WWhunter wrote:Nick,
I have a NIB 8" Matco that I have never installed that I was thinking of selling. A friend let me borrow his 8" to try and it works great but I guess it just doesn't look right with the fat tires.
I put the 26" ABW AirStreaks on the RANS and am wanting to go with the fat 10" Matco. I should have just bought the 10" instead of the 8" when I bought it. Unfortunately the 8" was about $250 vs. $500 for the 10". I am going to contact Matco on Monday and see if they would swap it for the 10" or give me credit. But to be honest the 8" is all I really need.....just have that fat tire envy thing bugging me.
Keith

Guess who just punched the button on an 8" from matco lastnight... yeah, I did. I would ahve picked yours up if I had waited one more day. I wanted the 10" but is wont work with my tail ski set up so I settled for the 8". My plane lives on floats 90% of the time anyway..

I guess the thread is drifting, but the 8" Matco is really a pretty great tailwheel. The tire is just large enough to work in pretty nasty terrain.

Since this thread is about which Bush Plane kit is good/bad ? I'd go with the High Wing ,Tail Wheel, and lightest wing loading for power.I like 150 hp+ engines of Continental or Lyc. or maybe Franklin. Short span to maneuver in narrow strips --with large Chord /manual flaps and leading edge "slots" ,like on Stinsons.A large tail surface area with lots of travel .Center of lift CG where fuel and seats are. 4 seat provision would be cool but more expensive .Bear Hawk looks pretty close --Or Murphy Rebel.100-120 mph cruise is good enough for most flights . Flat bottom airfoils create lots of lift with some additional drag. Airframe weight is your enemy -keep it light .

I've been eyeballing a Murphy Rebel which has been tied down at my airport the last couple days. The owner told a friend of mine that it weighs about 960#, with a 160-horse Lycoming & a 74-56 sensenich prop. My C150TD has a 150-horse with the same prop-- so I'm guessing that with 10 more horsepower & about 250# less airplane that thing would kick my airplane's ass.
IMHO they could improve the looks alot by reshaping the trailing edge of the rudder & adding a small dorsal fin. There were a few things I'd have configured differently but overall I think it looks like a pretty practical airplane and probably a great performer.
Other than cosmetics & minor ergonomics, I only saw one things I didn't like-- when I first looked at it, I thought that it had ailerons & flaps. However, looking a bit closer I see that they are actually tied together at the (single) control linkage, so it appears that they're flaperons. There is an overhead "flap" handle mounted above the center of the windshield. I've never flown an airplane with flaperons, but from what I've read I would prefer separate flaps & ailerons. It seemed to me that they could have easily been configured as such, by using separate linkages & a different control system. I wonder why they stuck with flaperons?

The comment from hotrod150 in his last post-

"...IMHO they could improve the looks alot by reshaping the trailing edge of the rudder & adding a small dorsal fin"

-got me thinking about when I was in Hays KS a couple of weeks ago for the RANS homecoming fly-in. A couple of us were standing on the flightline when a Murphy Moose landed and taxied by on the way to a tie down. I noticed a funny looking area on the fuselage in front of the horizontal stab and wondered what in the heck could have happened; and thought that I sure would hesitate to fly a plane that looked like that...






Hard to tell from the pics, but the side skins between bulkheads in the affected area were sunk in (concave) by at least an inch...I only have pics of the right side, but the left was just as bad...

There were four guys in the plane, and we watched as they hopped out, walked back to the tail, and looked like they about shit in there pants. They obviously had no clue of the damage...

Walked over and talked to them: They had left the Denver area, and shortly after departure in straight and level flight at about a 90 knot cruise they felt a strong shake from the tail area that lasted for just a few seconds. It stopped, and the pilot didn't notice any adverse handling from the plane so they continued on to Hays.

Speculation is that they encountered rudder flutter. Scary thing as the Moose is built like a tank, and any other less well built plane just might have lost the entire tail. I know nothing about the Murphy Moose, but it appears the top rudder tip on this plane is different than other pics of the Moose on the company website. Whether it is a modified rudder or not I can't say, and whether it had anything at all to do with the possible flutter I also can't say...but changing anything from the original design of a plane could have dire consequences. Us experimental types need to beware!

Tom

An undented beer can will support a person standing on it, (me anyway), the smallest dent, with the weight still applied, and it will instantly collapse. Something to think about with damaged stressed skin aluminum structures obviously.

Unrelated: the Indy car crash at Las Vegas....an especially fast track, and unlike the usual (?) crashes where everyone was all right, it would seem like those last few MPH's faster attributed enough extra energy to split fuel tanks, and generally raise hell. and kill the one driver. Slow is good, when crashing anyway.

I don't know why they modified that rudder on the Moose. The stock rudder has plenty of authority. That's going o be an expensive repair.

The plane had fittings for floats...maybe someone felt it needed more rudder for float operations...?

Tom

Tom S-7S wrote:Speculation is that they encountered rudder flutter. Scary thing as the Moose is built like a tank, and any other less well built plane just might have lost the entire tail. I know nothing about the Murphy Moose, but it appears the top rudder tip on this plane is different than other pics of the Moose on the company website. Whether it is a modified rudder or not I can't say, and whether it had anything at all to do with the possible flutter I also can't say...but changing anything from the original design of a plane could have dire consequences. Us experimental types need to beware!

Tom

I agree with Tom, saw a few pictures of this a week ago. A guy (aeronautical engineer) I know was asked to look into possible causes. Looks like the owner or builder added "improved" rudder tip cap. The baseline rudder on that airplane is not mass balanced so the new tip cap most definitely added more weight aft of the hinge line. Also, there is a rudder trim tab that was added. More weight still, with the added benefit of cutting into the structure of the rudder. This is dangerous territory here with controls. Not all controls have to be mass balanced, especially on low speed machines as long as structural guidelines are followed. The key is IF. Sounds like there were plenty of hours on this before it happened. It just takes the right sequence of events and away she goes.

I would get the kit that has the best performance but is designed using the FARs, or at least with the FARs in mind, or at the very least designed by someone who as seen the FARs. Most of those rules exist because people are dead. No one wants to be part of that crowd.

Was a particular bushplane ever decided on?

Ridge Runner wrote:Was a particular bushplane ever decided on?

No.

Plenty of time too, as the bank account is still being filled.

Zane wrote:

Ridge Runner wrote:Was a particular bushplane ever decided on?

No.

Plenty of time too, as the bank account is still being filled.

If you get one filled, take a picture. I have never seen one.

dirtstrip wrote:

Zane wrote:

Ridge Runner wrote:Was a particular bushplane ever decided on?

No.

Plenty of time too, as the bank account is still being filled.

If you get one filled, take a picture. I have never seen one.

Hahaha...funny guy, Lynn. You're right, the bank just keeps on taking the money, no complaints. Same with the IRS.

Our favorite hangar flying topic, resurrected... I continue my campaign of study every night. There's no hurry as the bank hasn't exactly made me a Platinum Star member yet for my impressive deposits. The final contenders are (big surprise):



vs



Obviously these are not apples to apples... It's 2-seats vs 4-seats. 100 hp vs ???. I'm not sure I'm ready to commit to 260hp. My Bearhawk would likely be closer to 195hp, and therefore would have to be a featherweight specimen.

The uncertainty of having a family still looms. It'd be nice to have Maule-like capacity without having to own a Maule. The Tundra just seems like it will be too expensive, and I like the rag n tube construction.

I'd opt for quick-build on either.

Having spent so much time in a Cub in the last year, I've really grown to love light aircraft again (less than 900lbs). My trip to JC though at 90mph sobered me somewhat on XC in little slow planes, but I love the nimble feel of them. I think it's funny that my drastic spectrum of planes from small to large, covers Cubs to Skywagons...often considered the same thing by laymen.


So, status quo, same conclusion: A man needs 2 planes. Which do I build first? Back into hibernation...

Zane wrote:Having spent so much time in a Cub in the last year, I've really grown to love light aircraft again (less than 900lbs). My trip to JC though at 90mph sobered me somewhat on XC in little slow planes, but I love the nimble feel of them. I think it's funny that my drastic spectrum of planes from small to large, covers Cubs to Skywagons...often considered the same thing by laymen.

Basically my same exact words. I do own Bearhawk plans, CDs, manuals, and so on though. I'd still love to build it someday. I need a Cub and a 4 seater...

For ease of build I'd go with a Rans. Which, well, I did. They go together like legos. Maybe not that easy but after building the RV-4 the S6 was a piece of cake. S7 goes together just as easily. The Highlander won't go together quite as fast as an S7 will but I think it probably has more baggage room than a Rans.

I'd go Highlander as the 1st plane. You can EASILY stick the 1st kid in a seat in the baggage bay...in his/her car seat, with special mounts. Have a second kid, by the time you are ready to go flying with them...figure something else out.

This may help...Steve Henry's almost ready to fly 130hp Turbo 912S (lowered compression, ceramic coated heads, pistons, Bully Hawk Turbo charger). Its got high mountain back country flying written all over it.





http://www.wildwestaircraft.com/photos/building-the-wild-west-highlander/

Bearhawk, hands down. But I'd do the 260

I did my W & B today and I'm happy with what it wound up weighing. Same as my other Highlander (770 with oil and coolant on 29's) but this one has way more power, constant speed prop and twice the fuel capacity among other improvements. I actually have it on the 31's I won last year at the JC Supercub fly-in. My last Highlander had great performance but this one should be unreal!

Steve

Taken Way above No Man's Land
Oshkosh Airshow Wednesday 2010 Homebuilt Flyby
On the taxi back one man said to me "That's the best looking Bearhawk I've ever seen."
Its the Dream Aircraft Tundra
]