carlson died in a crash of his prototype Cricket. The
design doesn't appear to be at fault; his family is trying to carry on the
business without him, which must be very hard.
If what you want is more STOL than Storch, James L's recommendation of a Zenith
701 ia right on target. An easy kit to build, many completed, all metal (you
said that you didn't want to work with composite but metal was OK, IIRC?). There
is also a larger 4-seat version (801) but that is not available in plans. Like
Slepcev, Chris Heintz was burned badly by people ripping off his plans. It's a
pity because one sweet thing about the 701 and 601 is that you can buy the
plans... and then if one particular part looks to hard for you, or uses a skill
you don't care to learn (say, welding), you can call the factory and order just
those parts.
What some people don't like about the Heintz designs is the pulled Avex rivets
(like pop rivets) and the hingeless ailerons. Chris has explained himself blue
in the face about these features and still people shy away from them. Your
homebuilder might be from anywhere in the spectrum politically, but
engineering-wise he's conservative. The FAA has no problem with Avex rivets or
hingeless ailerons, having certified both, and neither should we.
HERD J D
: I found Slepcev's website but if his plans are that bad, how good are his
: kits? Also I don't think I want to pay shipping from Australia for common
: materials easily available in Portland, OR.
:
: Tony
Now you know the headache we Aussies have when building a US design.
8-)
--
Cheers,
Herdy. (Jon Herd)
James L.
mneum...@aol.com (MNeume3675) wrote:
> I have a friend who is plans building a Slepvich? Storch. It is
approximately
> 75% scale and is using a Geo auto conversion. I helped him put the
airframe on
> the gear yesterday.
>
> I must say it is a large plane, compared to my RV6A I am building,
but it has
> a very tight cockpit. Two six footers can fit with a shoehorn.
>
> He has had all kinds of problems with the accuracy of the plans and
has had to
> rebuild tons of parts because what was shown on the plans just didn't
work.
> And this builder is very talented. If my RV was like that I would
have quit
> along time ago.
>
> Slepvich I hear is just selling "kits" now and no longer offering
just plans.
>
> Mike
>
Several years ago Slepcev and Bob Counts of Hendersonville, NC had an
arrangement for a while. Counts (N-3 Pup) was to be the US distributor
of Slepcev's Storch. One or two were built and then they fell out.
The first one to fly in NC had a Rotax 912. I never saw it fly but it
was said to be a nice STOL with fixed slats. The one at the airport in
Hendersonville looked like a two place mini-Fiesler. The second one
was going to have a Saturn engine but it disappeared before it flew.
Maybe somebody in the NG knows what happened to both of them.
Best STOL around for the money is Chris Heintz's CH-701 and its
variations. Good track record and climbs like a cat.
Owen Smith
|> > He intends to kit the Pazmany plane and offer in addition a wing
|> > design not drawn by Pazmany. The relationship between Pazmany and
|> > Bauman on this is not clear. His US phone is 208-934-4177, Fax
|> > 208-934-5803. email 303p...@northrim.net.
|>
|>
|> Isn't this awfully expensive for plans?
|>
| >Tony
|>
It's insignificant compared to what you will spend to complete the plane.
Maybe you could work a deal where you pay $50 for the plans and $100 per
question after you get them.
Glen
Glen
Tony W,
Kevin O'Brien <ke...@useorganisationasdomainname.com> wrote in message
> Compare Tony W's 14 MPH claimed speed.
I didn't claime that Carlson Aircraft did. I just repeated it for sake of
argument.
Tony
dick
<ke...@useorganisationasdomainname.com> wrote:
>In article <601D012F64D36264.15DEFB22...@lp.airnews.net>,
>valc...@dhc.net says...
>>
>>"Owen Davies" <ow...@davies.mv.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I saw what appeared to be an original Storch at a small
>>>airshow in New Hampshire a few weeks ago and was much
>>>surprised to see that it had fixed wing slats. I always thought
>>>the Fiesler had either automatic or manually extended slats.
>>>Did I get it wrong, or was this plane a full-sized Storch-alike?
>
William Green said only the prototype had automatic slats
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>The French version was known as the Cricket if I remember correctly.
>>There is only one way to tell if it is a postwar Checz or French
>>airframe, if you don't have complete documentation, and that is by
>>close visual exam of the vertical tubes at the front edge of the door.
>>If they show any signs of a weldment other than at joints, it is a
>>postwar airframe. The reason is that the French and the Checz.'s
>>changed the door hinge arrangement from a top hinge to a front
>>hinge...more like a car door. That was about the only change, other
>>than different engines after the French overran the Fiesler plant
>>outside of Paris late in the war. They simply remanned the plant and
>>changed the markings and restarted production until the parts ran out.
>>At that point, they did the necessary engineering work to change to
>>the other engines that the Cricket has flown with.
>>
>>Craig C.
>
>Aha! If memory serves when the pilot exited the Storch the door hinged at the
>front. That would gibe with Mr Dupre's recollection of a French 1951 data plate
>and not with the data from the Landings database I posted here. As you pointed
>out, the data plates by now have been jiggered so much (and this is also true of
>your beloved Bf 108, which was also produced in France during and post-war) that
>only little details like you remember would let someone be sure.
>
dick
wrote:
what are we talking about here, rate of climb or angle of climb?
are you saying the 701 climbs out steeper than the Storch for the
money?
herb.
Ted Fontelieu
You might also try contacting Roger Mann of RagWing Aviation. He sells
plans for several different versions of Storch replicas for $150.00. His
number is 1-864-348-6216.
Ted Fontelieu
http://sirius-aviation.com
"Tony W," <techn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3MwI5.38771$Ou2.1...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> I was looking at a 3/4 scale Fiesler Storch replica at Carlson Aircraft
> site. It shows a plane that looks large enough for me and a passenger.
The
highflyer
>
> I was looking at a 3/4 scale Fiesler Storch replica at Carlson Aircraft
> site. It shows a plane that looks large enough for me and a passenger. The
> stall speed is listed as 14mph but there is little more information. Is
> anybody else selling plans for a Fiesler Storch replica? I think even a
> full sized FS would be a good homebuilt plane for me. Not exactly vintage
> looking but from the description, it sounds like it's easy to fly.
>
> Tony
Ladislao Pazmany has designed and released plans for a 3/4 Storch. His
is extremely well engineered. Paz knows what he is doing. The plans
are fairly expensive, but they are well worth it.
He designed it to utilize a Subaru engine. It should be quite an
airplane.
Even at 3/4 size it is a big airplane.
I don't know his web address, but I am sure he is on the web somewhere.
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
highflyer
>
> > "Tony W," <techn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I was looking at a 3/4 scale Fiesler Storch replica at Carlson Aircraft
> > >site. It shows a plane that looks large enough for me and a passenger. The
>
> This is OT, but could someone help me understand why aircraft are always
> spec'ed in terms of "stall speed" and not "stall angle"? I gather it is
> because there is some airspeed, below which the plane can no longer
> generate enough lift to avoid descent while still keeping the AOA below
> the critical angle, but my books don't explicitly say so. Instead, they
> go on and on about, "a stall will occur whenever the critical angle is
> exceeded, regardless of speed," yet no one ever seems to think of it
> that way in practice. Have I figured it out, or am I still missing
> something important?
Not really. A wing will always stall at the same angle of attack. That
is the "critical angle of attack" or the "stall angle of attack"
depending
on the terminology you are using. Unfortunately, most airplanes do NOT
have an instrument that measures the "angle of attack" so that you do
not know when you are about to reach it.
However, at any given weight and accelleration, you will reach that
critical
angle of attack at only one airspeed. If you are pulling four G's of
accelleration, you will reach that angle of attack at exactly twice the
airspeed you will in unaccellerated level flight.
You do have an instrument that measures, however poorly at low speeds,
the
airspeed. As a result, we usually specify the "critical angle of
attack"
in terms of the resulting airspeed in level unaccellerated flight. We
call that the "stall speed."
highflyer
>
> I saw what appeared to be an original Storch at a small
> airshow in New Hampshire a few weeks ago and was much
> surprised to see that it had fixed wing slats. I always thought
> the Fiesler had either automatic or manually extended slats.
> Did I get it wrong, or was this plane a full-sized Storch-alike?
>
>
> Owen Davies
The original Storch did indeed have fixed slats. They opted for fixed
after comparing the drag difference for fixed and retractable slats in
the speed regime where the Storch operated. There was no significant
penalty for leaving the darn things sitting there!
Automatic slats that I have experienced had a rather disconcerting
tendency to extend and retract at will during slow flight. Often you
would find yourself with one wing with slats in and one with them out.
It didn't really affect the flying of the airplane, but it WAS a bit
offputting! :-)
Manual slats are a bit more controllable, but also have much heavier
linkages and require a separate control.
Slats have an interesting effect. All they do is energize the airflow
over the top of the wing at high angles of attack, and by doing so,
modify the "critical angle of attack" so the airplane will reach a
AOA three or four degrees greater before it breaks. This DOES
represent a significant increase in lift coefficient because the
coefficient of lift will increase more or less in a linear fashion
with AOA up to near the critical angle.
That is why the Storch had such long legs! You have to sit on the
ground at a higher angle to take advantage of the higher critical
AOA for landing. :-)
highflyer
>
> > Ken Bauman bought the first Pazmany prototype and is re-engining it.
> > He intends to kit the Pazmany plane and offer in addition a wing
> > design not drawn by Pazmany. The relationship between Pazmany and
> > Bauman on this is not clear. His US phone is 208-934-4177, Fax
> > 208-934-5803. email 303p...@northrim.net.
>
> Isn't this awfully expensive for plans?
>
> Tony
Paz didn't just whip out those plans in a weekend. He reengineered the
entire aircraft to FAR 23 standards. It is developed to the same
standards as a certified aircraft has to be. There are many MANY
hours of engineering in those plans. The market is limited.
Those plans are cheap for what you get, compared to the competitors
out there on the market.
Tony W,
highflyer <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:39F5F587...@alt.net...
> Paz didn't just whip out those plans in a weekend. He reengineered the
> entire aircraft to FAR 23 standards. It is developed to the same
> standards as a certified aircraft has to be. There are many MANY
> hours of engineering in those plans. The market is limited.
>
> Those plans are cheap for what you get, compared to the competitors
> out there on the market.
>
> --
> HighFlyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
That was the type of input I was looking for. I'm going to take my time and
decide in a few months. Depending on what happens with the sport pilot
regs, I plan to get my pilot's license next spring and whatever I build will
fall into that category.
Tony
Tony W,
they haven't sold out by now.
Tony
Kevin O'Brien <ke...@useorganisationasdomainname.com> wrote in message
Dave Hyde
> Automatic slats that I have experienced had a rather disconcerting
> tendency to extend and retract at will during slow flight.
Aerodynamic ('automatic') slats I'm familiar with had a "rather
disconcerting tendency to extend and retract at will" during high-g
flight...same AOA, different result.
> It didn't really affect the flying of the airplane...
Hehe...these did.
"Slat check."
"Go."
pull....<thunk> *crack*
(One slat extends, heads hits canopy
as airplane rapidly rolls, then recovers as
opposite slat extends)
"Umm....was that a good check?"
"I dunno...you wanna try it again?"
Anybody who wants to use something like this needs to
take a good looooong look at design of the slat tracks
the maintenance that will go into keeping them
working smoothly, and the implications if they don't.
Dave 'scooter' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Stevens R. Miller
highflyer wrote:
> However, at any given weight and accelleration, you will reach that
> critical
> angle of attack at only one airspeed. If you are pulling four G's of
> accelleration, you will reach that angle of attack at exactly twice the
> airspeed you will in unaccellerated level flight.
>
> You do have an instrument that measures, however poorly at low speeds,
> the
> airspeed. As a result, we usually specify the "critical angle of
> attack"
> in terms of the resulting airspeed in level unaccellerated flight. We
> call that the "stall speed."
Thanks. That is a very helpful explanation.
Charles K. Scott
Dave Hyde <na...@brick.net> writes:
> Anybody who wants to use something like this needs to
> take a good looooong look at design of the slat tracks
> the maintenance that will go into keeping them
> working smoothly, and the implications if they don't.
The Messerschmitt BF109 series all had automatically deploying
independent leading edge slats. Flight reports that surfaced from
captured 109's universally commented on how difficult this made high
alfpha flight. This is why you never ever three pointed the 109 for
landing. Assymetric deployment of the slats guarranteed a sudden wing
drop with catastrophic consequences.
Military aviation historians constantly cite the overwhelming number of
109's lost in landing accidents during WWII.
Others who flew and reported on flight characteristics mentioned how
slat deployment in high G maneuvers caused aileron snatch and momentary
loss of control. Not a good thing when you are attempting to draw a
bead on an opponent.
Consequently, combat in the 109 consisted mostly of high speed bounces
with subsequent escape and little need for maneuvering.
There were some German pilots who were consistantly able to extract
maximum performance in the 109 despite the numerous operational
handicaps. My feeling is that these pilots would have been successful
flying whatever they were given.
Corky Scott
Charles K. Scott
highflyer <high...@alt.net> writes:
> Not really. A wing will always stall at the same angle of attack. That
> is the "critical angle of attack" or the "stall angle of attack"
> depending
> on the terminology you are using. Unfortunately, most airplanes do NOT
> have an instrument that measures the "angle of attack" so that you do
> not know when you are about to reach it.
There are now several different companies producing a relatively
inexpensive AOA device.
The first I saw such a device was almost 10 years ago and it was
described in Kitplanes magazine. It consisted of a little windvane
mounted vertically on the lift strut of a high wing monoplane. At
normal cruising attitude the windvane trailed straight back. At higher
angles of attack it would indicate the local airflow on a marked scale.
The designer simply marked the scale with various equally seperated
points, then went out and did a series of stalls while looking out the
window at the pointer. He made a mental note as to what dot the
pointer was pointing at when the break occured and when he landed,
painted that one bright red.
From then on, no matter what the speed, as long as he kept that pointer
below the red dot, he was safe from stall.
One of the devices being manufactured today is a variation of that
concept but has a tranducer to translate the AOA and display it inside
to cockpit in colored lights.
Another device reacts to air pressure against various holes in it's
probe and displays the results in the cockpit as well.
The original device was almost ridiculously cheap to make but does
require that the pilot be looking out the window to see it.
A piece of string taped to a backing plate would accomplish essentially
the same thing.
Corky Scott
Bob Chilcoat
Imperative". Stated simply: "When your tool is a hammer, everything looks
like a nail". In medicine, almost everything (data, measurements, etc.) one
is interested in is buried deep inside the body where you can't get at it.
A few things ARE pretty easy to get at -- temperature, breathing rate,
indirect blood pressure, heart rate, etc. so we place great importance on
these, not because they are all that important, it's just that we can
measure them. From them we try to infer what we would really like to know.
The same is true of other engineering disciplines. In the case of aviation,
it's pretty easy to measure airspeed. It's a lot tougher to measure AOA.
So we place great importance on stall speed, not because it's as important
as AOA, but because we can measure it a lot more easily.
--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways - "Always spare landings for every
takeoff")
----------
"highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:39F5E73B...@alt.net...
> "Stevens R. Miller" wrote:
> >
> > > "Tony W," <techn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I was looking at a 3/4 scale Fiesler Storch replica at Carlson
Aircraft
> > > >site. It shows a plane that looks large enough for me and a
passenger. The
> > > >stall speed is listed as 14mph[...]
> >
> > This is OT, but could someone help me understand why aircraft are always
> > spec'ed in terms of "stall speed" and not "stall angle"? I gather it is
> > because there is some airspeed, below which the plane can no longer
> > generate enough lift to avoid descent while still keeping the AOA below
> > the critical angle, but my books don't explicitly say so. Instead, they
> > go on and on about, "a stall will occur whenever the critical angle is
> > exceeded, regardless of speed," yet no one ever seems to think of it
> > that way in practice. Have I figured it out, or am I still missing
> > something important?
>
> Not really. A wing will always stall at the same angle of attack. That
> is the "critical angle of attack" or the "stall angle of attack"
> depending
> on the terminology you are using. Unfortunately, most airplanes do NOT
> have an instrument that measures the "angle of attack" so that you do
> not know when you are about to reach it.
>
> However, at any given weight and accelleration, you will reach that
> critical
> angle of attack at only one airspeed. If you are pulling four G's of
> accelleration, you will reach that angle of attack at exactly twice the
> airspeed you will in unaccellerated level flight.
>
> You do have an instrument that measures, however poorly at low speeds,
> the
> airspeed. As a result, we usually specify the "critical angle of
> attack"
> in terms of the resulting airspeed in level unaccellerated flight. We
> call that the "stall speed."
>
Kevin O'Brien
>
>I didn't claime that Carlson Aircraft did. I just repeated it for sake of
>argument.
>
>Tony
Sorry, Tony, I was imprecise in my wording. Yes, Carlson has claimed 14 (before
their prototype flew) and Slepcev 16 (Kt, I *think*). You were very clear in
your post that you were only repeating Carlson's specs. I personally don't think
that either of these ships can make those numbers (they might *indicate* those
numbers in a very high-alpha, power-on stall -- see Dave Hyde's post). That
doesn't alter the fact that they are capable of extreme slow flight.
I hope that the firm can survive without Ernie. I didn't know him but anytime we
lose a designer we all suffer.
Cy Galley
--
Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact!
(Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com)
"highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:39F5E5F2...@alt.net...
> "Tony W," wrote:
> >
> > I was looking at a 3/4 scale Fiesler Storch replica at Carlson Aircraft
> > site. It shows a plane that looks large enough for me and a passenger.
The
> > stall speed is listed as 14mph but there is little more information. Is
> > anybody else selling plans for a Fiesler Storch replica? I think even a
> > full sized FS would be a good homebuilt plane for me. Not exactly
vintage
> > looking but from the description, it sounds like it's easy to fly.
> >
> > Tony
>
> Ladislao Pazmany has designed and released plans for a 3/4 Storch. His
> is extremely well engineered. Paz knows what he is doing. The plans
> are fairly expensive, but they are well worth it.
>
> He designed it to utilize a Subaru engine. It should be quite an
> airplane.
> Even at 3/4 size it is a big airplane.
>
> I don't know his web address, but I am sure he is on the web somewhere.
>
Kevin O'Brien
says...
>
>The Messerschmitt BF109 series all had automatically deploying
>independent leading edge slats.
And Nauga was talking about the A-4's manually deployed slats.
> Flight reports that surfaced from
>captured 109's universally commented on how difficult this made high
>alfpha flight.
One of the problems with the 109 was that the HP slats were designed for a
specific gross weight and by war's end the ship was flying at double that with
no change in the aero characteristics of the wings. (Or slats). I have flown a/c
with handley-page slats (Helio) and honestly, the effect is not as great as you
might think. The noise is disconcerting.
> This is why you never ever three pointed the 109 for
>landing. Assymetric deployment of the slats guarranteed a sudden wing
>drop with catastrophic consequences.
>Military aviation historians constantly cite the overwhelming number of
>109's lost in landing accidents during WWII.
Actually, I think the marginal rudder, stiff ailerons, and narrow-track landing
gear would probably do it. Rudder's blanked by the horizontal tail in 3-point
position. And the nose blocks forward view. I find it hard to blame the
difficulty of landing a fast, zero-visibility, skinny-gear plane on the wing
slats. Not when I've seen 'em work. However, the Brit test pilot who flew the
109E seemed to think you ought to three point and not wheel land. He said:
'Landing
This is more difficult than on the Hurricane I or Spitfire I. Owing to the high
ground attitude, the airplane must be rotated through a large angle before
touchdown, and this requires a fair amount of skill. If a wheel landing is done
the left wing tends to drop just before touchdown, and if the ailerons are used
to lift it, they snatch, causing over-correction.'
Note that this is a ref to aileron snatch, which is NOT related here to slat
deployment... different phenomenon aerodynamically... He adds:
'The brakes can be applied immediately after touchdown without fear of lifting
the tail. The ground run is short, with no tendency to swing. View during
hold-off and ground run is very poor, and landing at night would not be easy.'
Doesn't seem like he liked the plane overmuch. Anyway, the gear were close
together for a reason. By hinging the gear legs in the fuselage, Messerschmitt
could greatly reduce the weight of the wings. In fact if you take the wings off
a 109 you can still wheel the fuse around to work on it. The gear are mounted to
a stout carry through/firewall/engine-mount receiver structure. The 109 was
built to be the smallest airframe possible around the DB601 engine -- a similar
design philosophy informed the MiG-21. Interestingly, these were two of the
longest lasting and most produced aifcraft of their respective eras, despite
both of them having glaring faults and coming off 2nd best in flyoffs.
The downside of the 'minimum engine envelope' approach is that (1) you have
little room for growth, like when you need bigger engines, better armament,
armour, and more powerful weapons; and (2) it makes for a cramped cockpit and
heavy pilot workload.
Conversely, the Japanese built the lightest, smoothest and best balanced
airframe around a much less powerful engine, which would have been a great
sportplane but soon exposed its flaws in combat. Even though Japanese men are
biometrically speaking smaller than Germans, the zero cockpit is far roomier and
visibility better. The light weight left the zero unable to be improved as the
109 and Allied planes were.
>Others who flew and reported on flight characteristics mentioned how
>slat deployment in high G maneuvers caused aileron snatch and momentary
>loss of control. Not a good thing when you are attempting to draw a
>bead on an opponent.
>Consequently, combat in the 109 consisted mostly of high speed bounces
>with subsequent escape and little need for maneuvering.
There is a site online that has Eric Brown's (I think that was his name)
complete test report on the 109E, along with a lot of fascinating construction
details about the machine. He noted the snatch you mention, only apparent with
flaps down, but found the control stiffness at speed much more limiting.
Here's the link: http://members.aol.com/bf109gust/webhtmls/flying.html
>There were some German pilots who were consistantly able to extract
>maximum performance in the 109 despite the numerous operational
>handicaps. My feeling is that these pilots would have been successful
>flying whatever they were given.
probably true... in the same vein, some Allied pilots became aces in the P-40,
many Japanese pilots overcame the limitations of the Zero or Hayabusa, and
Pokryshkin shot down 63 German and Axis planes mostly flying the P-39. I believe
there was a Finnish chappie who was successful in the Brewster 309 Buffalo, a
plane that the RAF and USN could not dispose of quickly enough. To pull a switch
on a Napoleon line, I would say the pilot is to the plane as ten is to one.
Early in the Vietnam War, the MiG-21 had a 2:1 kill advantage over US
aircraft... Counting obsolete MiGs, the exchange ratios were about even. When
the Americans analysed the problem and improved training and tactics, the roles
more than reversed. By 1972 a MiG driver couldn't climb into the pit with his
1967 confidence. By 1944 the German and Japanese air arms were hurting, but it
was the quality of pilots that had declined more precipitously than the relative
decline in aircraft quality (compared to the allies).
Tony W,
bet if they can get it together. Slepcev wants $32000 USD for his kit.
Carlson's aluminum ultralight wings were the only ones I would have
considered flying with.
Tony
Kevin O'Brien <ke...@useorganisationasdomainname.com> wrote in message
news:8t7gd...@edrn.newsguy.com...
Kevin O'Brien
>
>Slepcev wants $32000 USD for his kit.
Yikes! Maybe if it includes the Rotax, but Yikes!!! I didn't think he got much
more than that for complete fly-aways at home in OZ (where it's legal).
If you got to sun-n-fun or OSH, you might see him fly one of his ships...
impressive. He had one with a full-reversing prop at SNF a couple years ago, he
used to back it into parking spaces to show off. He has been at the ultralight
area, don't know if he always is.
Kevin O'Brien
>
>Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>
>>In article <8t6j4j$vm5$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU>, Charles...@dartmouth.edu
>> says...
>> >
>> >The Messerschmitt BF109 series all had automatically deploying
>> >independent leading edge slats.
>>
>> And Nauga was talking about the A-4's manually deployed slats.
>
>deployed...just like the -109's as Corky described. It was SOP to do
>a slat check by doing a moderate-g turn to make sure they both extended
>and retracted at something close to the same time prior to hard
>maneuvering.
OK, I took your description to be something manually extended like the LE slats
on a later DC-9. My bad. Corky's description of the 109 slats was pretty much
accurate, they just run in tracks and when the relative wind is from beneath 'em
(i.e. a high alpha) and the stagnation point is then under the slat rather than
in the front of the chordline, the low pressure at the front lifts them out of
their recesses and opens up a slot. Classic Handley-Page slats. In fact at a big
flyin where there's an Me108 you can see damned near identical slats up close
(usually it's hard to get that close to a 109 these days).
>If they were working smoothly you didn't notice so much
>at low speed.
Never had a problem with the Helio ones, apart from the noise being distracting
until you got used to it. Of course I never went dogfighting in the Helio
either. Wouldn't recommend it.
Automatic or manual, deployable slats are only needed where there is a big delta
between high and low speed -- like a 400 MPH taildragging, grass-strip fighter,
or a jet bomber that has to land on a postage stamp in the ocean. For a STOL
ship fixed slots are just as good. Indeed lots of fast planes had fixed slots to
keep the flow smooth at high alpha. The Me 163, Super Mystere, whole bunches of
'em.
>Even when working smoothly they always causes a bit of a 'bobble' when
>they extended and retracted...enough so that the Blue Angels (and
>the agressors, IIRC) wired 'em up.
Huh. So Heinemann blew it? If they were that bad how did they survive flight
test?
cheers
-=K=-
I just realised that I used manual where I mean deployable... I'm not implying a
human-powered mechanical deployment, of course. Just that the position of the
slat is human selectable. -K
Frank van der Hulst
> The Messerschmitt BF109 series all had automatically deploying
> independent leading edge slats.
Just to add a little... I read in a book on the 109 that slat deployment
was so violent that some pilots thought they'd been hit by enemy fire...
reading Corky's post explained why.
Frank.
Dave Hyde
> In article <8t6j4j$vm5$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU>, Charles...@dartmouth.edu
> says...
> >
> >The Messerschmitt BF109 series all had automatically deploying
> >independent leading edge slats.
>
> And Nauga was talking about the A-4's manually deployed slats.
Not sure what you mean by 'manual,' but the slats are aerodynamically
deployed...just like the -109's as Corky described. It was SOP to do
a slat check by doing a moderate-g turn to make sure they both extended
and retracted at something close to the same time prior to hard
maneuvering. If they were working smoothly you didn't notice so much
at low speed. They were good gouge if you lost AOA...approach AOA
coincided with 1/2 slat extension. Tough scan...but I never had to
do it (and as Joe Beanbag in the back my scan was ratty anyway). I
learned enough from those on A-3's and A-4's (they are/were also on
T-39's
and F-86's, but I never flew with them) that I'd NEVER put something
like
that on an airplane I was designing, and I'd fight it (and did) on
designs on which I had input.
Even when working smoothly they always causes a bit of a 'bobble' when
they extended and retracted...enough so that the Blue Angels (and
the agressors, IIRC) wired 'em up.
Dave 'just say no' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Dave Hyde
> Corky's description of the 109 slats was pretty much
> accurate, they just run in tracks and when the relative wind is from beneath 'em
> (i.e. a high alpha) and the stagnation point is then under the slat rather than
> in the front of the chordline, the low pressure at the front lifts them out of
> their recesses and opens up a slot.
We're saying the same thing, Kevin. That's what's on the A-4, A-3,
T-39, and
others. Simple to implement. Sometimes tricky to work around.
> Huh. So Heinemann blew it? If they were that bad how did they survive flight
> test?
I wouldn't say he 'blew it'...this was, for its time, a light, elegant
solution. Knowing what we know about them now I'd never use them in
_another_ design without some kind of interconnect...or likely not use
them at all. If I had my own pet A-4, I'd leave 'em working...so long
as they did. There were other handling quirks with that airplane that
bothered me far more than the slats.
Dave 'cone of death' Hyde
na...@vrick.net
Tony W,
I doubt I'll make either. I'll probably make it to the next airshow in
Hillsboro, OR but I've heard it's lame. I went about 10 years ago and had a
good time, it seems pretty good to me.
Tony
Kevin O'Brien
>I doubt I'll make either. I'll probably make it to the next airshow in
>Hillsboro, OR but I've heard it's lame. I went about 10 years ago and had a
>good time, it seems pretty good to me.
How can an airshow be lame? Somebody's spoiled. (grin)
Different airshows offer different things. The really big ones you have millions
of things to see, and whatever you are interested in, however arcane, will be
there. Downside? Unless you are a monomaniac you will never be able to look at
that thing in the depth you need. (Yes, there are people who go to OSH and spend
all the time hanging around one vendor booth, but they are not the norm). Too
much is going on.
Smaller shows and fly-ins have a more congenial atmosphere. You should try
Arlington -- it's not too far and you can probably cadge a ride with someone
from your chapter.
There's a way to get the most out of the big shows though. My secret Sun-n-Fun
approach is to arrive a day or two early, and wander around helping to set
things up. Nobody in aviation has a massive amount of resources and if you go
around with a smile and a helping hand, you will find yourself pitching in with
company owners and designers who are just regular guys. Two days later these
same people will be at the center of a blizzard of interest and in 'promoter hat
on' mode. But get them at setup time and there is no limit to what you can
learn.
When somebody is a ****head in that situation, well then, you have learnt
something. It only happened to me once, when a company owner went ape that I (an
unknown person! Ye gods!) was talking to one of his builders without anyone from
his company listening in (and the builder was praising the hell out of the guy's
plane, too). Imagine my non-surprize when I later discovered that the company
was suing something like eight of its own builders. The guy's daughter was a
lawyer and if a customer complains they sue him to shut him up. Since their
performance numbers are completely bogus, many customers complain sooner or
later.
But that was the only time. Everybody else has been great. I have been able to
learn from Chris Heintz, Randy Schlitter and numerous other luminaries of the
sport, mostly by keeping my eyes open and mouth shut (hard for me, I admit).
cheers
-=K=-
Richard Isakson
slats on the outboard panels. This shocked the hell out of me. I talked to
the pilot about it and he said it was a wild weasel airplane. One of the
last F-4s left in the inventory.
For those that aren't familiar with military missions, a wild weasel mission
is an anti-radar mission flown by pilots that are completely nuts. I'm
pretty sure all of the F-4s are retired now and I think they're using
EA-6/F-16 pairs for these missions.
Rich
Kevin O'Brien
>
<snip>
>
>I wouldn't say he 'blew it'...this was, for its time, a light, elegant
>solution. Knowing what we know about them now I'd never use them in
>_another_ design without some kind of interconnect...or likely not use
>them at all.
I was teasing you with that... I am going to start a new thread on slats as it's
time to eat some crow!
> If I had my own pet A-4, I'd leave 'em working...so long
>as they did. There were other handling quirks with that airplane that
>bothered me far more than the slats.
Never been in one that wasn't standing still. Would be a fun plane to have in
the hangar. Couldn't afford it. I will always remember the incredible bravery of
the Argentine skyhawk drivers in 1982... brave lads. I understand that it had
some handling advantages over the A-7, particularly w/r/t stall and the sort of
conditions that would develop afterward -- bad as they might be in the tailed
delta, they were not as violent as in the conventional-seeming A-7.
highflyer
That says a lot for the Storch "out and welded" approach!
Whunicut
<Snipped>
> Knowing what we know about them now I'd never use them in
>_another_ design without some kind of interconnect...or likely not use
>them at all. If I had my own pet A-4, I'd leave 'em working...so long
>as they did. There were other handling quirks with that airplane that
>bothered me far more than the slats.
>
>Dave 'cone of death' Hyde
>
I have designed and am building a STOL aircraft and during the design phase,
considered slats and/or slots. Had already made the ribs incorporating slots
but was unsure of where to precisely locate them, not to mention the
inlet/outlet size of the slots, I abandoned the whole idea. Fixed slats would
have been easy to build but after talking with Harry Ribblett decided to
concentrate on trailing edge mods instead. Slotted flaps/drooped ailerons. I
can see where slats would benefit some airfoils but with a 15% chord airfoil
and slotted flaps covering 25% of the wing plus drooped ailerons, don`t know if
slats would really help me that much.
I wish I had kept the slots tho. If they had not worked out I could have
duct-taped over them.;/))
Warren
(no, NOT Hecksel)
Dave Hyde
Kevin O'Brien wrote:
> I understand that [the A-4] had some handling advantages over the A-7,
> particularly w/r/t stall and the sort of conditions that would develop
> afterward -- bad as they might be in the tailed delta, they were not
> as violent as in the conventional-seeming A-7.
Weeeeellll...all of my flight experience with both airplanes
(about ~40 hr split between the two) is in two-seaters (in
the back) with all the differences that come with them, but
I've ridden through intentional departures in a TA-7 and
wouldn't consider doing it in a TA-4 (other than the
aforementioned slat 'mini-departure'. The TA-4, particularly
from a nose-high situation, had a tendency to go inverted
and was reported to be difficult to recover. The TA-7
would do a _wicked_ nose slice without really stalling
("stuffing your head in the map case" was how one pilot described
it) but had a fairly conventional recovery...at least recovery
wasn't in question. Aside: I know at least one pilot who jumped
out of a TA-4 following a hung slat departure at the top of a loop...
first A-4 solo, IIRC
Dave 'CnBeta' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Edward Buck
"Craig C." <valc...@dhc.net> wrote in message
news:601D012F64D36264.15DEFB22...@lp.airnews.net...
> "Owen Davies" <ow...@davies.mv.com> wrote:
>
> >I saw what appeared to be an original Storch at a small
> >airshow in New > >
> The French version was known as the Cricket if I remember correctly.
> There is only one way to tell if it is a postwar Checz or French
> airframe, if you don't have complete documentation, and that is by
> close visual exam of the vertical tubes at the front edge of the door.
> If they show any signs of a weldment other than at joints, it is a
> postwar airframe. The reason is that the French and the Checz.'s
> changed the door hinge arrangement from a top hinge to a front
> hinge...more like a car door. > Craig C.
Sorry, coming in late. A few points:
1. In your searches, try the spelling Fieseler, rather than Fiesler. You
will find the real plane.
2. Actually, the presence of an upward opening, top hinged door is prima
facie evidence of a French built plane. I have seen no photos whatsoever of
a German operated Storch with upward opening door. I have seen no photos of
a Czech built plane with upward opening door, but there are only a few shots
available. My bet is they, like the German builts, open with a front hinge
like a car door. An unanswered question is whether the French actually flew
with the upward door open, or always shut. Because of air disturbance at a
critical point in landing, the answer is probably no, the door was shut in
flight. A French built plane can be seen at the Air Station Museum in
Arlington, WA. Call ahead. Note: this particular craft has gas tank
selectors with French letters: D for "droit" or right, G for "gauche" or
left, etc.
3. For those interested, Ping's excellent Storch site at
http:/www.piteraq.dk/flight/storch.html has added a list of references on
the Storch I have accumulated (I'm part packrat). Don't run a lot of stuff
when you log on, and have your speakers set to high...hear the mighty Argus
roar!
4. As for the various 3/4 scale simulacra (plural of simulacrum, and more
accurate than the abused term "replica", the ranking from smallest to
largest - all being listed as 3/4 scale, mind you - is a) the Roger Mann
ultralight. Very light weight, low power, low low top and stall speeds via
low wing loading. Not a cruiser; it would be a nice goof around the
neighborhood plane. b) The Slepcev. I have sat in the 1996 version, the
one built by Bob Counts of Preceptor. Lower limit of experimental, upper
limit of ultralight. With one person, excellent performance. Slepcev
removed his plans from the market, for reasons mentioned in one of the posts
in this thread. At that time, he was getting a follow on version, the Mk
IV, certified in Australia. This would let him get a leg up on European,
maybe US certification. He has a lot of planes actually flying, but the
earlier one at least was described as a 1 and 1/2 person plane, not a true 2
fat Americans plane. Now, Nestor has raised the stakes with a 3 place
version. See his site. c) the Pazmany and the Carlson Criquet. David Van
Overstraeten for a while had a table I composed comparing the 1998 specs of
all the foregoing. The Carlson looked like it would be closest to 3/4 scale
in power, useful load, speed, etc... BUT there are no (spelled N. O. )
reliable published independent tests, or even in-house comprehensive tests
on ANY of these craft. To try to choose based on design specs or "hope we
get" data may not be in your best interest. I will go out on a limb to
guess that Pazmany specs - also based on designer's experience - will be
conservative. His plane will be sturdy. Ernie Carlson, once his original
bummer engine had been replaced by a brand new one, was having good flights
without overheating. Then Winter closed down testing. The old original
punk engine went back in, and Ernie went down on his first Spring flight..
Every so often a lemon will get through, so personally I would still stick
with Ernie's choice, the LOM 332B with takeoff power by supercharger.
However, de gustibus non est contendibus. This is not an insult, by the
way. We shouldn't quibble over little things is what it means.
5. Plans vs. Kits. Here, there is little to choose. For the ultralight
crowd, Roger Mann plans. For the Cub size crowd, the excellent super
detailed Pazmany plans. For Slepcev, oops, not available and not with as
good a reputation as the actual plane. For Carlson, plans will not be
available.
6. For the real live full scale - they are printed on Unobtanium. IF you
find a source, plan on mucho dinero, millionen lira, ... AND a lot of time
figuring out what material at what thickness, and how to find a 280 HP
inline 6 or inverted V8 to haul the weight around. The real one is HUGE.
7. Mary Carlson has contracted an experienced pilot and homebuilder to
reconstruct the Criquet. It will be out next spring.
8. The relationship between Pazmany (esp Mrs. P) and Ken Bauman is...there
isn't any. This is too bad. The original Subaru, installed at insistence
of the first builder, did not develop the required HP. Ken spent a lot of
time re-engining the plane for a bigger Soobie, and (if pix on internet are
reliable) even got rid of the "potato nose" look of the 1999 Oshkosh
version. After the groundloop (before Ken, I believe), Ken revised the tail
wheel. Pride on the part of the old lion, and, dare I say it, hubris on
part of the new, "intuitive" designer are hampering both efforts. When the
newbie says 'I can design a new, lighter wing' and 'My inspection of the
tail attachments tells me they are shaky" it does not set well with the Old
Guard. My personal take is that Ken could produce something, if guided by
the 3 aeronautical engineers he says he has working on the project; but that
it had better be distinctly a separate design from scratch and not a knock
off of the Pazmany. Or they will both be embroiled in the maelstrom of the
courts, to the detriment of all. If Ken did develop his very own design, it
might find a slot between the Slepcev and the Paz/Criquet.
9. Oh yes..slats. Fi 156 = fixed slats. Moveable ones tried, too much for
added benefit. The sleeker Fi 256 would have had adjustable (?automatic?
slats. The Germans even tried vacuum evacuation of the boundary layer. Is
this the first "powerful little sucker"?
E. G. Buck