WWhunter wrote:Bill, Yes, I too believe it was originally a copy/knock-off of the Murphy. I remember many years ago when they first displayed one of their aircraft at Oshkosh and I was amazed at how similar it was to the Murphy. It may have been beefed up in a few areas and made easier to build with more parts completed than Murphy. I have no proof of these statements, just my thoughts. It is a nice looking plane that's for sure.

NO Negative.

The Dream is not a copy of either the Rebel, nor the Moose. It is bigger than a Rebel, and smaller than a Moose. Having only been in a handful of Moose, Meese?, and only one Tundra, I can't offer a whole bunch except to say the Tundra appears to be way better thought out and executed.

To put it in relation to other planes we are all familiar with... A Rebel is really no bigger than a side by side cub. The Moose is bigger than a C206, inside and out, and the Dream Tundra is closest to an early model C180 or C170. Roomier inside, but that is a result of physical refinement not general bulk.
Beyond that the Tundra utilizes (IMHO) a superior wing (Ribblet vs the 4415 on the Murphy).

While it could be said that the Tundra falls between the Rebel and the Moose, for my personal mission it would do everything better than either of the Murphys. This isn't meant to be critical of the Murphy, because aside from their tail, I think they are a great ship. It's just that the Tundra fits my profile better. If one's mission is such that a light weight 4 up Cessna fits them better than a 300 hp 185, it would probably be the same for them as well.

Take care, Rob

Zzz wrote:

EZ Sue wrote:IMHO If Darryl Murphy's time, money and brain cells were ripped off to any significant level, that needs to be at least addressed, either in the Canadian court system or someplace in the market.

I think I sprained something rolling my eyes.

As for a weak and limited performance observation/ comparison, I will say that my limited experience with an M14 powered floated Moose is that it is a cooler looking / sounding C206. My limited experience with an LS1 powered Moose is very similar (what a great sounding answer to a 206), and my limited experience with the O-540 powered one next door is that it doesn't even have the cool sound going for it.

In a recent thread the raves were all about the 206, and how well it would do everything a C180 will and more. If that fits you, so will the Moose.
My experience with lightened up, hot rod, 2 pax max, C180's is that they can frequently end up in places I personally wouldn't want to use as a forced landing site for a C206 .... If that's more along your thought process you'd probably do just right in a Tundra!

Take care, Rob

Zzz wrote:

EZ Sue wrote:IMHO If Darryl Murphy's time, money and brain cells were ripped off to any significant level, that needs to be at least addressed, either in the Canadian court system or someplace in the market.

I think I sprained something rolling my eyes.

Oh man, I thought it was just me.

"My experience with lightened up, hot rod, 2 pax max, C180's is that they can frequently end up in places I personally wouldn't want to use as a forced landing site for a C206"

I like your style rob.
Now how bout helping me put some 206 flaps on my 180...
I'm no aerodynamic genius but that seems to be what makes those things as good as they are. Been flyin a sportsman 206 w a 550 some lately and have to say I'm highly impressed with how short she'll go. Those flaps are awesome.

And not to beat a dead horse or drift to far off course here but ANY nose wheel airplane would have to smoke the pants off my 180 to even get me slightly considering using one. (Non $ making wise) just due to the look factor. There's no fix for that on a nose dragger.
Yep guess I'm that shallow.

Tundras are cool. To veer back into the thread.

Having looked over the Tundra and the Rebel some, I was very impressed with the Tundra. It struck me as a more sophisticated kit, Fowler flaps instead of the straight flaps on the Murphy, solid rivets and all around impressive construction. Also about twice the price as I recall. Then again, the ultimate bottom line remains the same: If it flies, it's cool.

Well, now I see my error.

It was in bringing up the concept of "intellectual property".

I probably shouldn't have brought up a concept where a fair chunk of the demographic fully understands and believes in rights to "property", but has significantly less concern with anything involving "intellectual".

My mistake.

Let's talk about building a shed on someone's property line, or one guy's pickup truck being borrowed by another guy without permission. That may ring a bell in this group. Then, later on, maybe we can try and connect the dots between that kind of theft and the kind I was referring to.

EZFlap wrote:Well, now I see my error.

It was in bringing up the concept of "intellectual property".

I probably shouldn't have brought up a concept where a fair chunk of the demographic fully understands and believes in rights to "property", but has significantly less concern with anything involving "intellectual".

My mistake.

Let's talk about building a shed on someone's property line, or one guy's pickup truck being borrowed by another guy without permission. That may ring a bell in this group. Then, later on, maybe we can try and connect the dots between that kind of theft and the kind I was referring to.

You're claiming that a kit plane design that's been on the market for more than 10 years is in violation of some precious intellectual property, like rivets, airfoils, semi-monocoque constructions, and Fowler flaps.

The reason that no one is douchey enough to bark up this litigious tree is that, like you said, companies like Luscombe and Cessna obviously have shown prior art as early as 1940-something. If these companies producing aircraft kits were petty enough to go after each other for what they perceive as proprietary design IP, they'd have lawyers on staff earning their keep.

flyingzebra wrote:Having looked over the Tundra and the Rebel some, I was very impressed with the Tundra. It struck me as a more sophisticated kit, Fowler flaps instead of the straight flaps on the Murphy, solid rivets and all around impressive construction. Also about twice the price as I recall. Then again, the ultimate bottom line remains the same: If it flies, it's cool.

I totally spaced that part, which is another example of how much more refined the Tundra is and how much it's not a pimped up Murphy.

And on the flap note, '55, if you're serious, I think an easier approach to an improved flap for a C180, would be to scratch build an Otter copy. A double slotted fowler.
This is essentially what Doug Keller did with the performance flaps for the cub. IIRC, the inception seed was actually planted at Paul Clause's lodge in view of the Turbine Otter.

Of course the first thing you'd have to do is go R&D experimental, analyze the wing for the change in load, and the rest would be down hill. You might approach Doug, last I recall he was fiddling with 180 ideas himself.

Take care, Rob

EZFlap wrote:Well, now I see my error.

It was in bringing up the concept of "intellectual property".

I probably shouldn't have brought up a concept where a fair chunk of the demographic fully understands and believes in rights to "property", but has significantly less concern with anything involving "intellectual".

My mistake.

Let's talk about building a shed on someone's property line, or one guy's pickup truck being borrowed by another guy without permission. That may ring a bell in this group. Then, later on, maybe we can try and connect the dots between that kind of theft and the kind I was referring to.

Oh Bill... you're so intellectual- Do they have rotator-cuff surgeries for intellectuals when they pat themselves on the back too much?

What about the 400 Cub kits out there? Canadian court system… sheesh.

Do any of you Idaho BCP guys know Dean Wilson? Have you walked a mile in his shoes ?

Do any of our numerous RANS supporters and enthusiasts on BCP know Randy Schlitter? How do you think he would feel if someone knocked his airplanes off ?

Rotator cuff... hilarious This is better than Duck Dynasty !

Maybe I should spin off another topic. Funny how sometimes you get in on a topic and it leads you to thinking about other things. Dang you rob! Now you got me thinkin about 180's again. Not that I ever stop...
I have to show my ignorance and that I don't get around much. I have never seen an otter in person! I would definetly take your word for it that its flaps would be the way to go tho. Gonna look em up now.
You know we're always in search of the "magic" plane. Why is no one doing things with 180's like they are with cubs?? Like the whole Mackey thing. Wouldn't a 180 do awesome with the retracting leading edge And the flaps your talking about?? Sure wish I had the $ means and know how. I'd start trying it myself. Flew a helio some. It was pretty impressive so... Why not helio up a 180 a bit. (; or Mackey it up...

An astute old saying is "Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery..."

There is-and has been-a TON of "flattery" going on in aviation, starting even before the Wright Brothers first successful flight.

And, Flap, your right, Dean Wilson has accumulated a lot of "flattery"-and not a lot of recognition, nor money-along the way. He has an amazingly fertile mind.

Is this plane even available as a kit anymore?

Their website has many dead links and appears abandoned.

Scolopax wrote:Certainly, you have never seen a Lancair Evolution.

Saw one yesterday. It's a beautiful thing but the more the salesman talked, the more I became un-interested. I've never heard so much maligning of other aircraft, pilots, and half truths in 10 minutes. The worst was telling us he knew exactly what happened in the Steve Appleton crash, how he refused training then snap rolled it into the ground blah, blah, I'm involved in the investigation, blah, blah. When I asked what Steve's emergency was, he replied that nobody knows. Really? I don't think I'd be using that contradiction to sell a plane, nor would I be telling pilots that was a snap roll and not a stall. Luckily for all of us the conversation ended abruptly when I stuck my foot in my mouth by saying I couldn't imagine owning a 300 knot, pressurized, class a airplane with no deicing equipt. He took it hard but I was just thinking out loud.

I'd apologize for the thread drift, but I think it went to hell quite a while ago.

Nosedragger wrote: I stuck my foot in my mouth by saying I couldn't imagine owning a 300 knot, pressurized, class a airplane with no deicing equipt. He took it hard but I was just thinking out loud.

Truth hurts, but a pretty valid point. For that much $$$ there's a lotta choices out there that will be a whole lot better at slogging through the muck...

Gump

Nosedragger wrote:Luckily for all of us the conversation ended abruptly when I stuck my foot in my mouth by saying I couldn't imagine owning a 300 knot, pressurized, class a airplane with no deicing equipt.

Helluva good point.
It would be a crying-shame to have a plane so cut-out for IFR x-country, then not be able to fly through icing.
I guess it wouldn't be impossible to retro-fit, given it's experimental and all.

Sooo......
How 'bout that Tundra?


Anybody know who bought Dirtstrips? that looked like an exceptionally clean build.

MAU MAU wrote:Is this plane even available as a kit anymore?

Their website has many dead links and appears abandoned.

This kit is still available. Spoke with them yesterday. Prices on the web page are still valid.

Check out http://worldvoyagers.com/tundra/ to see the building log of a Tundra on 2800 Montana amphibious floats.

For that matter, nearly all modern aircraft could be considered a rip off of Santos Dumont's designs, since he was the fist one to mount the engine in front and tail at the back.

Phil