Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 59 of 59

Thread: Wide-body Sportsman 2+2 build

  1. #41
    RVBottomly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Asotin County Washington (KLWS)
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by tcbetka View Post

    EDIT: Almost forgot -- you mentioned that you wished you knew Solidworks. Well if you are an EAA member, I believe you can still get an educational license included with your membership. You have to uninstall and reinstall a new version each year, but that's relatively trivial. There are excellent learning resources for free on YouTube though (as well as paid resources in other places also), so for EAA members the tool(s) is readily available.
    Don't want to derail, but EAA discontinued the Solidworks benefit. Now you are left with "3DEXPERIENCE SOLIDWORKS for Makers" at a discounted subscription. From what I've seen, it won't be as useful as old Solidworks.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RVBottomly View Post
    Don't want to derail, but EAA discontinued the Solidworks benefit. Now you are left with "3DEXPERIENCE SOLIDWORKS for Makers" at a discounted subscription. From what I've seen, it won't be as useful as old Solidworks.
    BUMMER!!! I have a commercial license for it, purchased in 2015. But I did use the EAA-provided "educational" license for a month or two, while learning it back then. That's terrible news though, because Solidworks (even the educational version) is an incredible tool. It costs me about $1500/yr to maintain the license, but I'm afraid to let it lapse considering that they're no longer letting people buy the perpetual license, and I use it for planning out pretty much everything I build...aviation-related or not.
    Tom Betka, CFII, A&P
    Stevens Point, WI

  3. #43
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    4,045
    Post Thanks / Like
    From what I've seen, it won't be as useful as old Solidworks.
    Could you expound on that a little, please? I've been considering giving it a try, and one question I haven't seen answered involves the ability (or lack thereof) to save a drawing locally and then to share it. It sounds like maybe drawings can only be shared with other 3dexperience users. For me, that wouldn't be very useful if it's true.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO

  4. #44
    RVBottomly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Asotin County Washington (KLWS)
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Misch View Post
    Could you expound on that a little, please? I've been considering giving it a try, and one question I haven't seen answered involves the ability (or lack thereof) to save a drawing locally and then to share it. It sounds like maybe drawings can only be shared with other 3dexperience users. For me, that wouldn't be very useful if it's true.
    What you said is correct as I read the EAA forums. Saves in the cloud. Only other 3d users can access. I was just starting to get a feel for it 9 months ago. Not going that route now.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Misch View Post
    Could you expound on that a little, please? I've been considering giving it a try, and one question I haven't seen answered involves the ability (or lack thereof) to save a drawing locally and then to share it. It sounds like maybe drawings can only be shared with other 3dexperience users. For me, that wouldn't be very useful if it's true.
    Warning: Lengthy answer forthcoming!

    You didn't ask me the question, and I've never used the 3dexperience version of Solidworks, but I went and looked at the video I've linked below. It looks REALLY nice! This is basically Dassault's answer to Fusion 360, which is the browser-based, cloud storage tool that is a substitute for their full-blown Inventer application. I wondered how long it would take before the Solidworks folks made the leap into that realm as well--and this is it. Here are a few observations from my experience using the traditional (ie; desktop) Solidworks application over the past 7 years or so, and my limited experience in using Fusion 360:

    1) Fusion 360 was soundly criticized for being cloud-based storage a few years ago (well, about 5-6 now), when I was looking at it. I had been using SW for 1-2 years at that time, so I wanted to see what all my CNC friends were ranting and raving about. I even went and attended a weekend-long course on Fusion 360, and its CAM plugin. I was VERY impressed. Since then I've continued using Solidworks, but wouldn't hesitate to go to Fusion 360, were I to ever give up the SW license.

    2) Installation of Solidworks on a desktop, especially when there are other versions present, is a huge PITA. You definitely need to know something about hardware if you have any SW-related performance problems--because the first thing your VAR agent will ask you to do is to print out a list of your machine specs, and send it to them. Although I used to practice medicine, I've now retired from that and write software...and build my own computer systems. I can tell you that SW is quite sensitive to various hardware aspects of your machine--the GPU being as important as anything. It's also a bit picky about RAM. Then, if you do upgrades each year as new versions are released, you can upgrade yourself into a non-working (older) version.

    For example, just last week I had to install SW 2018 because that's the version I had their Simulation product licensed for. But as I typically don't use Simulation, and given that it costs me another $500/yr, I stopped paying to update it, but I can still go back and use SW 2018 Professional with Simulation Standard. So that's what I did last week--only because I had updated to SW 2022, it broke the Microsoft VBA requirement (Visual Basic for Applications) for the 2018 version. So I had to uninstall ALL versions of Solidworks, do some convoluted procedure to pry VBA 7.3 out of Windows 10, and then reinstall SW 2018 so that it could install version 7.1 of the VBA which is what was in use back then. It took 2-3 hours to work through all that crap.

    As I said--I've never used it, but from what I can tell all those types of issues should be gone with this 3dexperience version. It seems that they've greatly simplified the installation and maintenance processes for the "casual" user of Solidworks, while maintaining the core features of the desktop version. Simply put, I'd like to try it, but if it's half as good as their video makes it out to be, I think you'd be very happy with it. I can definitely see why they've done it.

    My Fusion 360 friends tell me that the cloud-based file storage/sharing thing is really pretty convenient, as you can share the files pretty easily. Also, with the desktop Solidworks, if you don't do a pack-and-go type of operation, then any parts you are referencing from a library outside of your assembly, don't always get sent to whoever you're sending your files to. In other words, there's an extra step or two that you need to follow to make sure that your design partner(s) gets all the same files you're using on your local machine. By the looks of it, this 3dexperience thing is supposed to fix that sort of thing? If so, that would be awesome.

    Anyway, it might well be worth giving this 3dexperience thing a shot.


    Tom Betka, CFII, A&P
    Stevens Point, WI

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just did a little review of the hardware requirements for 3dexperiece (3ds, as they call it). Sadly it appears as though it is only supported on Windows. With Fusion 360 you could free yourself of the burden of a brain-dead OS and use it on a Mac. OK, it wasn't Linux...but it wasn't Windows either. The only reason I still maintain a Windows machine(s), is to run Solidworks. That's it. I was hoping to see that they were supporting other operating systems now, but that doesn't appear to be the case judging by what I'm seeing here.

    That's unfortunate.
    Tom Betka, CFII, A&P
    Stevens Point, WI

  7. #47
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    4,045
    Post Thanks / Like
    Working on the download / installation of 3D Experience, it is a major PAIN. Clumsy, ackward and arcane. Reminds me of software installation processes from 30 years ago. NOT HAPPY so far.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    Likes jrussl liked this post

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, that part is similar to its desktop brother at least.

    EDIT: If you have never installed SW before and need to talk through it, ping me and i'll give you my cell number Gordon.
    Last edited by tcbetka; 03-24-2022 at 07:11 PM.
    Tom Betka, CFII, A&P
    Stevens Point, WI

  9. #49
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    4,045
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks - it's FINALLY downloading, after an array of behind the scenes, non-monitorable preparatory downloads and operations there were hard to keep track of. It's a truly challenging process. One thinks all the remedial stuff is done, restarts the process and it says "I can't cuz I'm already doing it", when 15 minutes ago it said "I can't do this until you . . . . " And of course that's after they have your money. Ridiculous. I hope it's worth it!
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    LOL! That's worse than the desktop version! If you don't have another version of SW installed, the initial installation is usually a pretty straightforward process. It's not until you try to install an additional version (like a newer one) on the same system that there's an issue...especially when there has been a dependency change, like I ran into last week with Microsoft VBA.
    Tom Betka, CFII, A&P
    Stevens Point, WI
    Likes jrussl liked this post

  11. #51
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    4,045
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, it seems to be working now. One thing I did learn so far is that it is possible to save a drawing to the local computer. But I haven't yet tried emailing to a "conventional" Solidworks user to see if it would open properly for him.

    DraftSight, a "regular" CAD program, also from Dassault, seems somewhat more intuitive, though with fewer features. It's $200/year, as compared to $50 for the EAA version of the online version of Solidworks. It has a 30 day free trial option.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    Likes RVBottomly, tcbetka liked this post

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Misch View Post
    Well, it seems to be working now. One thing I did learn so far is that it is possible to save a drawing to the local computer. But I haven't yet tried emailing to a "conventional" Solidworks user to see if it would open properly for him.

    DraftSight, a "regular" CAD program, also from Dassault, seems somewhat more intuitive, though with fewer features. It's $200/year, as compared to $50 for the EAA version of the online version of Solidworks. It has a 30 day free trial option.
    Never heard of DraftSight, so I'll have to find a YouTube demo video for that. If you want to email me a model you've created with 3ds though, I'll try it. I only have SW2018 installed on this machine right now, but I think I can (re)install SW2022 if need be. Hopefully it won't screw up the whole Microsoft VBA requirement--I'd have to research that first. But I also have a laptop I spec'd out for SW use, and could install SW2022 on that too.

    tcbetka@hotmail.com
    Tom Betka, CFII, A&P
    Stevens Point, WI
    Thanks Gordon Misch thanked for this post
    Likes jrussl liked this post

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Farmboy View Post
    Lots of long posts here but Iíll give a couple of opinions too, based on my experience flying the model 5 and the Bearhawk Patrol, respectively 100 and maybe 150 hrs each.

    Yes lead times are long. But stick building is long. There are 30 yr old fabricators that are working 40 hrs a week stick building and taking over a year. The reality is stick building is, for the majority, a 5-10 year build.
    Kits are about 2 years out. Maybe a touch less. Add 1.5-2 years at an easy pace if youíre not also working 40 hrs at another job, and youíve got a finished flying airplane. Go have fun.

    Big airplanes need big engines. There are plenty of disappointment pilots with big airplanes being pulled around with o-360ís. If you want a 4 place airplane, build one with the power it likes, and fly it slower to save your fuel. When I fly a model 5 at 80 mph in formation with a bunch of little cubs, I burned 5 gal/hr. Max burned at cruise for my wallet was 13.6 for a long haul, at 135 mph with up to 6 seats. But the width of speed and fuel burn capability is what makes it work.

    I am building a patrol because itís the closest thing to a perfect airplane for my mission, right now. If I had the funds or a family that flew, Iíd own a model 5 in a heartbeat. Iíd configure it as a 4 place with room to carry the kitchen sink, and ideally put it on Amphibs as it would be awesome in that role. But alas, Iím just a poor farmboy and one airplane is all I get.

    Parting noteÖ one advantage of a Bearhawk kit is you get to be more involved in building it then other kits, so lots of room to personalize it. (Although wings are 75% complete and fuselage is fully welded). This is a negative to those prefer to assemble only, but itís what it is.

    Pb


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
    Just talked to Bob (Barrows) and Mark (Goldberg) yesterday, actually. The BH model 5 is a very attractive option, to be sure--and it wouldn't take any re-engineering on my part to do it. It's a 44.5" wide cabin, and I think Bob said it was either 18" or 24" longer than the 4-place Bearhawk is. He said an O-540 would be enough engine. I presume he meant a 250hp version...not a 235hp.

    As for kit availability, Mark told me that a FULL kit (fuselage, wings, empennage...the whole enchilada) would take until at least the end of 2023, if not later. He said he just told another fellow that a day or two ago, and it sounded like there was a possible order there--so I'd have to think this would push back any order I'd place. However Mark said that he could get me a quick-build wing kit (including wing struts) in only 6-12 months. That's much better, as I could have the fuselage mostly built by then I'm sure. It really doesn't take all that much time to build the tubing structure--I built a complete set of tail feathers, landing gear legs and the fuselage for a Wag Aero 2+2 in about one year...while finishing up Medical School. I could build the same parts for a BH model 5 in the same amount of time.

    That said, I want to call Jay up at Javron, and inquire as to how long his assembled wings are taking. The BH 5 is a LOT of aircraft, and I'm not sure I need that much for the wife, me, and a couple of dogs. I still think we'd be very happy with a wider-body pa-14 replica with a set of Jay's pa-12 wings to go to 2200 pounds gross, and an O-360 hanging up front.
    Tom Betka, CFII, A&P
    Stevens Point, WI
    Likes CamTom12 liked this post

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bcone1381 View Post
    You just described the Bearhawk Bravo....or maybe even the Bearhawk Companion.
    Not sure I follow you. I didn't say the model 5 was 2200 lbs GW though--but rather I would be OK with 2+2 (ie; pa-14 replica) that was 2200lbs gross weight. The model 5 has a GW of 3000 pounds. Not sure the wife and I need that much aircraft to get some pancakes. Might be fun though--especially if we eat a LOT of them.
    Tom Betka, CFII, A&P
    Stevens Point, WI

  15. #55

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like
    I deleted my post right after I posted it, but you caught me....

    What I meant to communicate is the Companion would be good for "Pancakes with the Wife, me, and a couple of dogs" (the Five is a station wagon to Alaska with a cast iron dutch oven and fire wood.) I was unsure of your width requirement, so I just deleted and checked. The Companion will have a 42" cabin width. That 2 seat Companion might have a larger useful load than a C-182. Around 900 pounds I would guess.

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ah, lol...

    I don't know what the legroom is in that thing...or how much room there is in the baggage area for a couple dogs, We sort of want a 4-place though I think, just to be able to carry three people from time to time if need be. I also like to ice fish as well, so having a bigger baggage area would be nice.

    The BH model 5 really is an attractive proposition. Your dogs can be Shetland Ponies and still fit in that thing.
    Tom Betka, CFII, A&P
    Stevens Point, WI

  17. #57
    Farmboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glens Falls, NY & Middlebury, VT
    Posts
    2,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Iím a fan of the 5, but Iíll give you some mud for the water.

    Companion is essentially the 4 place (Model B) without the rear seats, and the baggage bulkhead is one station forward.
    The room in the back of a Companion is huge for a 2 seater. Itís really an ideal 3 seater plus bags, dogs or cargo. (It would also be quite a unique super wide body tandem aircraft, super sized for larger Americans, although no one has modified it towards this yet)

    The Patrol and the Model 5 are my favourites, but like everything, each model, brand, and design has its place in the market. Fitting your own mission is the goal.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4049.JPG 
Views:	60 
Size:	94.8 KB 
ID:	60922
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4050.JPG 
Views:	65 
Size:	787.6 KB 
ID:	60923


    Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingersÖ
    Thanks tcbetka thanked for this post
    Likes tcbetka liked this post

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Farmboy View Post
    Iím a fan of the 5, but Iíll give you some mud for the water.

    Companion is essentially the 4 place (Model B) without the rear seats, and the baggage bulkhead is one station forward.
    The room in the back of a Companion is huge for a 2 seater. Itís really an ideal 3 seater plus bags, dogs or cargo. (It would also be quite a unique super wide body tandem aircraft, super sized for larger Americans, although no one has modified it towards this yet)

    The Patrol and the Model 5 are my favourites, but like everything, each model, brand, and design has its place in the market. Fitting your own mission is the goal.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4049.JPG 
Views:	60 
Size:	94.8 KB 
ID:	60922
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4050.JPG 
Views:	65 
Size:	787.6 KB 
ID:	60923


    Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingersÖ
    Holy crap--is that the Companion?!? That's a huge aft cabin! I'd better go do some more research me thinks...
    Tom Betka, CFII, A&P
    Stevens Point, WI

  19. #59
    Farmboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glens Falls, NY & Middlebury, VT
    Posts
    2,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes - basically the 4 place without backseats, so thatís the baggage area.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0575.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	858.4 KB 
ID:	60931

    Doesnít show the inside but hereís the first start of the first Companion built.

    https://youtu.be/9v8tq81lXqs



    Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingersÖ
    Likes CamTom12 liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-02-2021, 03:19 PM
  2. 182 wide body or narrow body
    By Charlie Longley in forum Cessna: C180/C182/C185
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-09-2019, 09:27 PM
  3. wide body
    By cubamigo in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-07-2008, 01:10 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •