The ONE AND ONLY Scaled Composites CM-144 aircraft FOR SALE

[junglejetdriver]

Financial reasons are forcing me to sell my canard. I have the ONE AND ONLY CM-144 canard aircraft built by Scaled Composites in 1987 for Project Sky Dancer. This aircraft is a once in a lifetime opportunity for someone to own not only a piece of history, but one of the most rare and unique aircraft of our time. Flown to 32529 ft. she can loiter at 15000 ft for more than 20 Hrs. Gross Take off is 2600lbs. and cruises at 165kts.

 

Way way too much to list here, but if you are truly interested, I invite you to email me at TUNAFISH778@yahoo.com

The aircraft is hangared in Houston Texas and needs to find a good home. Do not contact me if you want a play toy or commute aircraft. This plane needs a loving owner capable of taking the proper care of her. Aircraft comes with complete AC/Engine/Maint logs as well as test flight logs and the "baby book" which is a photo journal of the entire build including pictures of Burt Rutan and Mike Melville at the controls.

 

 

Serious inquiries only please.

 

Thanks, John

[Marc Zeitlin]

Financial reasons are forcing me to sell my canard....

How much, and CURRENT pics?

[Edge 513]

Is this that canard that had the odd shaped nose and a camera turret...looked like a hybrid Longeze? The guy bought it from somebody down in Texas that had it sitting for years? Logs by Melville- This must be that one.

[junglejetdriver]

I'm working on getting a webpage up with pictures and some videos of the plane. Please send me an email and i'll shoot you some pics of her. Asking price is $150,000. Thanks.

[Tyson]

Asking price is $150,000.

This is about $100,000 too much, but good luck to you.

[Marc Zeitlin]

I...Please send me an email and i'll shoot you some pics of her.

My email address is littered all over the web and on every posting that I make, but don't bother - given the price, I'm not a serious buyer.

 

Asking price is $150,000. Thanks.

Good luck with that.

[Edge 513]

I'll politely agree with Tyson...and clean up my rootbeer I snorted all over myself when the price was revealed. Donate it to EAA and maybe claim a 150k taks writeoff.

[Cozy1200]

from

 

http://www.aerofiles.com/_rutan.html

 

CM-144 (Model 144) 1987 = Enlarged and slightly modified version of Long EZ, developed as a drone for California Microwave Co; Lycoming IO-360. POP: 1?.

http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1680

[Hercpilot]

It's on Ebay, item number 250209199208!

 

Hercpilot

[mfryer]

Interesting. It has a conventional steerable nose wheel.

[junglejetdriver]

Okay, some more pics and a video can be seen at:

 

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=322068702

 

sorry it's a myspace page, but what can I say? It's free and convenient.

 

John

[Tom Nalevanko]

I believe that this aircraft initially had severe control problems and a very long distance to takeoff. Martin Hollmann at Aircraft Designs, Inc. won a contract to improve it and he designed a new wing which was much less swept. The aircraft then flew much better with higher climb rate. He writes about this in many of his books.

[Spodman]

I like the fillets on the inner join between the wing & winglet too. Any idea what the nosewheel came off? I believe the Defiant's came from a Mooney of some description.

 

That is a strange starting price, how much closer to the 150,000 you mentioned is the reserve likely to be?

[Marc Zeitlin]

I believe that this aircraft initially had severe control problems and a very long distance to takeoff.

What makes you believe that?

 

Martin Hollmann at Aircraft Designs, Inc. won a contract to improve it and he designed a new wing which was much less swept. The aircraft then flew much better with higher climb rate. He writes about this in many of his books.

While Mr. Hollmann is a respected and accomplished designer, he's had issues with Burt Rutan and canard aircraft. What he says about any of Burt's designs should be taken with a large number of grains of salt.

 

See:

 

http://eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=22870&page=12

 

for a discussion of some of these issues.

[rviglierchio]

Sounds fishy......!

[Spodman]

Had a thought, what is the flying status of this machine? It isn't a homebuilt, it was built in a factory by Scaled. If they claim it doesn't exist it probably means they don't support it, so nobody can maintain it??? If operated as an experimental will there be restrictions on its operation, not being a homebuilt?

[Lynn Erickson]

Had a thought, what is the flying status of this machine? It isn't a homebuilt, it was built in a factory by Scaled. If they claim it doesn't exist it probably means they don't support it, so nobody can maintain it??? If operated as an experimental will there be restrictions on its operation, not being a homebuilt?

there is no such thing as a homebuilt as far as the FAA is concerned. it would be an experimental aircraft and the restrictions would be the same as most unless the FAA gave it more restrictions, which it would state in the airworthiness certificate. all aircraft are build in a factory by the manufacturer. when you build an experimental you are the manufacturer.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Had a thought, what is the flying status of this machine? It isn't a homebuilt, it was built in a factory by Scaled. If they claim it doesn't exist it probably means they don't support it, so nobody can maintain it??? If operated as an experimental will there be restrictions on its operation, not being a homebuilt?

Assuming that it went through the normal Scaled certification process, then it was certificated as an "Experimental, R&D", NOT "Experimental, Amateur Built" (it clearly wasn't built for "education and/or recreation").

 

"R&D" has substantial restrictions on what the aircraft can do and where it can go and when that "Am-Built" does not have, and generally needs to be renewed on occasion.

 

It's entirely possible that in the intervening years, the aircraft was decertificated (especially since someone at Scaled claims that the airplane doesn't exist) and then re-certificated as an Exp. Am-Built, in which case it would be no different than your standard LE with respect to restrictions, Op-Limits, etc.

 

As far as maintenance goes, in either case (R&D or Am-Built), anyone can WORK on the plane, and any A&P can sign of the yearly Condition Inspection. Not a big deal.

[Spodman]

...and then re-certificated as an Exp. Am-Built...

I know our system is similar, but more restrictive than the US, but here, if you wish to register the aircraft as Am-built you have to demonstrate to the CASA inspector, or the alternative organisation's inspectors (which I forgotten the term for) that it was at least 51% built by, y'know, AMATEURS! That isn't the case there?

[TMann]

eh ........ well, I think the rules get bent a bit here.

Example:

A guy in our EAA chapter just bought an Epic experimental. He actually was never involved in the build process. The guy he hired to play that role only had to show up and demonstrate that he could perform the tasks involved in building the aircraft.

It sounds pretty marginal to me. I mean, the guy has a 7 seat, pressurized cabin, turbo prop and it's an experimental airplane.

[Marc Zeitlin]

I know our system is similar, but more restrictive than the US, but here, if you wish to register the aircraft as Am-built you have to demonstrate to the CASA inspector, or the alternative organisation's inspectors (which I forgotten the term for) that it was at least 51% built by, y'know, AMATEURS! That isn't the case there?

It is, but there have been substantial modifications made to the aircraft since it's original certification. It's POSSIBLE (although not likely) that they were done by an individual and were enough to get it switched.

 

I wouldn't bet on it, though - if I had to guess (and it's JUST a guess), it's still Exp. R&D, with the restrictions that implies.

[Marc Zeitlin]

eh ........ well, I think the rules get bent a bit here.

Example:

A guy in our EAA chapter just bought an Epic experimental. He actually was never involved in the build process. The guy he hired to play that role only had to show up and demonstrate that he could perform the tasks involved in building the aircraft.

It sounds pretty marginal to me. I mean, the guy has a 7 seat, pressurized cabin, turbo prop and it's an experimental airplane.

And if the FAA catches wind of that and investigates, he could easily lose the am-built certification, and have a $1.5M device that he's not allowed to use (in the am-built category, anyway). The EAA/FAA are having substantive discussions about cracking down on garbage like this (which pisses the crap out of me, having built two aircraft essentially from scratch, which is the INTENT of the am-built rule set).

[Aiman]

A little off topic, but damn, Marc... those epics are pretty slick looking aircraft. Sure wish I had a million some odd dollars to throw away on one.

 

 

Oh.. and.. this guy is living on pluto if he thinks that plane will fetch $150K.

[TMann]

....... garbage like this (which pisses the crap out of me, having built two aircraft essentially from scratch, which is the INTENT of the am-built rule set).

Agreed. It's the same warm and fuzzy I get when I talk to the Quick Build RV guys. They build them in the Philipines and send the parts to the builder here. They leave off a pice of aluminum skin here and there so the builder has to do something but essentially it's far from a canard project and the level of involvement there.

[Marc Zeitlin]

A little off topic, but damn, Marc... those epics are pretty slick looking aircraft. Sure wish I had a million some odd dollars to throw away on one.

 

 

Oh.. and.. this guy is living on pluto if he thinks that plane will fetch $150K.

Hence my comment in reply #6.