> Hey Paul,
                >
                > I have seen a number of Midget Mustangs (the single
    seater)
               powered by
                > O-320's.  I just saw an MM powered by an O-360 with a C/S
          prop.  I'd
                > have to think it would be fairly reasonable to stuff a
    13B into
               an MM.
                > Maybe even mount the radiator under/behind the pilot,
just
          like the
                > P-51.  Could help the weight and balance.  I've also
    seen a
          couple of
                > MM's with retractable landing gear.  Such a
    combination should
               qualify
                > for Sport Class - enough have been built.  I'd like to
    have a
               structural
                > analysis for flutter.  It shouldn't be against class
rules
          to put
               enough
                > more beef in the structure to make it go
    400mph..  Hah.  :)  Or
               at least
                > fast enough to raise some eyebrows.
                >
                >
                > Regards
                >
                > Matt-


               If you want to run in the Sport Class with a Midget
    Mustang, I
          would
               use an
               aluminum 20B.  A better place for the radiators is in the
    inboard
               leading
               edges.  I think this is actually a lower drag
    installation and
          you won't
               have to sit on those coolant lines.

               Steve Brazil


          Rather than an Al 20b, I'd go with a turbocharged aluminum
    13b.  It
          would fit better, and probably fly better, and be plenty of
    horsepower.
          I see a development path on the airframe starting with an
    O-200 (I have
          one), moving to an NA P-Port Iron 13b, and then to
    turbocharged Al (if
          I'm still having fun)..  I realize there's no replacement for
          displacement however.


          Thanks,

          Matt-

          You know Matt there are plenty of cheap Formula 1 airplanes
    for sale.
          Here is the slickest one I have seen so far. Not necessarily
    for sale.

          Paul Lamar



    That's a Mike Arnold designed airplane Paul (the Endeavor - AR-6).  Mr
    Arnold came to fame as a film maker turned airplane designer who built
a
    65hp Rotax powered airplane that ran ~215mph on a timed course -
    setting
    a world record, and earning the claim to being the only (or one of few)
    man carrying powered airplanes with a flat plate drag equivalent of
less
    than 1 sq ft.  Mr. Arnold studied and applied Hoerner's works
    extensively in the AR-5, and then again in Dave Hoover's Endeavor.  A
    talented guy.

    I suspect that the AR-6 is actually a nice flying airplane, unlike most
    of the F1 birds.  In a conversation I had with Gary Hubler a few years
    ago, I got the impression that Mariah (a heavily modified Cassutt)
    actually didn't fly particularly well - on the first flight he was
doing
    aerobatics - a loop required forward stick pressure all the way around.
    They put lead in the prop extension/spinner to try to get the CG more
    reasonable.  Most of the fast f1 airplanes have really thin airfoil
    sections and tiny control surfaces.  Eeesh.

    The MM's are too big to be competitive in F1 racing (IMO), but if you
    put more hp on them they could be pretty fast.  They have conventional
    Aluminum construction which should make structural analysis and
    improvement easier.  The MM is already pretty strong - being rated at
    something around 9g ultimate and having a 230mph published VNE.
    Obviously a study would be required to see what the limitation on VNE
is
    and how to increase it.

    I would prefer to keep the overall airframe weight close to the stock
MM
    max takeoff weight (at odds with the above goal)..  At that weight the
    MM has a reasonable stall speed (~60mph).  The stall speed has the
    largest effect on bad-landing (off airport) survivability.  It's _much_
    easier to provide impact protection for 60mph than for 90mph.  I am not
    a daredevil nor a fighter pilot, and so I would like whatever I come up
    with to remain a nice sport airplane..  My goal isn't to actually win
at
    Reno, but to have something that I could fly to the races, raise a few
    eyebrows, and have well less than $50k in (total).  It would be fun to
    be able to spank a few F1 rockets and slower Lancairs too.


    Regards,

    Matt-

    I totally agree on the stall speed. The energy in a crash is m*V^2.
    Fowler flaps can triple the landing lift coefficient required so if
    you want
    to go fast and keep 60 MPH stall speed you need just enough wing area
to
    have
    a stall speed of 60 MPH with the flaps out. The other mandatory
    requirement
    for
    going fast at Reno is a high aspect ratio wing. AKA low span loading
    as you
    are
    in a continuous turn almost. Induced drag is Cl^2/(pi*A). 2G turn
    twice the
    Cl.
    Three G turn 3 times the Cl. Four times as much induced drag at only
    a 2 G
    turn.
    All of this assumes you keep the weight as low as possible.

    I don't think a single place qualifies for Sport Aircraft at Reno.
    That I think is why they put the pax sort of next to the pilot
    in the Nemesis Nxt.

    --
    Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

    Guys,
    Single place is not legal in sport class.... and I inquired about
    rotaries.
    Short answer is they don't want them and will make you run a 13B in
    the 1000
    cubic inch super sport class and I don't think twins are allowed. I
will
    have to look it up in the rule book. Do you think they believe it is an
    unfair advantage? To run with the NXT's, will require ~900 hp.
    Larry


    Typical. They are quaking in their boots over a piss ant 160 cubic inch
    engine while they want to run 1000 cubic inches.
    I think they are worried about losing Lycoming and Continental
    sponsorship. Who can we send some nasty email too? Who can we call?
    Can I get that in writing someplace? If they got enough email
    they might change their narrow minds but I doubt it.

    Perhaps the best thing to do is set some city to city records and keep
    entering aircraft in the 500 mile Dayton to OSH race. More pertinent
    anyway
    than 15 minutes around the pylons.

    Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

Larry,

Without intending to be argumentative, I believe I posted the relevant
section of the Sport Class rules (possibly your message and mine crossed
in cyberspace), and can't find anything in them that specifies a minimum
number of seats.

As far as running a rotary, as I said in another message, I don't care
some much about competing with the NXT's.  I just want to show up and go
fast - maybe like Klaus did with his Varieze.  At least, at first anyway.

I agree with Paul that x-country racing is actually a more useful
measure of engine/airplane, but pylon racing is more exciting to watch
(sometimes negatively so).  I think time to climb is interesting too -
in the same way as drag racing.


Regards,

Matt-



Matt, we just crossed wires... maybe Paul has the wires bent too tight....
And your right... it would be fun just to show up and go fast!
LArry

Can we get a full copy of the rules someplace?