Recent content by shuffman37

400 fpm is 1930 performance levels. In another 90 years we might be able to cross the Rockies!

Exactly. Twice the pucker factor. Two old manually controlled engines are twice as likely to suffer pilot stupidity. Which tank am I feeding from???

I love twin engine airplanes that can't climb on one. Makes me feel safe when I'm departing an airport surrounded by buildings and trees for miles. 😂

I love crossing Lake Michigan at 12,000 feet and realizing my bladder is at capacity.

I was thinking non pressurized cockpit shell. The large door design would be useful for bulky cargo. With a new wing, canard, and power plant, wouldn't be a bad design for vacation travel.

Small engines use ball bearings or sleeve bearings and do not have good thrust force resistance. If you do a direct drive, you'll need a thrust bearing externally mounted on a propeller shaft. The thrust load from a prop (150-200 lb) will destroy the crankshaft bearings within a few hours. When...

Yep! Someone created a FSX CO50 model, the pitch authority was very poor, wasn't flyable as modeled.

Agreed! When I got my Pitts S2-B training, we talked about emergency IMC procedures in non instrumented aircraft. In something like the Pitts, just letting go of all controls and pulling power to the idle stop will automatically recover in about 1 turn.

Could produce fuselage shells with the existing tooling, as the door/cockpit/window layout seems to work well together. For someone like my step dad who has had multiple knee replacements, the large gull wing doors would make getting in a lot easier. It almost takes a crane to get him loaded in...

In regards to serial production development: 1. What part(s) of the existing design are usable as-is? 2. Does a market exist for a professionally designed/built aircraft of this type? 3. Should prototype 2 be a clean sheet design? 4. Should prototype 2 use a standard aviation engine...