|
|
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<< Lancair Builders' Mail List >>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
Ah, the question of building time! The first question most people ask
at airshows, the remainder want to know how fast it goes and how much
it cost to build. I gave up keeping track of building time since I
only had time to work on weekends for the most part, and that has a
tendency to mask the real productive work time. What I do know is that
it took me about seven years of those weekends to get flying. This was with the early kit in which nothing was done ahead of time and the
only "options" I bought (the only ones available) was the pre-preg HC
panels. The factory didn't come out with the aluminum parts package
until after all mine had been made, so you can figure all that hand
work into the seven years too. Also did all the finish prep, sanding
and painting. Included in that time is all basic systems installation
plus panel, instruments and avionics wiring. The point is, that with
a QB or SQB (FB, SFB ?) kit, I'd bet you could build one in less than
two years without busting one's hump.
I certainly agree with Scott Krueger that if you're thinking that
you ought to be able to suffer a failure in a critical system like
fuel and still continue your flight as planned, that's not
so good. BUT, though simplicity is a good thing (for your airplane,
the failure rate of a part not on your airplane, is ZERO!) if you
can accept some small increase in complexity for a large chunk of
redundancy in selected systems, that is very good. Fly where I do
often enough, where there are some fairly long, rugged stretches
between friendly looking asphalt, and you'll feel much better if you
reduce your probability of total system failure. We (most of us) use
engines that have completely redundant ignition systems, and which
also have a secondary air source (carb heat or alt. air). Should we
accept anything less for fuel? It seems obvious that all of these
back-up's should be used to get you to the nearest airport, with as
little fuss as possible - if one opts to continue the flight as
planned, well, you pays your money and you takes your choice. All the
redundancy (or full header tanks) in the world won't save your butt
if you insist on doing something dumb.
As I've said before, I keep my header tank full by staying personally
involved with my situation. It helps to keep me aware of the how-goes -it with the fuel supply. I figure that if I screw up, I earned it.
And the system's quite simple enough to benefit from it. The only
thing in which I did bow to complexity, and then NOT in the actual
functional parts of the system, was an electronic circuit to flash
a warning light when the header started to overflow.
Angier wrote to Pine to ".....give yourself 1/4" of clearance from
the tire, inflated, to the close-out rib." Man! That is the ablolute
minimum! I don't know how much these tires expand at altitude, but
if you're planning to fly into high altitude airports, you should
figure out the pressure differential and then over-inflate your tires
by that amount when you set the clearance. Also, are you sure you'll
always use exactly the same tire? I know things are tight when it
comes to fitting the wheels in the wells, but don't paint yourself
into a corner on this one - you won't like the options if you're too
tight later on.
A friend has a brand new King KX-125 available for sale. This is the
digital Nav/Com with the built-in CDI and a bunch of other neat
features perfect for the crowded Lancair panel. Seems he bought a
Pulsar from a guy that had lost his medical before it had been
flown so the plane and the radio only has taxi time on it. Al, my
friend, is pulling everything possible out to reduce the weight and
will use his hand-held should he need to talk to anybody. The radio
is otherwise brand new and in the box. Al said he'd sell it for 20%
less than the going price (I checked Spruce and they list it at about
$2000) - not bad for a Nav/Com, CDI, freq. memory, etc in the
standard 2" x 6.25" panel. If interested, you can contact Al Ross, in
Arizona, at 602-595-9579. Al had started building a Lancair some time
back and had to give it up - too bad, too 'cause it was really pretty.
Way more'n enough for now,
Cheers
Dan Schaefer
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
|
|