Design your own aircraft parts.

Tantalum said:
Like someone else said, if Raptor ever gets off the ground it will be a serious game changer. Why anyone would buy a $400K Archer when they can buy one of these would be beyond me
Click to expand...

Because some pax won't get into an aircraft with the big letters EXPERIMENTAL. Sad but true
 
sferguson524 said:
Because some pax won't get into an aircraft with the big letters EXPERIMENTAL. Sad but true
Click to expand...
Definitely a good point. I half seriously asked my wife if she would ever fly with me in a plane I built.. the answer (for now) was a succinct NO! But I think when people hear "home built" or "experimental" they have a picture in their mind of some plywood contraption held together with tape and elmers glue... but just about all the experimentals I've seen frankly look more cutting edge and modern than the majority of the legacy fleet (Cirrus and certain Cessna and others excluding of course)

I think the modified 747 that they use(d) to ferry 787 parts also had an "experimental" tag
 
Ex wife 2 would have flown in an experimental, but she saw an RV-10 at an airshow that was GORGEOUS.. She was very impressed that it was a lot like "the other little airplanes". Current GF isn't too keen on GA flying, she has pretty bad anxiety (a trip in the high roller on the strip left her in tears). We're going to probably do a couple local flights and see what's what.
 
sferguson524 said:
Current GF isn't too keen on GA flying
Click to expand...
I have to remind myself that most people inherently don't like flying and have a fear of it... even big planes give them the willies. Our GA planes are small, noisy, can be nauseating, are far more sensitive to turbulence, and have a definite safety perception

I go out of my way to do everything possible to make people's first time flying with me pleasant and smooth with shallow turns, etc.

My last flight back with my wife was pretty bumpy and she had admitted later that if the first time flying with me would have been like that she probably wouldn't go anymore. Luckily that was just the one time in 10 years that was bumpy enough to freak her out
 
Tantalum said:
I have to remind myself that most people inherently don't like flying and have a fear of it... even big planes give them the willies. Our GA planes are small, noisy, can be nauseating, are far more sensitive to turbulence, and have a definite safety perception

I go out of my way to do everything possible to make people's first time flying with me pleasant and smooth with shallow turns, etc.

My last flight back with my wife was pretty bumpy and she had admitted later that if the first time flying with me would have been like that she probably wouldn't go anymore. Luckily that was just the one time in 10 years that was bumpy enough to freak her out
Click to expand...

Both the ex wives were quick to jump in the plane with me.. In fact, ex #1 was instrumental in me pursuing the IR
 
sferguson524 said:
instrumental in me pursuing the IR
Click to expand...
yeah... the "what do you mean you can't fly into clouds? I thought you were a real pilot" is definitely an incentive for me to crank out the last few XC PIC hours I need to go for my IR
 
Ours was a completely opaque haze layer at the cajon pass. SoCal said it was VFR, SKC and 7 miles viz on the other side, i was seeing it as otherwise.. She got a little sketched out by me not being 100% confident it wasn't worse than being reported.
 
Yeah that whole Riverside basin area tends to get crazy hazy, even on otherwise totally clear days. It looks ominous to fly into it, but I've also found that sometimes once you're in it the visibility is as they reported... but from afar it definitely looks like you're flying into a wall
 
That was exactly what we experienced.. once flying into it, it was fine
 
New cupholders for the Cirrus. Those things suuuuuuuccckkkkk.

Edit: I'd keep the same basic form / function but would use carbon and more solid connectors. If I fold out /in mine a bit, then it gets loose and wobbly. Tighten that up. No issue on the PAX one. So I just leave it open all the time and don't really have an issues.

But that's something I've thought about and is my impulse reaction to this very cool idea of a thread.
 
I think when I reupholster my side panels, I'm going to go with automotive style clips rather than screws or maybe even snaps like what's in the carpet. I'm also going to get rid of all that nasty fiberglass insulation and go with something a bit better.
 
Heck, I just want wheel pants that don't cost $5,000 new.
And a bigger engine.
And an adjustable prop.
And an aux fuel tank.
Auto gas.
And a flat panel that is configurable for whatever I want it to display.
ADS-B in/out & transponder all in one unit that fits into an instrument slot.
External antenna on the bottom for my ADS-B in on my Stratus 2S.
External Antenna on top for the GPS in on my Stratus 2S.
iPad docked in my avionics stack, fed by the stratus.

Maybe I should make an iPad based version of all the stuff I want and put it on the copilot side of the plane. Right now the copilot just has a shelf to put your lunch. No instruments or panel.
 
I wish TKS/Weeping wings was available on more aircraft.
 
Visibility. . .I fly Cessna's, and the 150/152 and 182 are like sitting in a cave. 172 is only a bit better. I'd like a cheap STC to put in the sky-lights that some 172s have. I like to see what I'm turning toward.

Or I could by a Grumman, I guess . . .
 
I think United is working on this concept for unruly passengers when the crew is tired of messing with them.

No chute that I'm aware of, but at least the drink cart is still in back.

 
ircphoenix said:
Okay... so here's the idea.

So for example, I'd love to have a FADEC in my airplane. Unfortunately I don't think that's possible in something like a naturally aspirated engine in my airplane. The engineering people here probably have a leg up.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely doable. I designed and built a FADEC (primitive, I grant you.) for my 1965 Corvair back in 1970. I was racing in SCCA parking lot grand prixs while I was in the Air Force and wanted a little bit of an edge, so I designed an electronic ignition, and a box to control it from the inside of the car. Then I added some electro/mechanical controls to the carburettors, and added those controls to the box.
While I was at IBM Research, I designed a more modern version for a famous race team from Italy in the mid-1990s (I'm not sure if the non-disclosure has run out) and a really high tech fit up for an unlimited class pylon racing team. (I KNOW that non-disclosure has not expired.).
Today, I know I can build and program it for less than $100.00 in off the shelf parts.
And then spend millions fight off the FAA.
There is at least one C-152 flying right now with one in it.


Legal disclaimer: I have no idea who designed it, built it, or installed it.
 
Shepherd said:
This is absolutely doable. I designed and built a FADEC (primitive, I grant you.) for my 1965 Corvair back in 1970. I was racing in SCCA parking lot grand prixs while I was in the Air Force and wanted a little bit of an edge, so I designed an electronic ignition, and a box to control it from the inside of the car. Then I added some electro/mechanical controls to the carburettors, and added those controls to the box.
While I was at IBM Research, I designed a more modern version for a famous race team from Italy in the mid-1990s (I'm not sure if the non-disclosure has run out) and a really high tech fit up for an unlimited class pylon racing team. (I KNOW that non-disclosure has not expired.).
Today, I know I can build and program it for less than $100.00 in off the shelf parts.
And then spend millions fight off the FAA.
There is at least one C-152 flying right now with one in it.


Legal disclaimer: I have no idea who designed it, built it, or installed it.
Click to expand...
Sensors, servos, and raspberry pi seem like they'd do the trick....
 
ircphoenix said:
Sensors, servos, and raspberry pi seem like they'd do the trick....
Click to expand...

We have a winner.
The Feds will be over in a couple of hours to put out your eyes and break your hands and legs.
With your knowledge, and your abilities, you are obviously a threat to the status quo.
 
Shepherd said:
We have a winner.
The Feds will be over in a couple of hours to put out your eyes and break your hands and legs.
With your knowledge, and your abilities, you are obviously a threat to the status quo.
Click to expand...

Just 'cause I know how it'd be done doesn't mean I know how to do it. LoL
 
Datadriver said:
Because you can't buy a Raptor.
Click to expand...
Yup, it was a hypothetical "if these guys ever get off the ground"
^who knows, maybe a $300K premium will be worth it to fly in something that will not have "experimental" plastered all over it. We'll see..
 
Reasonably priced (VFR) GPS/Radio combos.

I've got a Garmin 96c portable gps that I have to use one of those clunky yoke mounts for, I've also got a backup handheld radio. Both of those combined brand new were well under a grand.

Why is it as soon as you want a panel mount combo of a radio/GPS like a 430 you're thousands of dollars? Someone needs to make a cheap solution to that for VFR certificated aircraft. Garmin already had the "cheap" moving map GPS technology for those handhelds.

Although, I guess it won't matter because soon we'll all need WAAS quality for ads-b.
 
Tantalum said:
Yup, it was a hypothetical "if these guys ever get off the ground"
^who knows, maybe a $300K premium will be worth it to fly in something that will not have "experimental" plastered all over it. We'll see..
Click to expand...

I don't recall what Cirrus claimed the SR20 would cost a couple years before it was available versus what it actually sold for. Or Columbia with the Corvalis or Eclipse with the 500. I suspect there was a pretty significant difference between those two numbers.
 
donjohnston said:
I don't recall what Cirrus claimed the SR20 would cost a couple years before it was available versus what it actually sold for.
Click to expand...
Good point. But there does seem to be a premium for something that is not experimental, I for one wouldn't rule experimental out. Just not sure I trust myself yet to build a plane!
 
Tantalum said:
Good point. But there does seem to be a premium for something that is not experimental
Click to expand...

Of course there is. It's like that with just about everything. You could probably build a car or a boat for less than you could buy one off the lot. You can definitely build a computer for less than you could buy a comparably equipped, assembled one.

Why would an airplane be any different?
 
donjohnston said:
You can definitely build a computer for less than you could buy a comparably equipped, assembled one.
Click to expand...
I've spent my share of time at Fry's and Newegg, built a couple good machines in college for a fraction of the cost

donjohnston said:
Why would an airplane be any different?
Click to expand...
I figured planes would be more specialty and command that higher "custom" price.. but reality dictates otherwise in most cases I guess
 
ircphoenix said:
Sensors, servos, and raspberry pi seem like they'd do the trick....
Click to expand...

I'd use something a lot less fussy about input voltage and that would withstand more RF and other outside influences than a pi. Plus a micro system like that running an entire OS is overkill.

An MSP430 board with a little assembly or C code would be plenty for an electronic ignition. Probably overkill using that, too. If you're not a TI fan, one PIC microcontroller and associated components would handle it.

If you're a dummy and don't mind fighting timing problems with an O-scope an Aduino board would handle it. Stupid "sketch" would probably slow the whole thing down so much that you'd have to bust out some in-line assembly, but AVR isn't that hard to write stuff from scratch for anyway. Arduino is just the "for dummies" version of AVR coding.
 
denverpilot said:
I'd use something a lot less fussy about input voltage and that would withstand more RF and other outside influences than a pi. Plus a micro system like that running an entire OS is overkill.

An MSP430 board with a little assembly or C code would be plenty for an electronic ignition. Probably overkill using that, too. If you're not a TI fan, one PIC microcontroller and associated components would handle it.

If you're a dummy and don't mind fighting timing problems with an O-scope an Aduino board would handle it. Stupid "sketch" would probably slow the whole thing down so much that you'd have to bust out some in-line assembly, but AVR isn't that hard to write stuff from scratch for anyway. Arduino is just the "for dummies" version of AVR coding.
Click to expand...

Well THIS particular dummy doesn't have the faintest idea about wtf you just said. LoL
 
Tantalum said:
*Have one knob for throttle, let the engine engine figure out the optimum mixture and prop pitch.. have a manual over-ride if you need it
Click to expand...
Sure. Then add switches to tell it if you want to climb, cruise, descend, land, and a knob to choose the level of economy vs speed you desire, and presto, you're back to three controls for the engine/prop, with less precision than the caveman controls you started with.
 
Salty said:
Then add switches to tell it if you want to climb, cruise, descend, land, and a knob to choose the level of economy vs speed you desire,
Click to expand...
Sounds like an Airbus!

Actually I don't care for automation typically as I think it can make for some bad habits and to lose some "stick and rudder" skills, and I still prefer stick shift cars. But I feel like I'm playing Mr.Chemist staring at CHTs, egts, and listening as I finagle the knobs to dial it in to try and get it just right. It just seems unnecessary and antiquated
 
Tantalum said:
Sounds like an Airbus!

Actually I don't care for automation typically as I think it can make for some bad habits and to lose some "stick and rudder" skills, and I still prefer stick shift cars. But I feel like I'm playing Mr.Chemist staring at CHTs, egts, and listening as I finagle the knobs to dial it in to try and get it just right. It just seems unnecessary and antiquated
Click to expand...
Want to know why it seems that way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top