No More Articles about the P210N

Discussion of aviation issues which are not safety related (airline operations, pilot contracts, aviation industry news, etc.)

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

No More Articles about the P210N

Postby flyboy2548m » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:35 pm

Richard L. Collins has managed to bite the dust. That is all.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby 3WE » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:36 pm

Sorry to hear that.

Due to many comments by Flyboy and some others, it appears that Richard was sometimes full of crap, and was somewhat liberal with unsolicited outsider advice, like the proverbial we like to provide.

That being said, he fed us outsiders with stories of going here and there in the 'ultimate single' . His stuff was generally more entertaining than Garrison's hell-more-technical Melmoth aeroengineering.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby flyboy2548m » Tue May 01, 2018 2:41 pm


That being said, he fed us outsiders with stories of going here and there in the 'ultimate single' . His stuff was generally more entertaining than Garrison's hell-more-technical Melmoth aeroengineering.
With that I wholeheartedly concur. I still don't understand why Garrison ever bothered with the Melmoth, that airplane does nothing a certificated airplane wouldn't do better and ultimately cheaper. I suppose, this is what happens when an English major thinks himself an aeroengineer.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby Gabriel » Tue May 01, 2018 3:49 pm

It is a fun challenge. Many people build their own plane from kits (that are largely pre-built already). But very very few manage to build from scratch and fly a plane that them designed themselves. If you talk practical, no, it is not practical. Climbing the Everest is not practical either. Or doing a barbecue in your garden (with firewood please) for the matter.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby flyboy2548m » Tue May 01, 2018 4:35 pm

It is a fun challenge. Many people build their own plane from kits (that are largely pre-built already). But very very few manage to build from scratch and fly a plane that them designed themselves. If you talk practical, no, it is not practical. Climbing the Everest is not practical either. Or doing a barbecue in your garden (with firewood please) for the matter.
I get that. It's the part where Garrison has spent decades presenting that Melmoth as some kind of a masterpiece that has me somewhat puzzled...
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby Gabriel » Tue May 01, 2018 5:09 pm

It is a fun challenge. Many people build their own plane from kits (that are largely pre-built already). But very very few manage to build from scratch and fly a plane that them designed themselves. If you talk practical, no, it is not practical. Climbing the Everest is not practical either. Or doing a barbecue in your garden (with firewood please) for the matter.
I get that. It's the part where Garrison has spent decades presenting that Melmoth as some kind of a masterpiece that has me somewhat puzzled...
With that I agree. I did enjoy he witting about the process and challenges of designing and building his Melmoth 2, though.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby 3WE » Tue May 01, 2018 9:26 pm

It is a fun challenge. Many people build their own plane from kits (that are largely pre-built already). But very very few manage to build from scratch and fly a plane that them designed themselves. If you talk practical, no, it is not practical. Climbing the Everest is not practical either. Or doing a barbecue in your garden (with firewood please) for the matter.
I get that. It's the part where Garrison has spent decades presenting that Melmoth as some kind of a masterpiece that has me somewhat puzzled...
Concur.

The idea of building an airplane with your own aeroengineering and a few articles about the adventure are cool (I read and enjoyed some of them). And while that's not_the only thing he wrote about, it does kind of feel that way and it did spandeded decades.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby Gabriel » Tue May 01, 2018 10:38 pm

On a second thought...

1250 lb of useful load
A cruise speed of 200 kts with a stall speed of 53 kts.
A rate of climb of 2000 fpm
A range of 2600 NM

Is not a typical combination of characteristics for a certified airplane. Especially not one with an empty weight of 1600 lb and 200 HP.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby 3WE » Wed May 02, 2018 1:38 am

On a second thought...

1250 lb of useful load
A cruise speed of 200 kts with a stall speed of 53 kts.
A rate of climb of 2000 fpm
A range of 2600 NM

Is not a typical combination of characteristics for a certified airplane. Especially not one with an empty weight of 1600 lb and 200 HP.
How close could I get by bolting a turbocharged, 200 hp engine on a 172 and putting a couple 55 gal drums in the back seat?

Just asking...
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby Gabriel » Wed May 02, 2018 8:47 am

On a second thought...

1250 lb of useful load
A cruise speed of 200 kts with a stall speed of 53 kts.
A rate of climb of 2000 fpm
A range of 2600 NM

Is not a typical combination of characteristics for a certified airplane. Especially not one with an empty weight of 1600 lb and 200 HP.
How close could I get by bolting a turbocharged, 200 hp engine on a 172 and putting a couple 55 gal drums in the back seat?

Just asking...
Let's check:

Speed, climb and power
M2 has 200 HP turbo and cruises at 200 kts.
C172 has a 160 HP normal and cruises at 122 kts.
So 40 HP by itself will not make a huge difference (for example, the C152 crusies at 107 kts on 110 HP. That's just 15 fewer knots on 50 fewer horses.
40 HP is less difference, it is even less relatively (40/160 vs 50/110), and the effect is less at higher speeds since the power required triples with speed.
Turbo vs non-turbo can have a bigger impact. Since the cruise speed is TAS, not IAS, being able to achieve the same IAS at a higher latitude gives a TAS advantage. Will that (plus the +40 HP) be enough to make the 78 knots difference? No way, not even close. And, bolting the heavier engine will increase the empty load and hence reduce the useful load. More on that later. We have to consider that the C172 has struts, fixed gear, and a much bigger wing (which provides a slower stall speed).
Another thing related with power is the climb rate. M2 triples the C172 even when M2 has 400 lb more of gross weight.

Range and useful load
M2 makes 2607 NM on 142 US gallons, that's 18.4 MPG
C172 makes 696 NM on 56 US gallons, or a much better 12.4 MPG (and that's while flying much slower!!!)
That means that to achieve 2607 NM the C172 will need a total of 210 gal. So better have 4 of these 55 gal drums in the back seats (and, by the way, lose 2 seats, so you are not comparing a 4 seater with a 4 seater anymore)
The useful load of M2 is 2850-1600=1250 lb, and the full-fuel useful load (payload) is 1250-6*142=398lb
The useful load for the C172 is 2450-1691=759 lb, and the full fuel useful load is 759-6*56=423 lb, with 56 gal. Take that extra fuel to equalize the range and you end up with 759-6*210= -501lb (yes, that's NEGATIVE, so forget about these extra drums).
Another good way to see at it, which is independent from the engineers' choice of fuel tank capacity, is range with max payload.
So say that a person wights 220 lb (clothed and including some items like the flight bag, a jacket and maybe a backpack).
So 4 times that is 880 lb. That means that in the Cessna 172 you are 80 lb overweight before adding a drop of fuel.
In the M2 you have 1250-880=370 lb, good for 61 lb of fuel that will take you more than 1100 miles.
Let's do the opposite. What's the full-fuel payload?
For the 172 it is 759-6*56=420 lb, barely enough for 2, and the range here was 721 miles.

Let's recap: The M2 can take twice the persons (4 vs 2) 53% farther (1100 vs 720 NM) and do it 64% faster (200 vs 122 knots) and burning much less fuel per mile (18.4 vs 12.4 NMPG) than the C172. That's how close you get.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby flyboy2548m » Sun May 06, 2018 2:07 pm

On a second thought...

1250 lb of useful load
A cruise speed of 200 kts with a stall speed of 53 kts.
A rate of climb of 2000 fpm
A range of 2600 NM

Is not a typical combination of characteristics for a certified airplane. Especially not one with an empty weight of 1600 lb and 200 HP.

I kinda doubt those numbers, but then I'm a doubter in general...
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby Ancient Mariner » Sun May 06, 2018 3:40 pm

On a second thought...

1250 lb of useful load
A cruise speed of 200 kts with a stall speed of 53 kts.
A rate of climb of 2000 fpm
A range of 2600 NM

Is not a typical combination of characteristics for a certified airplane. Especially not one with an empty weight of 1600 lb and 200 HP.

I kinda doubt those numbers, but then I'm a doubter in general...
Thomas?
Per

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: No More Articles about the P210N

Postby 3WE » Mon May 07, 2018 2:10 pm

Flyboycrew: I get that. It's the part where Garrison has spent decades presenting that Melmoth as some kind of a masterpiece that has me somewhat puzzled...
Ironingly- in the May issue of Aviation Typists, Garrison writes an almost scary article on the premise that he is unfamiliar with how the Melmoth behaves/feels in a full-flaps, "last-second" go-around...

So, he goes out and simulates a couple and finds it to be a tad complex and requiring close attention. (Including monitoring airspeed and pulling up authoritatively but not to relentlessness).

Call me a parlour-talking, ass-hat, but my outsider opinion is that's a good thing 1) To sort of know and 2) To practice on occasion (especially on an airplane(s) you have been self designing and building for decades.)
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.


Return to “Aviation Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests