i am just a clown and the world is a joke.
i am just a clown and the world is a joke.
have you seen the draco?
Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.
Question. Are there any tricycle gear bush planes?
Tom L
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem
A Zeneth -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRgQyGqtB9M
Twin Otter, for sure. Here are three early examples in Resolute; these flew all over the high Arctic and were used for the first commercial (tourist) flights to the North Pole. The owner was a good friend of my family.
twins.jpg
What are you doing about it?
last bush plane I was on. Flew to Bamurru plains in northern Australia.
1 (9).jpg
1 (10).jpg
i am just a clown and the world is a joke.
I can see that a Zenith may have the possible potential of a true bush plane but an Otter or other plane that requires a prepared airstrip does not meet my thoughts of what a true bush plane is. That is, land and take off on unprepared areas, deep snow or water. A C130 may come closer than an Otter in this regard. Only an observer and not an expert though.
Tom L
Otters don't need prepared airstrips. Weldy Phipps and his crew flew them all over the arctic. With the right tires you can land on ice, a gravel beach, or a reasonably flat piece of tundra; with skis you can land on ice or a flat stretch of snow; and with pontoons you can land on water.
I've seen planes as big as DC-3s land on a flat stretch of sea ice, including this one (although I think this is takeoff, not landing):
dc3.jpg
What are you doing about it?
I have a Cessna 140 that I'm restoring, it's the 120's brother. Very little difference between those two models.
They are nice little taildraggers. And relatively inexpensive to own and operate. But they are not really a bush plane. Unless heavily modified they just don't have the power needed for bush flying.
Nor does it have sufficient flaps for really slow flight operation.
They are great little airplanes for operating off sufficient length grass strips though. And they have classic art deco good looks.
Even a fish wouldn’t get in trouble if it kept it's mouth shut.
that's pretty cool oysterhouse
a thread down here on its restoration would be cool
Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.
Maul . Their old brochure has it off the ground as it exits the hanger. Great lift and capacity.
why would you want a tricycle geared bushplane? With enough power, a taildragger can get the tail off the ground before it even begins to roll.. then it is a matter of a short roll and a hop and you are in the air. They make it look easy peasey
"If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito"
-Dalai Lama
Coming from a ultralight aircraft background this aircraft interested me. http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/
The first one were powered by snowmobile engines. Later versions have radial engine offerings.
Tom from Rubicon
Yea----?
Well maybe. I'm pretty frustrated with posting pictures on this forum. That "photo-suck-it" (photo bucket) kerfuffle really torked me off.
I recently started a thread about this year's oyster season in the Mobjack Bay. About half my pictures were portrait format, and this forum's software flips all of them on their side.
I got frustrated with it and just deleted the thread.
So what's the hot Lick in photo hosting these days? And how do you deal with portrait format photographs interfacing with the Forum software?
Even a fish wouldn’t get in trouble if it kept it's mouth shut.
Take your cell pics in landscape mode.
use tinypic.com. It’s free and easy
Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.
What are you doing about it?
DHC does know how to build a good plane. Not always a pretty plane as the Caribou and Buffalo prove, but good solid planes
"If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito"
-Dalai Lama
Nosce te ipsum
I could be wrong, but I think the Turbo Porter was the first bush plane to use a powerful (and light) turbine (in this case a P&W PT6):
When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.
heres one I’ve got time in. It looks like it’s sitting outside the out terminal A at Boston. I believe the SA makes it an old suburban airlines bird. We’d think nothing of landing on 6” of fresh powder snow on a runway; can’t do that anymore!
I don’t know how the kids these days go from flight instructing in a C-150 to an RJ. If I had to do that I’d still be in HVAC. This plane was a great first step.
8380D168-204F-4FE4-9CC7-B868D36DA6F0.jpg
__________________________________________________ ________________________
The Draco
A beast, but a beautiful beast. I am now able to upload photos to WBF from my hard drive by saving to the HD and upload using the WBF instructions. This one is small but the source was only 9.9KB.
Tom L
Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.
deadstick takeoff, what?!
Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.
Dayum, that is cool. Would not want to be the first to try it though.
Tom L
C-120 -- not so much a Bushplane: not enough power, no room in it to put anything, and no flaps (which are very handy when you're on skis or floats). But it's a fun little machine!
Here's my own take on bush flying:
http://hadfield.ca/bush-pilots-song/