Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Looking for Murphy Moose

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Looking for Murphy Moose

    Just started looking for a moose. If someone knows of one flying, neglected, or forgotten project let me know!

    Thanks,
    Brett
    5038601188
    Last edited by md11freighter; 10-31-2022 at 02:02 PM.

  2. #2
    Colorado-Cub's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Buena Vista, CO
    Posts
    262
    Post Thanks / Like
    PM me for the contact information Ted Waltman, the premier Moose guy in the Colorado area. He may have some leads for you from his travels to the Great White North or doing pre-buys around the country.
    Thanks tedwaltman1 thanked for this post

  3. #3
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    4,056
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott A View Post
    ...... if a floatplane that will haul everything and the kitchen sink it's the right airplane. But if wheels and short-field performance marginal at best - main gear and the tail stinger needs beefing up and the short field performance never lived up to claims.......
    I guess I'm curious why it's a great float plane but just marginal on wheels?
    I would think quick off the water would equate to short takeoff on land...
    but I have absolutely zero float time so what do I know?
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  4. #4
    flynlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Fowler, Ks
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like
    I know of two never completed in western Ks
    I can give you contact number if you like.


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
    Likes tedwaltman1 liked this post

  5. #5
    OldCuby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Harpers Ferry, WV
    Posts
    567
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is this Murphy Moose nearby that I understand is not completed but sits stored in this hangar on a private strip. The owner has moved on and last I talked to the hanger owner, the Moose owner has been gone for some years! This is a picture I took 5 years ago. ⁸
    If I can get ahold of my hangar friend, and it's OK by him, I can give anyone who is interested his contact.
    Jim
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20171022_123827.jpg 
Views:	148 
Size:	104.7 KB 
ID:	63410
    Jim Newton
    --------------
    Likes tedwaltman1, Nolan liked this post

  6. #6
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    4,056
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott A View Post
    ..... On wheels the main original unmodified gear legs and attach structure was inadequate......
    Never got to look close at the gear on a Moose,
    but I did check out the gear on a 320-powered Rebel once.
    Appeared to be aluminum tubing & angles, pop riveted together.
    Looked like it was scrounged from a lawn chair factory.
    Very cheesy & inadequate looking.
    Of course, being a homebuilt,
    I have no idea if that gear was built per Murphy instructions,
    or was just cobbled together by the builder.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  7. #7
    OldCuby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Harpers Ferry, WV
    Posts
    567
    Post Thanks / Like
    I flew into this private strip today and got to talk with the hangar owner about the stored Murphy Moose. I was very wrong in the above post. That Moose was built in Alaska and flown to Tennessee and later flew into this uncharted strip named Cedar Meadows about 10 years ago and stored there since. It has about 300 hours flight time. Again, just PM me and I can put you in touch with the hangar owner for further details of the plane and it's owner, now in Hawaii.
    Jim
    Last edited by OldCuby; 11-02-2022 at 10:04 PM.
    Jim Newton
    --------------
    Likes Nolan, Scott A liked this post

  8. #8
    Farmboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glens Falls, NY & Middlebury, VT
    Posts
    3,017
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    Never got to look close at the gear on a Moose,
    but I did check out the gear on a 320-powered Rebel once.
    Appeared to be aluminum tubing & angles, pop riveted together.
    Looked like it was scrounged from a lawn chair factory.
    Very cheesy & inadequate looking.
    Of course, being a homebuilt,
    I have no idea if that gear was built per Murphy instructions,
    or was just cobbled together by the builder.
    Based on the Moose I know about, the build quality isn't the issue, but that will vary between builders anyhow. The rebel and the moose appear to be sufficiently different...

    And pilots. Best way to ruin an airplane is let a pilot fly it, based on this Rebel video.

    Skip everything up until the 3:30 mark.


  9. #9
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,710
    Post Thanks / Like
    Now that has two issues. First the flattish bottomed floats are not good with water impact loads. Second, The structure holding the engine on appears a bit marginal, perhaps the extra impact loads from the flat bottomed floats was just a bit too much? It didn't seem to take much impact to tear off the engine. A lot of seaplanes have taken a lot more abuse than shown here without coming apart.
    N1PA
    Likes Farmboy, stid2677 liked this post

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ref the video.... here is the designer's response to the crash.


    Re: Floatplane engine falling off


    Post by DirectFromTheFactory Ľ Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:08 am I watched the video and read some of the comments. One comment stated the aircraft had a larger engine installed and the factory told him not put it in. Another says it has a lyc 320 and the company accepts that. If the aircraft does have a 320 we have no problem with that.


    The aircraft is clearly in a stall. I say this for three reasons. 1. When the aircraft clears the trees the elevator is up and yet the aircraft is still falling like a rock. 2. Just before the aircraft hits the water the nose dips down quickly. And 3. The angle of attack of the wings to the direction of flight obviously is exceeding the stalling angle of the airfoil.


    The Rebel with out flaps will stall in the mid 40's. If conservatively we say the aircraft is descending at 40 mph at a descent angle of 30 degrees then the vertical descent rate is 20 mph or 29.3 ft/sec. Damage is inevitable.


    The design vertical descent rates for landing of a light aircraft to meet Certification standards must be greater than 7 fps but need not be greater than 10 fps. The actual value for an aircraft is determined by its wing loading. For intermediate values the formula in feet per second is: -------------0.25 V=4.4(W/S)


    Where V=feet per second W=gross weight of the aircraft (Rebel on Floats =1730 lbs) S=wing area (Rebel 150 sq ft)


    To certify the Rebel we would have to meet the maximum requirement of 8.1 ft per sec during a landing.

    This aircraft exceeded a certified design rate by almost four times. As I said above damage was inevitable. Some of the commentators have said they have landed aircraft a number of times harder than the aircraft in the Video. I find this highly unlikely. A 10 fps descend rate upon landing is an extremely hard landing and very few normal aircraft would survive without some damage. At 29.3 fps I am amazed the damage was not greater.


    Darryl
    Likes aflyer liked this post

  11. #11
    Farmboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glens Falls, NY & Middlebury, VT
    Posts
    3,017
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by larrym View Post
    Ref the video.... here is the designer's response to the crash.


    Re: Floatplane engine falling off


    Post by DirectFromTheFactory Ľ Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:08 am I watched the video and read some of the comments. One comment stated the aircraft had a larger engine installed and the factory told him not put it in. Another says it has a lyc 320 and the company accepts that. If the aircraft does have a 320 we have no problem with that.


    The aircraft is clearly in a stall. I say this for three reasons. 1. When the aircraft clears the trees the elevator is up and yet the aircraft is still falling like a rock. 2. Just before the aircraft hits the water the nose dips down quickly. And 3. The angle of attack of the wings to the direction of flight obviously is exceeding the stalling angle of the airfoil.


    The Rebel with out flaps will stall in the mid 40's. If conservatively we say the aircraft is descending at 40 mph at a descent angle of 30 degrees then the vertical descent rate is 20 mph or 29.3 ft/sec. Damage is inevitable.


    The design vertical descent rates for landing of a light aircraft to meet Certification standards must be greater than 7 fps but need not be greater than 10 fps. The actual value for an aircraft is determined by its wing loading. For intermediate values the formula in feet per second is: -------------0.25 V=4.4(W/S)


    Where V=feet per second W=gross weight of the aircraft (Rebel on Floats =1730 lbs) S=wing area (Rebel 150 sq ft)


    To certify the Rebel we would have to meet the maximum requirement of 8.1 ft per sec during a landing.

    This aircraft exceeded a certified design rate by almost four times. As I said above damage was inevitable. Some of the commentators have said they have landed aircraft a number of times harder than the aircraft in the Video. I find this highly unlikely. A 10 fps descend rate upon landing is an extremely hard landing and very few normal aircraft would survive without some damage. At 29.3 fps I am amazed the damage was not greater.


    Darryl
    All good points, if the assumption is correct, based on 5 seconds of video.

    You can drop an anvil if you drop it high enough, a plane, much easier.

    Perhaps a titled engineer can provide better info but a plane that stalls at 40 mph forward speed isnít descending vertically at 40 mph, right?
    Nope Iím mixing things but Without wings 32ft/sec/sec is a normal acceleration to use until terminal velocity. With wings may suggest much lower than 29ft/sec?
    Iím probably wrong on this math.
    But I would hope the struts or gear bends before the engine mount rips off.

    Pb


    Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingersÖ
    Likes Scott A liked this post

  12. #12
    Scott A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Added my fwiw response inside in blue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farmboy View Post
    All good points, if the assumption is correct, based on 5 seconds of video.

    You can drop an anvil if you drop it high enough, a plane, much easier.

    Perhaps a titled engineer can provide better info but a plane that stalls at 40 mph forward speed isnít descending vertically at 40 mph, right? Correct it is descending vertically at 20 MPH or 29.335 FPS

    Nope Iím mixing things but Without wings 32ft/sec/sec is a normal acceleration to use until terminal velocity.

    With wings may suggest much lower than 29ft/sec? I think the math is correct, an object moving 40 MPH at a 30 angle would be moving 20 MPH vertical regardless of what it is. Right triangle math, Sin of angle times the hypotonus equals the opposite right?. Sin of 30 is .5 , .5 times 40 MPH = the 20 MPH. So it had to have moved vertically the 29 feet in 1 second, assuming of course it was in a steady state angle at the stated speeds.

    Iím probably wrong on this math.

    But I would hope the struts or gear bends before the engine mount rips off. I'm with you, seems that should be one of the stronger points.

    Pb


    Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingersÖ

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,091
    Post Thanks / Like
    Plane does not look stalled to me but once again the definition of stall seems to be a moving target in most discussions. The AOA of the wing does not look that bad either. The hard landing was a result of poor energy management. It looked like he was too high on final and tried to loose altitude by pulling power to hit his spot in front of the onlookers, or he may be a power off landing guy kind of sounds that way on the touch and go. the key is once he got slowed down with the fast decent he had no energy reserve left for the flare to arrest he's decent. Anyone that has flown a pacer knows the feeling. Tried to correct with power but way too late. So was the motor falling off, the plane, pilot, or builder issue. We would need Paul Harvey with the rest of the story to really know. What is with the no flap landing anyway?
    DENNY
    Last edited by DENNY; 11-06-2022 at 11:39 PM.
    Likes Scott A liked this post

  14. #14
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    4,243
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pilot should watch this again and again then work on technique. Get tuned up by a good instructor with a bad stink eye for poor performance.

    Gary
    Likes Scott A, DENNY liked this post

  15. #15
    kestrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Slow? Yes
    Stalled? No
    30 degree descent? No

    That was more than just a bounce after the first "touch down". It was flying again. That engine should not have come off. There is no chance it would have come off a Cessna or Cub.
    --
    Bearhawk, RV-4
    Likes Scott A liked this post

  16. #16
    tedwaltman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Delta, CO
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like
    Curiously interesting how a thread seeking a Murphy Moose morphs into a discussion on a float equipped Murphy Rebel landing accident and subsequently the Murphy Rebel’s design….

    All good info, especially the engineering aspects. I had heard of the Rebel accident but not of the factory analysis. Thank you all for the follow up posts.
    Likes Scott A, kestrel, Colorado-Cub liked this post

  17. #17
    kestrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    347
    Post Thanks / Like
    I might add that though my post above is critical of the Murphy analysis, it wasn't intended to be critical of the design because I don't know how that particular airframe may have been different from the factory design or how it had been maintained.
    --
    Bearhawk, RV-4
    Likes Scott A liked this post

  18. #18
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,937
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Farmboy View Post
    Based on the Moose I know about, the build quality isn't the issue, but that will vary between builders anyhow. The rebel and the moose appear to be sufficiently different...

    And pilots. Best way to ruin an airplane is let a pilot fly it, based on this Rebel video.

    Skip everything up until the 3:30 mark.

    Water has close to the same ability to break airplanes as trees.

    This video is an absolute perfect training video on what not to do. Not sure a Beaver would have survived that poor handling.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
    Thanks tedwaltman1 thanked for this post

Similar Threads

  1. Murphy Moose?
    By WSH in forum Everything Else (formerly:My Other Plane Is A....)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-21-2006, 11:18 AM
  2. Murphy Moose
    By StewartB in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-06-2003, 12:50 PM

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
  •