Announcement

Collapse

Posts made past 02:30PM 12/30/24 won't be on the new site!

We are in the final stages of resolving the issues with the forums move to the new location. After talking with tech support, the only solution was to send him a copy of all the images. This will take time - but we know the fix SO it's only a matter of time now.

Thanks again for your patience,

The Admins
See more
See less

Biplane down 09/11/07

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Biplane down

    What?! What did he say?
    Was the RP-5 a radical design? I've never seen any pictures of it. I saw a picture of another Rose plane with twin tandem V-8's.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Biplane down

      The fuselage was pretty straight forward, but it had very thin wings that were short chord wise as well. I am not sure what the stall / landing speeds were on that thing, but it had to be a handfull when everything was working correctly.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Biplane down

        did it use that prop that looked a little like a used attic fan also?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Biplane down

          Originally posted by skybolt2003
          did it use that prop that looked a little like a used attic fan also?
          Nope....rather conventional two blader. It was built and raced before the LIPPS props that Phantom, and Miss G are using.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Biplane down

            Originally posted by Dash
            Well, there's a couple of things that would help the stall speed. The plane was light weight and that directly translates to a lower stall speed. Also, the pilot was a fighter pilot from what I understand. I'm sure landing at 120 knots would be more than what the biplane landed at. There's also a part 23 requirement for landing speeds, and although this is not a part 23 airplane, it's probably not too far off in speeds. I'd say 70 knot max landing speed. Your day 1 pilot can pretty much deal with that.
            It was experimental so part 23 doesn't apply. who knows what it would land at. think about how short coupled a plane like that is, and then imagine how pitch sensitive it would be.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Biplane down

              Originally posted by Race5
              Nope....rather conventional two blader. It was built and raced before the LIPPS props that Phantom, and Miss G are using.
              I have some pics of this plane and its prop, the pilot claimed it was an unducted fan type prop, its diameter was very small. The owner of Phantom, a tall slender and very gracious man also said it was an unducted fan. I will get these pics devoloped today and scan one in.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Biplane down

                Oh my god, this thread has caused me YET ANOTHER panic attack....

                Pretty please Wayne, can you change the the thread title? Maybe, '9/11/07 Biplane accident discussion'?

                My wife screamed from the other room yesterday when _she_ got snookered... and I just did again, for the 3rd time..

                -mosquito

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Biplane down

                  Originally posted by Bob
                  I have some pics of this plane and its prop, the pilot claimed it was an unducted fan type prop, its diameter was very small. The owner of Phantom, a tall slender and very gracious man also said it was an unducted fan. I will get these pics devoloped today and scan one in.
                  That sounds like what I saw on the other Rose racer. I'd love to see the pictures you have.
                  Tom Aberle of Phantom is a great guy. He's got that easy unassuming confidence you'd expect in a racer. (I've known him for a long time - learned to fly with his dad, so I'm a little biased I guess)

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X