Why no homebuilt baby Cessnas?

[cluttonfred]

The late Harris L. Woods lost his life in 1975 in the prototype Aerosport Condor, a simple, VW-powered, all-metal, strut-braced, high-wing two-place design inspired by his earlier cantilever-wing, single-seat Quail. The NTSB accident report indicates that one of the ailerons tore off in flight, suggesting destructive flutter. Development of the Condor ended with his death, which is too bad, as there doesn't seem to have been anything fundamentally wrong with the design that couldn't have been sorted out.

http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36098d1415517134t-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-1-.jpeg (http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36098d1415517134-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-1-.jpeg) http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36099d1415517167t-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-2-.jpeg (http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36099d1415517167-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-2-.jpeg) http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36100d1415517194t-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-3-.jpeg (http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36100d1415517194-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-3-.jpeg) http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36101d1415517216t-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a.jpeg (http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36101d1415517216-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a.jpeg)

Regardless, given the fact that so many of us learned to fly in and often still do fly Cessna "spam cans," the configuration and construction are known quantities, so I am pretty surprised that no one is offering a simple, easy-to-build, all-metal high wing design. Not a bushplane or a racer, just a nice little general purpose design like the Condor suitable for the 80-100 hp range that includes the big VW conversions, Rotax 912 models, Jabiru, D-Motor, ULPower, etc. Basically, it would be a high-wing Sonex equivalent, but perhaps with a little more wing area to facilitate operation from smaller fields.

Are there designs out there that I am missing? Thoughts on whether or not such a type would be well-received?

[Jeff Point]

"Not a bushplane or a racer,"
and "but perhaps with a little more wing area to facilitate operation from smaller fields."

I think you inadvertently answered your own question. You just started designing a bush plane. Once you add "a little more wing area" then shortly you'll want a longer gear for better prop clearance, then larger tires, then a bigger engine to make up for the extra weight... and pretty soon you have a bush plane.

I think the market has spoken and, outside of the bushplanes, people seem to prefer a low-wing configuration for most types of flying, even if they started out in a Cessna. I learned to drive in a '73 AMC Matador wagon, and while I'll always have a small fondness for that old car, I certainly don't want to drive one today!

[cluttonfred]

Thanks, Jeff, though I am not sure that I agree. There do seem to be quite a few high-wing composite or tube and fabric LSAs, would a high-wing counterpart to the the RV-12 really be such a stretch?

[Kyle Boatright]

Thanks, Jeff, though I am not sure that I agree. There do seem to be quite a few high-wing composite or tube and fabric LSAs, would a high-wing counterpart to the the RV-12 really be such a stretch?

Didn't the Murphy Maverick fit that description?

[WLIU]

I will suggest that while I own a Cessna (182), I never get up in the morning saying "boy I want to go fly me Cessna!". They are great utility machines, reliable, an easy to fly, and make me look like I might be a pretty good pilot. But they offer no excitement at all. My Pitts Special is a whole 'nother story. An Aviat Husky on floats gets me excited too. But a Cessna, or an airplane that looks like it, is the minivan of aviation. Hauls your stuff around but nothing to brag about.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS
N6234A

[RetroAcro]

Wes has it. It takes real inspiration and dedication to build an airplane. Cessnas do not inspire. You can buy Cessnas pretty cheap anyway and maybe even have money left over to build an airplane that actually excites you. ;-)

[cluttonfred]

Thanks, guys, but just a reminder that I am not talking about building a replica Cessna, just wondering at the lack of all-metal, high-wing kits and plans.

[Ryan Dembroski]

Well it's not ALL metal, but here's one I know I was hoping would be turned into a kit:
http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=615390307001

Remember the Savor?

[dougbush]

Zenith makes a high-wing, strut-braced, all metal two-place kit: http://www.zenithair.com/stolch750/index-cruzer.html

[ssmdive]

I think the market has spoken and, outside of the bushplanes, people seem to prefer a low-wing configuration for most types of flying, even if they started out in a Cessna. I learned to drive in a '73 AMC Matador wagon, and while I'll always have a small fondness for that old car, I certainly don't want to drive one today!

I think that is just a perception based on the overwhelming popularity of the Vans series of aircraft. I see plenty of homebuilt high wings Highlanders, 750's, Kitfox…etc.

[MickYoumans]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-4

http://bd-4.org

[cluttonfred]

Something along the lines of the BD-4 but brought down to LSA weight and power would be pretty close to what I have in mind.

[WWhunter]

Murphy Rebel is probably the best all around airplanes in the high wing catagory that is all metal...well, mostly all metal as the flapperons are fabric. Someone already mentioned the Maverick which is a great option but very few were ever sold/build since the Rebel can be configured with anything from the Rotax 912 up to a Lyc. 160 HP. There are even some flying with 180 HP. The Murphy line of aircraft are very popular in Canada.

I disagree with the earlier comment that everyone likes the low wing better, not me! I much prefer a highwing because I like being able to view the terrain below.

[erkki67]

Check out the ICP Vimana!!!
http://www.icpaviazione.it/?page_id=252&lang=en
rki

[crusty old aviator]

The Vimana looks like an Italian version of the the Zenair 701...
Yes, I agree that the smaller Murphy designs are what you're describing, Fred! At Oshkosh '77 0r '78, there was an all metal, two place high wing, conventional gear, with an O-235, that debuted as "a working man's airplane." I don't recall her name, though she was very similar to the later Murphy Maverick and Rebel. The two goomers who designed and built her were from Michigan and were seeing what the market would be for offering a kit and plans. They had a little questionaire to that effect. Alas, there wasn't enough interest, because I never sawf them again, and I recall looking up the registration of the bird several years ago, as a photo of her is in Sport Aviation, and she wasn't there...so who knows where that aerofootnote went?

Pilots tend to prefer the type they learned to fly in. Those who learned in a high wing find the low wings too bright, too hot, and lacking in downward visibility. The low wing crowd find high wing aircraft claustrophobic and too twitchy on the ground in high winds. It's the same case with the tail wheel vs. training wheel preference that pilots also possess.

[Mike B]

Does the Cruiser fit what your looking for?
http://www.zenithair.net/introduction-cruzer/

[deej]

The new Merlin PSA is sorta like a single seat baby Cessna:
http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/12/21/merlin-psa-makes-us-debut/

[North_roll]

The late Harris L. Woods lost his life in 1975 in the prototype Aerosport Condor, a simple, VW-powered, all-metal, strut-braced, high-wing two-place design inspired by his earlier cantilever-wing, single-seat Quail. The NTSB accident report indicates that one of the ailerons tore off in flight, suggesting destructive flutter. Development of the Condor ended with his death, which is too bad, as there doesn't seem to have been anything fundamentally wrong with the design that couldn't have been sorted out.

http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36098d1415517134t-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-1-.jpeg (http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36098d1415517134-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-1-.jpeg) http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36099d1415517167t-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-2-.jpeg (http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36099d1415517167-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-2-.jpeg) http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36100d1415517194t-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-3-.jpeg (http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36100d1415517194-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a-3-.jpeg) http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36101d1415517216t-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a.jpeg (http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/36101d1415517216-why-no-homebuilt-baby-cessnas-n_a.jpeg)

Regardless, given the fact that so many of us learned to fly in and often still do fly Cessna "spam cans," the configuration and construction are known quantities, so I am pretty surprised that no one is offering a simple, easy-to-build, all-metal high wing design. Not a bushplane or a racer, just a nice little general purpose design like the Condor suitable for the 80-100 hp range that includes the big VW conversions, Rotax 912 models, Jabiru, D-Motor, ULPower, etc. Basically, it would be a high-wing Sonex equivalent, but perhaps with a little more wing area to facilitate operation from smaller fields.

Are there designs out there that I am missing? Thoughts on whether or not such a type would be well-received?




It does exist...

an experimantal version of a Cessna 180 kit plane

http://www3.sympatico.ca/st-justaviation/