Over 30,000 Homebuilders Gotta Be Up To Something…
This year’s rendition of the Annual Oshkosh Aerial Love-Fest was a watershed event for all things homebuilding. In addition to the usual ortment of THOUSANDS of amazing personally-crafted experimental aircraft in attendance, the 30,000th such bird was found and celebrated.
Yuma, AZ homebuilder Bob Noll’s RV-9A airplane was recognized as the honorary 30,000th US-registered homebuilt at a ceremony at AirVenture 2008. Standing on stage with his daughter Katrina who came to AirVenture with him, acting FAA Administrator Bobby Sturgell, FAA ociate Administrator for Aviation Safety Nick Sabatini, EAA President Tom Poberezny and EAA Founder Paul Poberezny were on hand to recognize the milestone of 30,000 homebuilt airplanes registered.
Paul Poberezny was asked how he felt about the milestone after 55 years since he founded EAA. His answer, “unbelievable, simply unbelievable.” to which he gave a thumbs up. EAA Founder Paul Poberezny commented that he came along at the “right time” back in 1953, that the (then) CAA supported the movement. Now, 55 years later, the work was “worthwhile.”
Even FAA Boss, Bobby Sturgell, commented the first homebuilders were the Wright Brothers. He went on to say that the FAA is a willing participant in the homebuilt movement which supports homebuilding as recreational, educational as well as fun. He cited the example of winglets and Wittman-style landing gear as being technology which flowed from the homebuilt airplane. (At the subsequent “Meet the Boss” forum, Administrator Sturgell additionally commented that the number 30,000 represents 10 percent of the registered airplanes in the US.)
EAA President Tom Poberezny commented that the homebuilt movement was, “a living partnership between industry, community and the CAA then FAA. The freedom to fly in the US fosters the movement and allows ingenious builders to craft machines which hardly could be envisioned back in 1953.”
While all these milestones are …
Duration : 0:7:0
Read the rest of this entry »
in december 2003, Boeing announced it would go ahead with the development of its latest commercial jetliner, the 7E7, which Boeing will position against Airbus’s popular A330 aircraft. The "E" in the Boeing 7E7 stands for ‘efficient.’ By making extensive use of new composite and engine technology, Boeing hopes to reduce the aircraft’s operating costs by as much as 20 percent compared to a traditional design. If it is successful, this will make the plane a potent competitor against the best-selling A330. however, the 7E7, now renamed the 787, is a risky project for Boeing. The aircraft will cost about $7 billion to develop, according to industry estimates, and demand is uncertain. To share the costs and risks of development Boeing has taken on several partners who will help to design and build the 787. Most important among these are a trio of three Japanese companies, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, and Fuji Heavy Industries. Collectively, these three companies will probably build as much as 35 percent of the 787 by value, including parts of the fuselage, wings, and landing gear. They will ship the finished components to everett, Washington, for final assembly. These three companies are longtime Boeing partners. They contributed about 21 percent by value to Boeing’s last new jetliner, the Boeing 777. Although there has been a long history of development subsidies in the commercial aerospace industry, a 1992 agreement between Boeing and Airbus limits the state aid either company can get from their respective governments. Airbus, now a private company, is limited to repayable launch aid that must not exceed one-third of the development costs of a new aircraft. The launch aid has to be repaid only if aircraft sales are high enough for Airbus to turn a profit on the investment in a new plane. As for Boeing, indirect aid from U.S. government agencies such as R&D contracts from the Pentagon and NASA are capped at 4 percent of its total revenues. It is unclear if the 1992 agreement extends to other parties in the projects. The Japenese Aircraft Development Corporation, an association of Japanese aircraft makers, has asked the Japanese government for help with the 787 project. The country’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry has submitted a budget request that would make the 787 a "national project. Newspaper reports put the request at about $1.5 billion. Upon hearing this, Airbus officials were quick to claim that the arrangement could violate several international agreements, including a 1994 WTO prohibition against subsidies that can harm competitors. Behind the scenes, Airbus executives started to urge the European Union to look at the issue and possibly file a case on their behalf. They also noted that Boeing received aid from the states of Washington and Kansas, where its factories are located, and that also constitutes an unfair subsidy that was outside the scope of the 1992 agreement. In mid-2004, the issue became even more contentious when the u.s. government demanded an end to airbus’s launch aid. airbus had already been granted lans of 3.7 billion to develop its latest aircraft, the A380 super-jumbo, but what really got attention in america were signs from airbus that it would also build a direct competitor to the 787, the A350, and ask for launch aid to help cover the development costs of that plane. Estimates suggested the lunch aid for the A350 could total $1.3 billion. furthermore, in 2004 airbus surpassed boeing in global market share. American officials felt that given the strength of the company, subsidies were no longer appropriate. In late 2004, the EU and U.S. government entered into negotiations to try to resolve the dispute, but talks ended in March 2005 with no agreement. The dispute now goes to the World Trade Organization, which must rule on the legality of the various subsidies. Meanwhile, Boeing is starting to pile up orders for the 787, and industry observers speculate that the longer launch aid for an airbus competitor is stalled in legal limbo, the less likely Airbus will be to go ahead with the plane.
Well, its obvious that subsidies go down as a company gets stronger. And if they are gaining market share, then they are getting stronger. So, their subsidies will go down. And these subsidies could eventually become nothing. But, lets say that they gained market shares. And the government thought that it would be good for the economy and for efficiency of fuel, money, etc etc. If the government wanted to, they could give a subsidy. But, this of course has to take place after they figure out if they are allowed to or not. And, if it was such a good plan to develop these new technologies, and they are gaining market share, the government would not give a subsidy. Mostly due to the fact that, even without a subsidy, these companies would go ahead and develop these new planes anyways…So, the government would not have to dish out money. If these companies were short of money, they would borrow from banks or ask their partners to try to give more to help develop these projects.
The Oldies Can Be Newbies…
There’s something about a Cub… a something that has remained alluring over the course of the better part of a century. But then again, there are Cubs and there are SUPER Cubs… hence our fascination with the CubCrafters Super SportCub.
CubCrafters tells ANN that the SUPER SportCub shares many airframe parts with the Sport Cub S2 and the Carbon Cub Kit. By eliminating virtually all airframe components that don’t carry flight or landing loads, this modern design is simpler, lighter and stronger than the Piper Super Cub designed in 1949. 60 years of technology has enabled CubCrafters engineers to maximize material design and incorporate modern manufacturing processes that maximize strength and minimize weight.
With a 180 HP engine, the airframe design has been tested to well beyond the requirements for Light Sport Aircraft. Flight and landing loads were increased by 40% to 5.65Gs for the design loads, and to 8.5Gs for ultimate tests. Piper Super Cubs were tested to 3.8Gs as required by the Standard Category. Struts, spars, landing gear, control surfaces, engine mount, and the fuselage were all tested by CubCrafters with lead weights and hydraulic pressure, not just analyzed by computer as allowed under LSA rules. This modern offspring of the Cub lineage is comprised of 50% fewer parts and is 250 pounds lighter than a similarly equipped Super Cub. With a power to weight ratio of 7.33 pounds per horsepower, the SUPER SportCub hauls the mail…
The SUPER SportCub is available in both one and two place configurations, and can be certified as either an S-LSA aircraft, or as an Experimental LSA aircraft if the customer so desires.
Aero-TV Renews Its Love Affair With A Cub… The CubCrafters Super SportCub
FMI: www.cubcrafters.com, www.aero-tv.net, www.youtube.com/aerotvnetwork, http://twitter.com/AeroNews
Copyright 2009, Aero-News Network, Inc., ALL Rights Reserved.
Duration : 0:9:26
Read the rest of this entry »
This high speed Delta RC aircraft was displayed by Carl at Mather Aerospace Modelers in Sacramento, CA.
Let me just add that this was the most difficult thing to follow that I have ever filmed. Never a dull moment trying to find it in the viewfinder. Thanks Carl!
Duration : 0:4:38
Read the rest of this entry »
Trelleborg Sealing Solutions, 2531 Bremer Road, Ft. Wayne, IN 46803 (843) 747-7656
email: kingston.vickers@trelleborg.com
This high-performance seal has been designed with a Turcon® PTFE based sealing body, encompassing a polymeric spring. The spring is engineered to energize the seal precisely at low pressures, while maintaining high-pressure sealing integrity using the system media pressure. The Turcon® Variseal® PS™ has ultra-low leach out impurities as per SEMI standard F57-0301 and minimal outgassing, making it ideal for use in semiconductor wet processing.
Features of the Turcon® Variseal® PS™ seal:
* Ultra-low leach out and no outgassing
* Thermal stability from -253°C/-423°F to 80°C/176°F
* Vacuum sealing 5.3 x 10-8 mbar/l/s-1 (4.7 x 10-8 psi/in3/s-1) per mm length of seal circumference
* Excellent wear and friction characteristics
* Compatible with virtually all chemicals
* Available in standard and custom seal designs
Duration : 0:2:25
Read the rest of this entry »
Trelleborg Sealing Solutions, 2531 Bremer Road, Ft. Wayne, IN 46803 (843) 747-7656
email: kingston.vickers@trelleborg.com
Duration : 0:3:5
Read the rest of this entry »
The Abrams Explorer is a unique aircraft specifically designed for aerial survey and mapping functions. Built in 1937, the aircraft was designed by Kenneth Ronan, former chief designer for Stinson, and Edward Kunzl, also of Stinson. Dr. Talbert Abrams, founder and CEO of the then newly-formed Abrams Air Craft Corporation and the established Abrams Aerial Survey Corporation of Lansing, Michigan, envisioned the aircraft as an obstruction-free camera platform for survey and mapping businesses, a design in which the U.S. Army showed interest. The initial requirement was to provide the capability for aerial photography, aerial survey, and mapping from near sea level up to an operating altitude of 20,000 feet. It was to provide an unobstructed field of view for the several cameras which meant displacing the usual struts, wing panels, engine cowls, and propeller arc away from the cameraman’s normal line of sight. The aircraft was to have an endurance of at least eight hours, climb quickly to altitude, and cruise at a speed of 180 to 200 knots.
The resulting configuration was a specially designed two-place non-conventional mid-wing pusher monoplane which had twin booms extending back from the wing trailing edge to support the tail embly. The-two place crew nacelle was located entirely forward of the wing leading edge and included clear safety glass windows over most of area above the pit floor. This is similar to the bombardier’s nose section of a World War II medium bomber. The placement of the crew nacelle permitted an almost unobstructed view for photography except for a direct rear view past the engine, propeller and tail structure. The nacelle was pressurized and carried oxygen for crew comfort and operating efficiency at the 20,000 foot operating altitude. The nacelle was faired back over the wing center section to the engine compartment where the Wright R975-E.1 330 hp radial engine, equipped with a NACA cowl and Hamilton Standard controllable pitch propeller, were mounted just aft of the wing’s trailing edge. The engine embly was located between the two fuselage booms that extended back to support the horizontal tail with two vertical tail emblies.
Hermetically-sealed camera ports were provided to permit unobstructed camera operation at those higher operating altitudes while still maintaining proper cabin pressure. The airplane has a fixed tricycle landing gear with low drag streamlined wheel fairings. The structure is of welded steel tubing and the combined crew nacelle and wing center section are covered with sheet aluminum panels. The twin tail booms are of semi-monocoque sheet aluminum construction and the tail embly and outer wing panels are covered with fabric. The structure is stressed to handle engines of up to 1,000 hp for possible future production models.
The first flight was made in November 1937 and the Abrams company flew the airplane, with a full array of cameras, for government contract survey work until the beginning of World War II. The first Wright engine was replaced by a Wright Whirlwind 450 hp engine that raised the maximum speed to more than 200 mph and the performance ceiling to 25,000 feet. It had a rate of climb of 1,500 feet per minute. Unfortunately, Dr. Abrams’ plans to produce and sell the airplane to the armed forces and to civilian aerial mapping companies were not successful. His timing was bad for the civilian applications because of the war and the military opted for the more survivable, converted high-speed fighter aircraft for photo reconnaissance. The good performance figures of 1938 were not enough for wartime reconnaissance and a single-purpose aircraft was no longer desirable. As a result, the airplane currently in the possession of the Smithsonian was the only example built.
Dr. Abrams lent the Explorer to the National Air Museum in 1948 and, although it was accessioned at that time, the “official” donation was not until 1973. It was acquired as one of the few aircraft designed and used specifically for aerial photography, and it was one of the first U.S. aircraft to employ a tricycle landing gear and the twin boom pusher concept. The aircraft was received with the Wright R-975-E3 450 hp engine and a plastic-covered cabin nacelle. It was transported by military air to Washington and was stored for several years at the Paul E. Garber Restoration and Preservation Facility in Suitland, Maryland. In 1975, the Museum lent the Explorer to the Michigan Aerospace Education ociation in Lansing, Michigan, for restoration by students at the Lansing Community College, but, unfortunately, the restoration was not fully completed. In 1981 the airplane was returned to the Garber Facility where it awaits further restoration.
Duration : 0:1:18
Read the rest of this entry »
Trelleborg Sealing Solutions, 2531 Bremer Road, Ft. Wayne, IN 46803 (843) 747-7656
email: kingston.vickers@trelleborg.co m
Duration : 0:3:5
Read the rest of this entry »
The Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master is a military transonic trainer aircraft. It is based on work done by Aermacchi while working on the Yak-130 as a joint venture with Yakovlev. In 1993, Aermacchi signed an agreement to partner with Yakovlev on the new trainer the firm was developing for the Russian Air Force. The resulting aircraft first flew in 1996 and was brought to Italy the following year to substitute the aging MB-339. At the time, the aircraft was marketed as the Yak/AEM-130, however, by 2000, differences in priorities between the two firms brought about an end to the partnership, with each developing the aircraft independently, with Aermacchi retaining worldwide marketing rights except for Russia and the other CIS nations. A Russian version is also being pursued by Yakovlev and Sokol, under a different time schedule.
The M-346 is a highly modified version of the aircraft the joint venture was producing, and uses equipment exclusively from Western manufacturers. The first prototype rolled out on 7 June 2003 and flew for the first time on 15 July 2004. In January 2005, the Greek Ministry of Defence signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to become a partner in the programme and, in 2006, Aermacchi signed an industrial cooperation agreement with enic Aerospace Industry. In July 2007, the M-346 flew to the United Arab Emirates for hot weather tests and operational evaluation by the UAE Air Force. In March 2008 the Chilean ENAER signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Alenia Aermacchi at the FIDAE air show. On 10 April 2008 one further prototype in the final configuration (new landing gear and air brake, more composite parts) was rolled out: first flight of this “Industrial Baseline Configuration” is expected in June. In May 2008 Boeing signed a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate on the marketing, sales, training and support of two Aermacchi trainers, the M-346 and the M-311. On 18 December 2008, the M-346 reached a maximum speed of Mach 1.15 (or 1,255 km/h, that is 677.75 knots or 779.82 mph). The Italian air force intend to acquire a first batch of 14 low rate production M-346 advanced fighter trainer aircraft.
Performance
* Never exceed speed: Mach 1.2 (1,460 km/h, 915 mph)
* Maximum speed: 1,092 km/h (679 mph)
* Stall speed: 166 km/h (104 mph)
* Range: 1,890 km (1,181 miles)
* Service ceiling 13,715 m (45,000 ft)
* Rate of climb: 6,401 m/min (21,000 ft/min)
* Wing loading: 285 kg/m² (58.3 lb/ft²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.84
* Levelled speed record: Mach 0.96
Duration : 0:2:13
Read the rest of this entry »
Trelleborg Sealing Solutions, 2531 Bremer Road, Ft. Wayne, IN 46803 (843) 747-7656
email: kingston.vickers@trelleborg.com
In heavy duty applications, leak free performance and high
service life cannot be ured by a single sealing element;
therefore, specially developed system seals are arranged in series, building a tandem configuration.
Each sealing element in a system has its specific function
and their interaction needs to be secured to get a redundant sealing system. The primary seal in Zurcon®
material has an excellent wear and extrusion resistance
under extreme working conditions. It allows a fine lubrication film passing this first barrier, ensuring the
necessary lubrication of the secondary sealing element for
long service life.
The tandem arrangement requires an outstanding back-pumping ability of the primary seal and the secondary
seal, if a double acting scraper is installed.
Description
The single-acting Zurcon® Buffer Seal is designed as a heavy duty primary rod seal. The design of the product
incorporates a combination of a Zurcon® sealing ring long
with a Back-up ring.
By utilizing two materials, the performance of the product
is enhanced and life is extended. The Zurcon® Buffer Seal is designed in such a way that sealing performance is not
compromised under system pressure extremes. At low
system pressure, the resilience of the Zurcon® material
allows for effective sealing. At high system pressure, the
Back-up ring is designed to contract into the extrusion gap,
protecting the Zurcon® Seal ring.
Duration : 0:2:36
Read the rest of this entry »