OT Interesting video - Page 14 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

01-23-2007, 10:41 AM

On 23 Jan 2007 06:05:52 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

[snip]

>Can't really think of a general aviation A/C with liquid cooling tho.
>None of the ones I have flown, bunch of Cessnas from 150/2 thru the
>T-210. Military trainers, none were, T-34, T-28. Even WWll, except for
>the Merlin/Griffon types, most were aircooled radials.

[snip]

Dear Peter,

Your naval background may be deceiving you. The typical WWII fighter
used a liquid-cooled engine. ("Typical" in the sense of raw numbers
manufactured.)

Japan was alone in favoring air-cooled fighters, but was unusual in
that it was primarily a naval-based air force. Naval aircraft were far
fewer than land-based planes.

liquid-cooled

Curtiss-Wright P40 Kittyhawk-Tomahawk-Warhawk
P38 Lightning
Bell P39 Airacobra
P51 Mustang

Supermarine Spitfire
DeHavilland Mosquito
Hawker Hurricane
Hawker Tempest
Hawker Typhoon

Messerschmitt Me-109

Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien "Tony"

Yakolev YAK-9

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

01-24-2007, 05:59 PM

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> That reminds me of one of the actual real advantages of a rotary, at
>> least for aircraft use. If you lose the cooling system on a
>> water-cooled aircraft motor, you can get into big trouble - you won't
>> get far before the piston engine gets too hot to continue running, and
>> then if you're not within gliding distance of a suitable landing
>> place, you're gonna make the evening news.
>
>Can't really think of a general aviation A/C with liquid cooling tho.
>None of the ones I have flown, bunch of Cessnas from 150/2 thru the
>T-210. Military trainers, none were, T-34, T-28. Even WWll, except for
>the Merlin/Griffon types, most were aircooled radials.

Actually, quite a few of the new GA motors are water-cooled,
particularly those those that meet the new Sport Pilot specs (which
limits them to two seats among other things). The Rotax and Jabiru
engines are quite popular among those aircraft and homebuilts. Of
course, the ancient air-cooled opposed four and six motors are also
still being built and used in aircraft.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

01-25-2007, 07:13 AM

On Jan 23, 11:41 am, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2007 06:05:52 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
>
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:[snip]
>
> >Can't really think of a general aviation A/C with liquid cooling tho.
> >None of the ones I have flown, bunch of Cessnas from 150/2 thru the
> >T-210. Military trainers, none were, T-34, T-28. Even WWll, except for
> >the Merlin/Griffon types, most were aircooled radials.[snip]
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Your naval background may be deceiving you. The typical WWII fighter
> used a liquid-cooled engine. ("Typical" in the sense of raw numbers
> manufactured.)
>
> Japan was alone in favoring air-cooled fighters, but was unusual in
> that it was primarily a naval-based air force. Naval aircraft were far
> fewer than land-based planes.
>
> liquid-cooled
>
> Curtiss-Wright P40 Kittyhawk-Tomahawk-Warhawk
> P38 Lightning
> Bell P39 Airacobra
> P51 Mustang
>
> Supermarine Spitfire
> DeHavilland Mosquito
> Hawker Hurricane
> Hawker Tempest
> Hawker Typhoon
>
> Messerschmitt Me-109
>
> Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien "Tony"
>
> Yakolev YAK-9
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

But you forgot all the USN WWll A/C, all aircooled, as well as the
P-47, FW-190. 'Typical' and 'numbers' mean nothing. Typical in the USN
and don't forget all the big WWll bombers from the US, all were air
cooled radials. The US got into big trouble when trying to use
aircooled A/C like the P-51 is CAS or anytime they 'may' see small arms
fire or debris thrown up after smashing a train...those radiators were
fragile.

01-25-2007, 07:16 AM

On Jan 24, 6:59 pm, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >> That reminds me of one of the actual real advantages of a rotary, at
> >> least for aircraft use. If you lose the cooling system on a
> >> water-cooled aircraft motor, you can get into big trouble - you won't
> >> get far before the piston engine gets too hot to continue running, and
> >> then if you're not within gliding distance of a suitable landing
> >> place, you're gonna make the evening news.
>
> >Can't really think of a general aviation A/C with liquid cooling tho.
> >None of the ones I have flown, bunch of Cessnas from 150/2 thru the
> >T-210. Military trainers, none were, T-34, T-28. Even WWll, except for
> >the Merlin/Griffon types, most were aircooled radials.Actually, quite a few of the new GA motors are water-cooled,
> particularly those those that meet the new Sport Pilot specs (which
> limits them to two seats among other things). The Rotax and Jabiru
> engines are quite popular among those aircraft and homebuilts. Of
> course, the ancient air-cooled opposed four and six motors are also
> still being built and used in aircraft.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

But I put those A/C just a sliver above ultralights. These are the
Nissan Versas of A/C, granted a GA person can fly them in less time and
for less $, but they are so limited in what they can do...much less
performance than even the lowly Cessna 152, which has little
performance indeed.

01-26-2007, 08:00 AM

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>On Jan 24, 6:59 pm, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> >Can't really think of a general aviation A/C with liquid cooling tho.
>> >None of the ones I have flown, bunch of Cessnas from 150/2 thru the
>> >T-210. Military trainers, none were, T-34, T-28. Even WWll, except for
>> >the Merlin/Griffon types, most were aircooled radials.

>>Actually, quite a few of the new GA motors are water-cooled,
>> particularly those those that meet the new Sport Pilot specs (which
>> limits them to two seats among other things). The Rotax and Jabiru
>> engines are quite popular among those aircraft and homebuilts. Of
>> course, the ancient air-cooled opposed four and six motors are also
>> still being built and used in aircraft.
>
>But I put those A/C just a sliver above ultralights. These are the
>Nissan Versas of A/C, granted a GA person can fly them in less time and
>for less $, but they are so limited in what they can do...much less
>performance than even the lowly Cessna 152, which has little
>performance indeed.

'Tain't so, Peter. The aluminum spam cans (Cessna, Piper, etc.) are
known for being over-designed - especially those like the humble
Cessna 150 and 152 which were designed for ham-fisted low-hour pilots
to learn in.

Some of the new 2-seat LSAs will fly circles around the 152, in every
major respect. Here's a typical example - got a MUCH wider ****pit
than the cramped 152, lands and takes off in less space, has well over
double the range, burns less fuel, and "auto fuel" at that - not the
endangered and expensive 100LL - and cruises about 25-30mph faster...

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

There are others that are a bit more "svelte" that have higher cruise
speeds, and others that are designed around a particular parameter
(like STOL performance). But in general the new LSA are lighter,
stronger, faster and more comfortable than the spam cans they replace.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

01-26-2007, 03:26 PM

On Jan 26, 8:00 am, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 24, 6:59 pm, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> >> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> >> >Can't really think of a general aviation A/C with liquid cooling tho.
> >> >None of the ones I have flown, bunch of Cessnas from 150/2 thru the
> >> >T-210. Military trainers, none were, T-34, T-28. Even WWll, except for
> >> >the Merlin/Griffon types, most were aircooled radials.
> >>Actually, quite a few of the new GA motors are water-cooled,
> >> particularly those those that meet the new Sport Pilot specs (which
> >> limits them to two seats among other things). The Rotax and Jabiru
> >> engines are quite popular among those aircraft and homebuilts. Of
> >> course, the ancient air-cooled opposed four and six motors are also
> >> still being built and used in aircraft.
>
> >But I put those A/C just a sliver above ultralights. These are the
> >Nissan Versas of A/C, granted a GA person can fly them in less time and
> >for less $, but they are so limited in what they can do...much less
> >performance than even the lowly Cessna 152, which has little
> >performance indeed.'Tain't so, Peter. The aluminum spam cans (Cessna, Piper, etc.) are
> known for being over-designed - especially those like the humble
> Cessna 150 and 152 which were designed for ham-fisted low-hour pilots
> to learn in.
>
> Some of the new 2-seat LSAs will fly circles around the 152, in every
> major respect. Here's a typical example - got a MUCH wider ****pit
> than the cramped 152, lands and takes off in less space, has well over
> double the range, burns less fuel, and "auto fuel" at that - not the
> endangered and expensive 100LL - and cruises about 25-30mph faster...
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> There are others that are a bit more "svelte" that have higher cruise
> speeds, and others that are designed around a particular parameter
> (like STOL performance). But in general the new LSA are lighter,
> stronger, faster and more comfortable than the spam cans they replace.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

What kind of license do you have? I have lots of hours in Cessna(I have
an ATP) and a C-172 will have comparible performance, uses car gas,
holds 4 people and was designed in the 60s. I'd be willing to bet the
A/C you mentioned rents for more than the $95wet, available locally in
Boulder. 'Spam cans', until you tell me your flight experience, I'll
hold off saying anything about 'real' a/c and rehashed, semi mass
produced ultralights. If Cessna decides to enter the sportr a/c market,
I'll be willing to bet it will be a nicer product than that one shown.
Geezzz mark, you sound lie you have flown this new wunderplane and are
all amazed...Rotax..aircooled?

01-26-2007, 03:31 PM

On Jan 26, 8:00 am, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 24, 6:59 pm, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> >> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> >> >Can't really think of a general aviation A/C with liquid cooling tho.
> >> >None of the ones I have flown, bunch of Cessnas from 150/2 thru the
> >> >T-210. Military trainers, none were, T-34, T-28. Even WWll, except for
> >> >the Merlin/Griffon types, most were aircooled radials.
> >>Actually, quite a few of the new GA motors are water-cooled,
> >> particularly those those that meet the new Sport Pilot specs (which
> >> limits them to two seats among other things). The Rotax and Jabiru
> >> engines are quite popular among those aircraft and homebuilts. Of
> >> course, the ancient air-cooled opposed four and six motors are also
> >> still being built and used in aircraft.
>
> >But I put those A/C just a sliver above ultralights. These are the
> >Nissan Versas of A/C, granted a GA person can fly them in less time and
> >for less $, but they are so limited in what they can do...much less
> >performance than even the lowly Cessna 152, which has little
> >performance indeed.'Tain't so, Peter. The aluminum spam cans (Cessna, Piper, etc.) are
> known for being over-designed - especially those like the humble
> Cessna 150 and 152 which were designed for ham-fisted low-hour pilots
> to learn in.
>
> Some of the new 2-seat LSAs will fly circles around the 152, in every
> major respect. Here's a typical example - got a MUCH wider ****pit
> than the cramped 152, lands and takes off in less space, has well over
> double the range, burns less fuel, and "auto fuel" at that - not the
> endangered and expensive 100LL - and cruises about 25-30mph faster...
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> There are others that are a bit more "svelte" that have higher cruise
> speeds, and others that are designed around a particular parameter
> (like STOL performance). But in general the new LSA are lighter,
> stronger, faster and more comfortable than the spam cans they replace.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

I read it closer..this is a homebuilt.....

01-27-2007, 07:42 AM

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>On Jan 26, 8:00 am, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> Some of the new 2-seat LSAs will fly circles around the 152, in every
>> major respect. Here's a typical example - got a MUCH wider ****pit
>> than the cramped 152, lands and takes off in less space, has well over
>> double the range, burns less fuel, and "auto fuel" at that - not the
>> endangered and expensive 100LL - and cruises about 25-30mph faster...
>>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>
>> There are others that are a bit more "svelte" that have higher cruise
>> speeds, and others that are designed around a particular parameter
>> (like STOL performance). But in general the new LSA are lighter,
>> stronger, faster and more comfortable than the spam cans they replace.
>
>What kind of license do you have? I have lots of hours in Cessna(I have
>an ATP) and a C-172 will have comparible performance, uses car gas,
>holds 4 people and was designed in the 60s. I'd be willing to bet the
>A/C you mentioned rents for more than the $95wet, available locally in
>Boulder. 'Spam cans', until you tell me your flight experience, I'll
>hold off saying anything about 'real' a/c and rehashed, semi mass
>produced ultralights.

I think ANY GA aircraft will fall into the "semi mass produced"
category - always been a VERY small market. My dad used to fly ferry
flights for Piper, and talks about the guy at the "door alignment
station". Jammed a 2x4 between the door and heaved on it to bend the
door to make it close correctly.

I haven't flown in many years - had 30 something hours in a 152 and a
Cherokee 180 by the time I was 17, and was getting ready to do my solo
XC when the airport burned to the ground. Oh well...

> If Cessna decides to enter the sportr a/c market,
>I'll be willing to bet it will be a nicer product than that one shown.

Probably so - they had a prototype at Oshkosh IIRC. No doubt they'll
immediately be the 800 pound gorilla in the room if they do enter the
market.

>Geezzz mark, you sound lie you have flown this new wunderplane and are
>all amazed...Rotax..aircooled?

No, I haven't flown it, but there are a number of watercooled Sport
Aircraft eligible aircraft showing up in the trainer market. That was
just the first one that showed up in a google search.

A better example (and one I'd consider building myownself) is the
Europa. It's available as a homebuilt and is being produced as a LSA.
Amazing performance (real numbers, BTW) and it appears enough room
behind the seats for a couple bikes (the really important aspect)...

But compare the numbers to the 152...

44" wide ****pit
85 horsepower watercooled Rotax 912S
620 pounds
Cruise: 161mph
Range: 590 miles
Takeoff roll: 541 feet

152
****pit width: 40" ??? (is it even that wide? I know that I was
wedged into the 150 I used to fly if the instructor was on board))
110 horsepower
Useful load: 589 pounds
Cruise: 115mph
Range: 477 miles
Takeoff roll: 750 feet

And... the Rotax is a LOT quieter than the Lycoming O-235.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

01-27-2007, 11:08 AM

On Jan 27, 7:42 am, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 26, 8:00 am, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> >> Some of the new 2-seat LSAs will fly circles around the 152, in every
> >> major respect. Here's a typical example - got a MUCH wider ****pit
> >> than the cramped 152, lands and takes off in less space, has well over
> >> double the range, burns less fuel, and "auto fuel" at that - not the
> >> endangered and expensive 100LL - and cruises about 25-30mph faster...
>
> >>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> >> There are others that are a bit more "svelte" that have higher cruise
> >> speeds, and others that are designed around a particular parameter
> >> (like STOL performance). But in general the new LSA are lighter,
> >> stronger, faster and more comfortable than the spam cans they replace.
>
> >What kind of license do you have? I have lots of hours in Cessna(I have
> >an ATP) and a C-172 will have comparible performance, uses car gas,
> >holds 4 people and was designed in the 60s. I'd be willing to bet the
> >A/C you mentioned rents for more than the $95wet, available locally in
> >Boulder. 'Spam cans', until you tell me your flight experience, I'll
> >hold off saying anything about 'real' a/c and rehashed, semi mass
> >produced ultralights.I think ANY GA aircraft will fall into the "semi mass produced"
> category - always been a VERY small market. My dad used to fly ferry
> flights for Piper, and talks about the guy at the "door alignment
> station". Jammed a 2x4 between the door and heaved on it to bend the
> door to make it close correctly.
>
> I haven't flown in many years - had 30 something hours in a 152 and a
> Cherokee 180 by the time I was 17, and was getting ready to do my solo
> XC when the airport burned to the ground. Oh well...
>
> > If Cessna decides to enter the sportr a/c market,
> >I'll be willing to bet it will be a nicer product than that one shown.Probably so - they had a prototype at Oshkosh IIRC. No doubt they'll
> immediately be the 800 pound gorilla in the room if they do enter the
> market.
>
> >Geezzz mark, you sound lie you have flown this new wunderplane and are
> >all amazed...Rotax..aircooled?No, I haven't flown it, but there are a number of watercooled Sport
> Aircraft eligible aircraft showing up in the trainer market. That was
> just the first one that showed up in a google search.
>
> A better example (and one I'd consider building myownself) is the
> Europa. It's available as a homebuilt and is being produced as a LSA.
> Amazing performance (real numbers, BTW) and it appears enough room
> behind the seats for a couple bikes (the really important aspect)...
>
> But compare the numbers to the 152...
>
> 44" wide ****pit
> 85 horsepower watercooled Rotax 912S
> 620 pounds
> Cruise: 161mph
> Range: 590 miles
> Takeoff roll: 541 feet
>
> 152
> ****pit width: 40" ??? (is it even that wide? I know that I was
> wedged into the 150 I used to fly if the instructor was on board))
> 110 horsepower
> Useful load: 589 pounds
> Cruise: 115mph
> Range: 477 miles
> Takeoff roll: 750 feet
>
> And... the Rotax is a LOT quieter than the Lycoming O-235.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

ahh geezzz..this is so apples and oranges...these LSA are all 'home
builts', very limited to both who can fly them(meaning sport pilots
can fly these ONLY) and what they are. Remember a sport pilot can't
even fly a C-152 legally. Great that there is a way for people to fly
more cheaply and easier but this program really is a 'bicycle with
training wheels'. I can't imagine any SP would stay that way, would
get another 20 hours and be a genuine private pilot, with all the
benefits that carries, like the ability to get an instrument rating.
BUT these are not 'trainers', will not be used for anybody wanting to
get a private ticket. This is a formal way for sombody to fly an
ultralight...not much more.

01-27-2007, 10:52 PM

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 8:00 am, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 24, 6:59 pm, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>> Can't really think of a general aviation A/C with liquid cooling tho.
>>>>> None of the ones I have flown, bunch of Cessnas from 150/2 thru the
>>>>> T-210. Military trainers, none were, T-34, T-28. Even WWll, except for
>>>>> the Merlin/Griffon types, most were aircooled radials.
>>>> Actually, quite a few of the new GA motors are water-cooled,
>>>> particularly those those that meet the new Sport Pilot specs (which
>>>> limits them to two seats among other things). The Rotax and Jabiru
>>>> engines are quite popular among those aircraft and homebuilts. Of
>>>> course, the ancient air-cooled opposed four and six motors are also
>>>> still being built and used in aircraft.
>>> But I put those A/C just a sliver above ultralights. These are the
>>> Nissan Versas of A/C, granted a GA person can fly them in less time and
>>> for less $, but they are so limited in what they can do...much less
>>> performance than even the lowly Cessna 152, which has little
>>> performance indeed.'Tain't so, Peter. The aluminum spam cans (Cessna, Piper, etc.) are
>> known for being over-designed - especially those like the humble
>> Cessna 150 and 152 which were designed for ham-fisted low-hour pilots
>> to learn in.
>>
>> Some of the new 2-seat LSAs will fly circles around the 152, in every
>> major respect. Here's a typical example - got a MUCH wider ****pit
>> than the cramped 152, lands and takes off in less space, has well over
>> double the range, burns less fuel, and "auto fuel" at that - not the
>> endangered and expensive 100LL - and cruises about 25-30mph faster...
>>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>
>> There are others that are a bit more "svelte" that have higher cruise
>> speeds, and others that are designed around a particular parameter
>> (like STOL performance). But in general the new LSA are lighter,
>> stronger, faster and more comfortable than the spam cans they replace.
>>
>> Mark Hickey
>> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
>> Home of the $795 ti frame
>
> I read it closer..this is a homebuilt.....
>
What are you guys arguing about this for? If it flies I'll fly it. My
personal favorite is a simple J-3 Cub. It gets off the ground, can
manage 80 MPH air speed, has a real stick, and lands at just over
walking speed. I can't knock a 152 either, even though they sound ready
to fall apart just idling on the ground, they rarely crash except for an
incompetent pilot. I almost bought a new Cessna back in 1978 after a
dealer demo flight, where I fell in love with the airplane, except that
my wife almost had a heart attack when she found out the salesman was
not the one flying the plane. The whole steering wheel approach has me
put off a bit though, kind of like flying a car. 43 years of flight
training and I still haven't gotten my license. That has to be a record
of some kind for procrastination.
Bill Baka