Help me design a rental airplane.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi everyone, I am posting in this forum because so many pilots read and post here.

I am tired of retirement so am going to get involved in aviation again, it is my opinion that there is a gap between the PPL and the CPL where one could offer a service that would not only make it less costly for the young ones to get their commercial license but they could also learn more through monitoring.

I am going to start with two home built airplanes, a PA 11 clone with a 108 h.p. engine and a basic mechanical instrument panel with a Alfa Systems AOA in it . That will be the machine I will use for training pilots to fly conventional gear and also for rental.

My other airplane will be a Thatcher CX4.

Home (http://www.thatchercx4.com/)

This one will have a more modern instrument panel, at this time I think the Dynon D10A will be my choice with an Anywheremap GPS for navigation.

Dynon Avionics (http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D10A_intro.html)

Anywhere Map - Aviation GPS Navigation App for iPad and Android (http://store.controlvision.com/)

So.....

What suggestions do all you people have to help me design the best rental airplane?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I reserve the right to expand or change my opinions later.

- All metal, using as many standard parts as possible.

- Whatever engine you use, something with a long future and plenty of product support. Ideally fuel injected (so no carb ice issues) and fixed pitch prop.

- Genuinely duplicated controls left-right, and equip one side with glass, and one side with analog. By genuinely duplicated, so that the same hands can be used on throttle and yoke each side (which means two throttles).

- High/low wing? Don't care. Some people have preferences, most people fly what's available.

- Stick / yoke? Renters will mostly prefer a yoke as that's what they'll have learned on.

- Nose / tailwheel? Nosewheel for the same reasons. I like taildraggers, you like taildraggers, but the market doesn't.

- Payload. Good for full fuel and 110kg per front seat at the very least.

- Fuel capacity. Good for 3+ hours.

- Speeds? 100ish knot cruise, much slower is dull, much faster will challenge too many PPLs.

- Flaps, preferably mechanical.

- Gear, fixed. Obvious reasons. Also preferably spring steel, big tyres, significant travel - that will flatter landings, and reduce maintenance costs.

- Seating arrangement? Side by side, most people seem to prefer it. Make it reasonably wide for a couple of rugby players to fly together.

- Doors. At least one each side!

- Windows - let's have one in the back, and something in the roof (with a sliding curtain) and around the feet. Where possible, formed from standard perspex sheeting with simple curves - much cheaper to maintain.

- Seats - lots of travel. Also plenty of headroom for the beanpoles.

- Handling characteristics: standard 1:4:9 control harmonisation around trim, ramping forces for large control deflections. Very high pull force to stall, combined with decent stick buffet. If the primary role is training, a bit of wing drop at the stall to teach respect please.

- Stowage - plenty, all very visible so people don't leave their crap in the aeroplane.

- Avionics: duplicate altimeters, self synchronising HSI, room for 2 nav/com boxes at-least, separate intercom (don't wire straight into the radio, it's a cheap fudge and the quality is always lousy), multiple power sockets and space for portable stuff. Both USB and cigar-lighter sockets.

G

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Thanks Genghis, well at least I have one of your choices on my Cub.

Doors. At least one each side!

My Cub is almost finished and it has doors on each side. :)

The other machine is not yet started however I have ordered the plans.

I chose the Thatcher CX4 because it really appeals to me and I have been researching them since it first came on the market, the fact that it is a conventional gear airplane will not be detrimental to any young pilot building time towards their CPL, it will however give them better airplane handling skills that flying a tricycle gear airplane will not.

The big positive for this choice is it can be rented at about two thirds the cost of say a Cessna 150 the cheapest rental to be found at most schools.

I plan on giving them the choice of block time rentals such as they take the airplane anywhere they want that has an airport for a given block time, for instance twenty five hours in two weeks.

Once again the plan is offering a good quality of airplane at the lowest cost with the highest safety factor.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You can rent out amateur built aeroplanes in Canada?

G

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Chuck,

First of all I should like to say how nice it is to see you back again on Pprune; you've been missed.

I feel you need to be more specific about the particular market you intend to serve. This is because there could be other kinds of 'customer', besides young persons intent upon a commercial career, who would benefit greatly from what you have to teach, but might need a different emphasis.

The people I have in mind in particular are those PPLs, who wish to remain private pilots, but who feel the need to develop their flying skills to a much higher standard that is verified by some kind of test or examination.

I agree with you that there is much too big a gap between PPL and CPL, (especially here in the EUSSR) and personally I consider the existing PPL training syllabus is very basic and quite out of date.

Yet there is nothing 'official' to encourage the acquisition of better flying skills. For that you have to look to the training market for something 'unofficial'. But even there, the opportunities are limited.

I have no idea what, if anything, is available elsewhere in the EUSSR, but here in the UK 'Ultimate High' alone have been offering an 'advanced PPL' certificate (their Basic Wings) for some years. [http://www.ultimatehigh.co.uk] Their syllabus apparently embraces: -

• Airmanship
• Captaincy and Decision-making under pressure
• Operating at the boundaries of the flight envelope
• Navigation through controlled airspace
• The ability to deal with individual and/or multiple emergencies

Apart from the 'Ultimate High' course there is nothing. Perhaps this might give you a starting point for thought.

Good luck, Chuck, it will be interesting to see what you come up with.

kind regards,

BP.

[EARSA]

With all these gizmos (AoA, dual altimeters, dual panels, dual HSI etc) the aircraft will be too heavy.

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Chuck,

These are my initial thoughts based on Genghis’s post but, like Genghis, I reserve the right to expand or change my opinions later.

- All metal, using as many standard parts as possible. I totally agree.

- Whatever engine you use, something with a long future and plenty of product support. I totally agree.
- Ideally fuel injected (so no carb ice issues) and fixed pitch prop. Here, I disagree. People are now beginning to be trained on more modern, fuel-injected aircraft. Most of the aircraft currently in use, however, still have carbs and mixture controls and you can get into serious trouble if you don’t know how to use them. So for training purposes they need to be there. In regard to VP and constant speed props I just don’t know. There are already plenty of places where differences training on these things can be obtained and cost alone might rule them out from your own programme.

- …equip one side with glass, and one side with analog. Good idea!

By genuinely duplicated, so that the same hands can be used on throttle and yoke each side (which means two throttles). Here I disagree. There are many aircraft still with the single throttle lever in the middle between the pilots’ seats. You have to be able to use these and learning is no big deal. I learned to fly left handed on an Auster and then had to learn to fly right handed on a Chipmunk. Now I can switch back and forth without a second thought. This is a good skill to have and is easy to acquire.

- High/low wing? Don't care. Some people have preferences, most people fly what's available. In general, I agree. Although my personal preference is low wing for general handling and high wing for navigation.

- Stick / yoke? Renters will mostly prefer a yoke as that's what they'll have learned on. Here I disagree. Too many people are frightened off from trying new and unfamiliar aircraft types because they are afraid of that nasty, vicious looking control column. They need to be taught that changing from one to the other is no big deal and can be learned in minutes.

- Nose / tailwheel? Nosewheel for the same reasons. I like taildraggers, you like taildraggers, but the market doesn't. I too like ‘conventional undercarriage’, but sadly I have to agree with Genghis.

- Payload. Good for full fuel and 110kg per front seat at the very least. Agreed. However I feel you need something to make people really do their mass and balance calculation.

- Fuel capacity. Good for 3+ hours. Agreed.

- Speeds? 100ish knot cruise, much slower is dull, much faster will challenge too many PPLs. Agreed.

- Flaps, preferably mechanical. Agreed.

- Gear, fixed. Obvious reasons. Also preferably spring steel, big tyres, significant travel - that will flatter landings, and reduce maintenance costs. I don’t believe in flattering poor landings when one is training above basic PPL standard. I prefer an aircraft that tells you that your landing was crap but without actually killing you.

- Seating arrangement? Side by side, most people seem to prefer it. Make it reasonably wide for a couple of rugby players to fly together. I have no strong views on this, since we are catering for people who already have a PPL.

- Doors. At least one each side! Absolutely.

- Windows - let's have one in the back, and something in the roof (with a sliding curtain) and around the feet. Where possible, formed from standard perspex sheeting with simple curves - much cheaper to maintain. I have no strong views here as we are catering for post-PPL people who need to be challenged.

- Seats - lots of travel. Also plenty of headroom for the beanpoles. Agreed.

- Very high pull force to stall, combined with decent stick buffet. If the primary role is training, a bit of wing drop at the stall to teach respect please. Agreed.

- Stowage - plenty, all very visible so people don't leave their crap in the aeroplane. Agreed.

- Avionics: duplicate altimeters, self-synchronising HSI, room for 2 nav/com boxes at-least, separate intercom (don't wire straight into the radio, it's a cheap fudge and the quality is always lousy), multiple power sockets and space for portable stuff. Both USB and cigar-lighter sockets. Agreed.

Regards,

BP.

[Whirlybird]

Seats - as well as having plenty of room for the beanpoles, please can we have seats that travel a long way forward and also can be raised or lowered for the.....vertically challenged, shall we say, among us?

[Pace]

What type of power unit are you considering? fuel is a major cost in the whole scheme of things
I see the thatcher boasts a VW unit but ??? :{

Pace

[jxk]

One thing not mentioned is ease of servicing: I really hate having to remove upholstery to do inspections, it's a real hassle trying to get those self-tapping back in without having to go up a size. The other thing is access to the back of the instrument panel - Robin aircraft with removal panel is the way to go. Another thing is the engine cowls some like Cessna and Piper have those Dzus type fasteners which eventually fall out and the holes enlarge.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Some questions asked by others are also mine:
-) can you really rent out a home-built under the planned registration - either Canadian or perhaps US?
-) the Cx4 seems like a tight compromise - it meets European ultralight rules and I know from first-hand experience that leaves little or no margin on the weight side. It will certainly NOT legally carry two people of 110 kg as GtE requires. Though I am not sure obesity is as bad in Canada as it is in them US of A.
-) but even people of more moderate weight would be unable to carry more luggage than a toothbrush and a change of underwear, in the Cx4. The PA-11 might well do better, in that respect.
-) one concern that I didn't see yet: you intend to rent out the Cx4 for extensive trips - but can its VW engine run on AvGas? I am sure it prefers MoGas, but I feel not many aerodromes over at yours have that on tap.
-) if I were you, I think I would prefer the same engine in both craft, to make maintenance and planning easier and probably less expensive.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Mornin folks, looks like there is some interest in this subject so I will try and clarify what I am planning in a little more in detail..

So I will start with the last post.

Some questions asked by others are also mine:
-) can you really rent out a home-built under the planned registration - either Canadian or perhaps US?

Yes, I live in Canada and Amateure built airplanes are given the same registration as certified airplanes therefore you can rent them and the time flown is as valid towards higher licenses as a certified airplane.


-) the Cx4 seems like a tight compromise - it meets European ultralight rules and I know from first-hand experience that leves little or no margin on the weight side. It will certainly NOT legally carry two people of 110 kg as GtE requires. Though I am not sure obesity is as bad in Canada as it is in them US of A.
-) but even people of more moderate weight would be unable to carry more luggage than a toothbrush and a change of underwear, in the Cx4. The PA-11 might well do better, in that respect.

I chose the CX4 for rental to time build because it best met all the factors such as cockpit room, reliability, operating costs etc.

The CX4 is single place and the Cub will be used mainly for training.
-) one concern that I didn't see yet: you intend to rent out the Cx4 for extensive trips - but can its VW engine run on AvGas? I am sure it prefers MoGas, but I feel not many aerodromes over at yours have that on tap.
-) if I were you, I think I would prefer the same engine in both craft, to make maintenance and planning easier and probably less expensive.

The VW engine I am using is built for aircraft use and runs just fine on 100LL so fuel will not be a problem.

**********************************************************

Now as to both of my airplanes being tail wheel aircraft I do not see that to be a negative as it is my intent to teach from basic to high skills airplane handling. The flight training schools have morphed into teaching most everything except airplane handling skills.

All airplanes in use today are still controlled by elevators, ailerons and rudders,,,,,,

I have never heard of any company hiring a new pilot being refused a flying job because the pilot was trained on a tailwheel airplane.

***********************************************************

As to my using the Dynon and Anywheremap systems in the CX4.

The intent is to get pilots familiar with the world they want to find work in, therefore while time building they will become familiar with using and understanding the information in todays glass cockpits.

And as a bonus the electronic cockpit is way lighter than steam gauges.

Once again thanks for posting your ideas.....that is how humans improve their world.

[India Four Two]

Genghis,

Could you expand on 1:4:9 control harmonisationIt's a phrase I've never seen before.

[phiggsbroadband]

If you really want a challenge then try for as large a Vne/Vs ratio as possible.
I have the feeling that 3 or 4 is about all that anyone can design, from small to large aircraft.


Also to make the aircraft more economic, i.e. small engine yet still high speed, I think the L/D ratio of the wing needs to be as max as possible.. 50:1 would be nice, with a cruise at something like 180 Kts.... Could it be done with 100 bhp?


As for the instrumentation, ditch the round gauges (VOR ADF etc.) and just use GPS Navaids.


As for undercarriage.. A GPWS coupled to a quick deploying Wheel Set would be nice, and further help in the quest for minimum drag...


Am I just thinking about a posh motor-glider... ?

[Piltdown Man]

Engine - Turbo diesel capable of running on Jet A1 (or DERV or Red). Make it possible to stick skis or golf clubs in the back. Sod the C of G calculations - make it so that if the nosewheel is on the ground with doors shut its OK. Moveable rudder pedals for dwarfs. Stick wacking great strobes on it. As low stall speed as possible (auto LE slats?). 120 kts cruise. High wing to keep the sun out.

PM

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis,

Could you expand on It's a phrase I've never seen before.

It's a concept in designing handling qualities, particularly or light aeroplanes. The theory is that in typical manoeuvring, the normal forces applied to the controls by the pilot are roughly in that ratio. So, if typical light manoeuvring would require up to 2lb inpitch, you'd expect to be applying up to 8lb in roll, and up to 18lb on the rudder.

A lot of the best regarded training aeroplanes, the Chipmunk for example, are around these sort of proportions.

G

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi Chuck,

First of all I should like to say how nice it is to see you back again on PPRuNe; you've been missed.

Thanks!! I have been taking a holiday from posting on Avcanada because I was pissing off to many other posters over there, so I thought I would come back to Pprune for a while.

I must have a genetic flaw because I keep wanting to get back in the flying teaching market again. Flight training has become so focused on paper work and Voodoo like teaching that the basics of how to actually fly an airplane seems to be a thing of the past. It is a pole shift worldwide driven by parasites in government offices who only understand building a bureaucracy to further their own agendas.

So what the hell I may as well get myself a couple of airplanes and offer first a refresher course on how to actually physically fly an airplane....then allow them to build time at a more affordable cost than renting from a school that is handcuffed by the need to comply with all the B.S. that is required for getting and holding an operating certificate.

Now that I have decided on the first two airplanes I am going to offer for this new venture I am looking for other peoples ideas on things like the radios and navigation and flight display hardware......as I have already stated the Cub already has limited steam gauges and an Alpha Systems AOA in the panel.

I am just starting on the CX4 and am leaning towards spending a few extra dollars on its instruments and flight panel so they can get used to flying a glass panel in that this is the twenty first century.

I am well aware that these conversations will go all over the map and that is O.K. by me as there is always something to be learned from every post.

So back to all of you out there and feel free to make suggestions as you see fit...but remember I only interested in basic economical light aircraft and how to equip them..

C.E.

[India Four Two]

Genghis,

Thanks. I presume the forces you mention are for the same angular rate about the appropriate axis.

I have many hours in Chipmunks, although admittedly long ago and I've always told people what a joy it was to fly and if someone had asked, I would have said that the pitch and roll forces were about equal.

I'm hoping to fly one again later this year. :ok: I'll have to pay closer attention to the stick forces.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It is a very nominal figure and for normal manoevring not the same angular rates. I don't know about you but whilst 30 degrees per second of roll is only mildly sporting, I have for example no aspiration to see that sort of rate in pitch very often and yaw still less.

G

[500ft]

I'm not convinced you can use an amateur built for flight training in Canada except for the owner getting training in his own aircraft (similar to other countries)

An amateur built would be have a Special Certificate of Airworthiness under CAR 507.03 as opposed to Certificate of Airworthiness under CAR 507.02.


I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I'm not convinced you can use an amateur built for flight training in Canada except for the owner getting training in his own aircraft (similar to other countries)

Even though Canada is more a socialist country than the USSR was there are still some loopholes left for private enterprise to stagger along somewhat, but the nanny state is slowly strangling any signs of the sheep wandering from the socialist flock.

It is still legal for me to rent any vehicle I own and before renting it is legal for me to confirm that the renter can in fact operate the vehicle to a standard that I will rent it to them.

The Cub is perfect for examining a pilots ability to properly handle an airplane, when they are comfortable with doing thirty touch and goes in thirty minutes I am satisfied they will be safe in the CX4 which is easier to fly.

Actually as far as legalities are concerned I don't even have to have a pilots license to do check outs in an airplane I own as long as the pilot who wants to rent it has a license that covers the class of airplane being rented.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi gang!!

I am back and want your opinion on what to put in the panel of the CX4.

Shall I keep it basic with the minimum VFR steam gauges?

Shall I go for a Dynon EFIS?

I am very interested in what you all think.

[IFMU]

For a CX4 I would keep it simple. Curious why you would choose a CX4 over a Onex for this mission. A buddy of mine is scratch building a CX4 and it looks good. The Onex has matched hole parts which would reduce the time to get it in service. I would see the CX4 as a choice of aesthetics and a love of building. Turning people loose in an airplane with a lot of personal hours invested would seem hard. Never thought of this sort of arrangement as it is not legal in the US. I am building a Waiex which is where I am familiar with the Sonex kits.
Bryan

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi Bryan:

For a CX4 I would keep it simple.

Initially that was my intent but as I examine why I am doing this I am beginning to put myself in the position of some young person wishing to begin a career in aviation......there is a time gap between the PPL and CPL where I want to make that period the time where they learn things the schools do not teach..........and looking back at my career that started with the radio range and ended with the glass cockpits I believe that adding glass to the training will be to their best interest.


Curious why you would choose a CX4 over a Onex for this mission.

The CX4 looks more conventional than the Onex and it does not have a nose wheel on it, the nose wheel is to airplanes what the tricycle is to bikes.

A buddy of mine is scratch building a CX4 and it looks good. The Onex has matched hole parts which would reduce the time to get it in service.





There are many pre-built parts now available for the CX4 which I plan on using.


I would see the CX4 as a choice of aesthetics and a love of building.

:ok::ok::ok::ok:


Turning people loose in an airplane with a lot of personal hours invested would seem hard.

With proper training and more important ensuring they have the correct mind set and their focus is on safety the risk is very low.....

....another way of looking at it is if I put twenty five or thirty thousand dollars in a new car what will I have in five or ten years from now?

Never thought of this sort of arrangement as it is not legal in the US. I am building a Waiex which is where I am familiar with the Sonex kits.
Bryan

Interesting, why did you choose the V tail?

Once again thanks for your time and comments Brian.

Chuck E.

[IFMU]

Chuck,
I chose the Y tail because it looks cool. I know some will say I am a victim of clever marketing. I guess I see myself as more of a fork-tailed devil than a straight tail heathen. Never mind that I have never flown any V tail yet.

Of course you know the Onex comes with conventional gear. It will be easy to build, same materials and rivets as a CX4. As a reformed scratch builder (hummelbird, on pause for the Waiex) I find the cleco together aspect refreshing. I like the fact that Sonexes are approved for acro.
My Waiex project:
SonexBuilders.net View topic - Cotton Waiex 191 - N191YX (http://sonexbuilders.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=578)
Bryan

[Chuck Ellsworth]

V tails are rare, however Beech made a very nice one the Bonanza.

I only got to fly one for a few hours and found it to be a delightful machine.

We will keep in touch here and share our building experiences, I just received the plans a day ago and will not be starting the building until the summer when I plan on picking up the wing and tail kits and whatever else I can find on my last motorhome trip....I am selling my motorhome while it is still worth something and putting some money into another airplane project.

If I keep my motorhome it will have depreciated the cost of building a CX4 in about three years.