Printable View
The AVE Mizar, made from a Ford Pinto and a Cessna Skymaster.
https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/ave_mizar1.jpg
https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/ave_mizar2.jpg
Previously:
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...934#post124857
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...674#post128709
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...2486#post76456
The most obvious question in my mind is how do the wings fold? I can only see one solution from the limited views of the top of the roof area, they could fold in thirds so that they fit just so on top of the roof??
So, if you are pulled over by the law, do you show them your driver's license or your pilot's license, or does it depend on whether you were airborne or not when he clocked you??
It's strictly for 007 or a fly drive holiday. Should that be fly ride as it is a pinto.
The most obvious question to me would be. Why waste a perfectly good airplane by attaching it to a Ford Pinchloaf oops I mean Pinto
I'm wondering if he has to have multi engine rating on his docket one in the pinto and one in the Cessna LOL
and what about instruments? I imagine the dash of the Pinto would be quite cluttered
The owner probably borrowed the dash of the Corvette in a different post: without the dash the pinto would be cluttered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank S
I'd think there's enough steel, in that Pinto, to weigh many times what the original aluminum airframe and engine weighed.
Guessing at the weight of the car, the wing looks way too far back. Maybe the car has no engine or maybe someone has Photoshop?
Photoshop? good callQuote:
Originally Posted by tonyfoale
Looks like you guys are correct about the weight problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE_Mizar
And here's the NTSB report from what I believe is the maiden and only flight: https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...id=84720&key=0
Some of those failures look to be tied to the problem of excessive weight. Most aircraft usually need to do three things: takeoff, fly, and land. It looks like it could do one of these, maybe two.
For this very reason Engineers and inspectors are a major part of any development project. Most better engineers will consult with other engineers on any critical design then once an item is prototyped it is tested and tested and tested again to see where it is going to fail inspected again redesigned checked by engineers sent to prototyping sent for testing only after having passed all tests is something, an air craft for example will undergo many flight test procedures before ever leaving the ground. Even then it will often times be put through a series of short hops TO&Ls, long before it takes to the sky.
Many test pilots have given their lives in the pursuit of new and better aircraft.
This thing obviously did not have an FAA certification for test flight or the welds bolts structural members would have been found out about before any test flight would have been authorized.
Just my opinion.
Jon, it could clearly do the last one, the default position for aircraft is on the ground, only how it gets there is important
It apparently did all 3 once, albeit the second one briefly however poorly it may have been.
And, according to Jon's links, "the right wing strut attachment failing at a body panel of the Pinto." At a body panel attachment? This wing strut — a critical structural member — wasn't even attached to the frame of the Pinto?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank S
I would think the original test pilot — having survived the initial flight's strut failure — "was unavailable" for the second test flight — because he wasn't about to belt himself into that death trap again. :headshake: