ravi wrote:Ever notice that ravi can't use the quote function?

There this cool button that says edit in the upper left corner of your post. Just git that text moved in there between those {quote} {/quote} tags, now, git!

CAVU wrote:Hi 6EA,

That picture wouldn't have been taken outside of Angels Camp, off Highway 4 by any chance?

CAVU

Yep, Spence Ranch Lake.

Talk about a puke-inducing maneuver... This aerobatic instructor does a 60 turn spin in an Aerobat.

...which leads me to ask... what kind of vertical speed can you acheive/maintain with a fully developed spin?

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/laPklVfCdAI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/laPklVfCdAI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Zane,

First time I've been airsick sitting at my desk.

Yikes, that girl has a cast iron stomach.

N6EA wrote:Yep, Spence Ranch Lake.

Thanks. I always admire the airplanes when driving past there. Of course, I try to avoid driving.

CAVU

N6EA wrote:Zane,
First time I've been airsick sitting at my desk.

Me too. Seriously, I felt the twinge.

which leads me to ask... what kind of vertical speed can you acheive/maintain with a fully developed spin?

I've spun (and rolled and looped) the bejeezus out of a 152 areobat, and to be honest I never once looked at the VSI, as I was too busy looking at the ground counting revolutions. I'd bet it's not as fast as you think though. Where things speed up is when you break the stall and start flying again--pointed down! AJ

you can see the altimeter when the sun shines on it...looks to me like she was loosing about 500 feet per turn.

ravi,

What prop do you run? I think you mentioned you had an engine upgrade but i'd still like to know.

whee,
I have a lycombing 0-235 c1 which I have been told produces either 115 or 108 hp...damned if I know which, but it does run endless circles around the three stock 140's on the field. The prop is a Sensenich 76x50, which is actually 74" long...strange but true. I have seen postings which state this is the only prop approved for this engine on this plane, but I really don't know for sure.

It's really a very good combination of plane and engine...nothing fancy, but it will really lift about anything you can fit in it and climb over the Sierra's, though on a summer day you might have to fly a couple 360's rather than go straight line. I'd tell you what the gross weight is but then MTV would tell me to buy a tomb stone, and I'm already over spent for the month. Besides, from what I can tell from the Fossett search I'll not be bothered with funeral expenses anyway, which is fine with me.

anywhoo, I like the plane and engine combo...I think it would be a good engine for other small planes too.

Ok,

Trying to follow the altimeter (without getting sick) it looks like she starts at 14k and recovers around 3.5k in 2:24 minutes of video which works out to about 4k per minute.

I have a couple other more important questions though...
1. If you were going to go for a 60 turn spin, would your first concern be how your hair looks for the video?
2. Why is she flying this manuever from the right seat? Please don't tell me somebody is in the left seat, just out for a little joyride...

I believe she's flying from the right seat so that the camera can record the instruments throughout the spins.

FWIW, I've had my ragwing 170 for just about 10 years now. I owned a C150 for about 2 years before that. Since I'm thinking of going back to a 2-place airplane, I wouldn't mind finding a nice 140 or straight-tail 150 taildragger, but I don't think I'd be happy with the performance of a stock engined version of any of these. A 320-powered C150TD would be optimal, I really like the way they look-- but then there's issues about useful load and fuel capacity. Not sure an upgrade from O-200 to O-235 is worth the trouble. O-290 has parts issues, plus is maybe as heavy as a 320. C85 upgrade to O235, yes. Ravi, what's your airplane weight--empty and gross?

Antipasto

N6EA wrote:Ok,

I have a couple other more important questions though...
1. If you were going to go for a 60 turn spin, would your first concern be how your hair looks for the video?

Thats what I was thinking too. But you have to have your priorities I guess...

N6EA wrote:Ok,

Trying to follow the altimeter (without getting sick) it looks like she starts at 14k and recovers around 3.5k in 2:24 minutes of video which works out to about 4k per minute.

I have a couple other more important questions though...
1. If you were going to go for a 60 turn spin, would your first concern be how your hair looks for the video?
2. Why is she flying this manuever from the right seat? Please don't tell me somebody is in the left seat, just out for a little joyride...

2. If it's who I suspect that is, she's a high time instructor and simply more accustomed to flying from the right seat.

Phil

Back in the '70's Amelia Reid (Reid-Hillview) used to do an aerobatic routine in a 150 aerobat, all from the right seat. Could it be her?

I wouldn't mind finding a nice 140 or straight-tail 150 taildragger, but I don't think I'd be happy with the performance of a stock engined version of any of these.

I would like a ride in a C140 Patroller with the 135hp engine. They are C140As so they have metal wings and a single strut. I have only seen a couple sell, $30,000 plus.

My very little time in a Cessna (100hp TX Taildragger conversion) suggests that they're ground-loving pigs compared to other similar-engined planes I've flown. If performance is the criteria, a Cessna ain't what you want! The only thing that stands out is the flaps, both for how wonderful they are, and how useless because that little switch is so SLOW. It was a very comfortable airplane to fly.

I don't remember any lack of tail authority. It was a swept-tail, and handled just fine on the ground.

I have a few hundred hours - all off-airport - in the right seat of a Tcart, simply because that's the side I prop it from. Takes about 3 landings to make the adjustment.

In case anyone's interested in doing a taildragger conversion without the high cost of sourcing a new one with STC, Don Adamson at 92nd West Aviation had a ground looped 150TD in his yard, last I checked. The paperwork's all there, and would cost a lot less than starting fresh.
http://www.92ndwestaviation.com/

Make fun of that little wheel under the cowling, but next time your destination has a paved runway, oriented precisely 90 degrees to the current wind, which is gusting to 25, and there's no other source of fuel within your range, I'm betting you'd just ADORE that nose wheel.

Tail wheel envy is pure bullshit, in my opinion. I've got several thousand hours of tailwheel time, and, given most missions, I'd take the nosewheel airplane for anything that wasn't just HUGE boulders. As in HUGE. Oh, yeah, and YOU would have to own the plane, by the way.

Oh, yeah, and I currently OWN a tailwheel airplane. If it weren't for the regressive tax penalties in this state, I'd sell it and buy a nosewheel airplane in a heartbeat.

The 150 is a great little plane.

a64: A well kept secret: The C 90 is a stump puller compared to the O-200. My J-3 came with an O-200 and a C-90. The 200 was on the plane, but the guy sold it to me told me he thought the 90 pulled harder, and recomended switching back to the 90. I ran the 200 for a while, then switched to the C-90. The 90 won it hands down on takeoff and climb. Same prop. I have heard this from several others, so I believe it is probably sorta true. Maybe.

The 150- is a great little plane. Period.

MTV

MTV,
I ended up with a C-85 in a 140. The C-90 would have been nice, but you take what you can find. Yes the 150 / 152 are great little airplanes and the nose wheel makes more sense in modern times, That's why there are so many of them . I like the looks and challenge of a tailwheel. The 150 is thought of as the airplane you have if you can't afford anything else, or aren't good enough to fly anything else. They have the stigma of a "time builder". Of course they got there by being nearly bullet proof. So far with the 140, I find it pretty comprable to a 150, except it's lighter, has a smaller engine and burns less fuel. It had the same trainer mission of the 150, but, maybe because it's so old, it's thought of as a classic by less edjucated people.
I don't understand "wheel extenders" though. Mine are in a box, and I don't see the need. Maybe so many 120's and 140's went over on the nose because way back then people weren't used to effective brakes?