Doodles...

[Richard Lamb]

Some times you have more time than you know what to do with,

Here are some (on topic - no less) doodles of a small low wing.
inspired by Bruce King's tiny little BK-1..


Thought I'd share - just for fun.



Richard

The .gifs need a DLS line, or patience.

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
Richard Lamb > wrote:

> Some times you have more time than you know what to do with,
>
> Here are some (on topic - no less) doodles of a small low wing.
> inspired by Bruce King's tiny little BK-1..
>
>
> Thought I'd share - just for fun.
>
>
>
> Richard
>
> The .gifs need a DLS line, or patience.

hmm, they seem to have been doodled in invisible ink...

[Richard Lamb]

Smitty Two wrote:

> In article >,
> Richard Lamb > wrote:
>
> > Some times you have more time than you know what to do with,
> >
> > Here are some (on topic - no less) doodles of a small low wing.
> > inspired by Bruce King's tiny little BK-1..
> >
> >
> > Thought I'd share - just for fun.
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > The .gifs need a DLS line, or patience.
>
> hmm, they seem to have been doodled in invisible ink...

Oh
, I guess I forgot the secret decoder ring function?

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

There is no index file, just some pics.

(thanks Smitty)

[Rich S.]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...

Here are some (on topic - no less) doodles of a small low wing.
inspired by Bruce King's tiny little BK-1..

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

Richard...............

It looks vaguely familiar. . .

http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/littner/cp80.html

Rich S.

[Richard Lamb]

"Rich S." wrote:

> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Here are some (on topic - no less) doodles of a small low wing.
> inspired by Bruce King's tiny little BK-1..
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
>
> Richard...............
>
> It looks vaguely familiar. . .
>
> http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/littner/cp80.html
>
> Rich S.

Does look darn close but the Zephyr is a bit larger
at 19+ span and 17' long.

This one is a bit smaller.
call it 16 foot span and 15 feet long.
and maybe a full foot shorter in height.
I think it was 6o to 66 sq ft for the wing area is
about the same for both.

I just uploaded a cross section sketch that shows the
size a little (intended as a pun) better.

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/l-one-2x.jpg

Guess/wish 500 pounds empty with a VW,
but
this is one place where a 912 and adjustable
prop would really rock.

Or spec the Rotax 914 (turbo!) and a higher
aspect ratio wing (longer span) for those
mini-U2 missions....

[Rich S.]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
>
> This one is a bit smaller.
> call it 16 foot span and 15 feet long.
> and maybe a full foot shorter in height.
> I think it was 6o to 66 sq ft for the wing area is
> about the same for both.

I can't see any scale or measurements on your sketches. Maybe I need better
glasses. :)

> Or spec the Rotax 914 (turbo!) and a higher
> aspect ratio wing (longer span) for those
> mini-U2 missions....

Or an Apex T62-32?

http://avonaero.com/solar32.htm

You could lose the cheek cowls, reduce frontal area by a bunch and maybe
come in at your desired weight. Does a tailwheel airframe back up real well?

Rich S.

[Richard Lamb]

Well, since you asked...

this one is a 76 sq. ft wing which is not the exact right wing
for this plane, but the worksheet was already done-so...what.

No idea how the columns will hold up on the net, but .....
it's worth a try...

The spar caps are 1-1/5" X 1/8" 6061 with 1-1/2" x 1/8"
6061 straps layered to the indicated (interpreted) thickness.

Bruce bolted his spar, which produced a very straight spar
assembly.

Hammering big rivets into small structures will invariably
induce some distortion.

We are doing is a beam spar rather than a proper box, so the
sheer web dimension should be doubled.

And?
No promise that any of this is close to correct...

================================================== ======================

X-Wing SPAR Build .58 R.Lamb 2001
Project Name L-One V
Run time: 01-10-2006 at 10:43:10

Wing Span [ft] 17.00 Root Chord
[ft] 5.00
Wing Area [sqft] 76.50 Tip Chord
[ft] 4.00
Chord thickness [%] 12.00 Mean Chord
[ft] 4.50
Gross Wgt [lb] 888.00 Aspect Ratio
[#] 3.78
Lift (Vs) [lb] 888.00 Wing Loading
[lb/sqft] 11.61
V(min) [mph] 59.04 Max
CL [#] 1.30
Load Factor [G's] 4.00 Spar Width
[inches] 1.50
Cap Compression [psi] 66,000 Shear Web [psi]
10,000
Thickness [% of Chord] 12


Sta W.STA. AIR LOAD SHEAR MOM FTLB
num FT PPF LB FT.LB
1 0.000 232.000 1776.000 7268.000
2 0.850 236.000 1580.000 5842.000
3 1.700 241.000 1389.000 4580.000
4 2.550 246.000 1201.000 3479.000
5 3.400 250.000 1018.000 2536.000
6 4.250 255.000 838.000 1747.000
7 5.100 260.000 663.000 1109.000
8 5.950 264.000 491.000 618.000
9 6.800 269.000 323.000 272.000
10 7.650 273.000 159.000 67.000
11 8.500 278.000 0.000 -1.000

Spar weight parameters:

Sta W.Sta. SPAR HGT CAP THK WEB THK
num FT IN IN IN
1 0.000 5.760 0.306 0.031
2 0.850 5.645 0.251 0.028
3 1.700 5.530 0.201 0.025
4 2.550 5.414 0.156 0.022
5 3.400 5.299 0.116 0.019
6 4.250 5.184 0.082 0.016
7 5.100 5.069 0.053 0.013
8 5.950 4.954 0.030 0.010
9 6.800 4.838 0.014 0.007
10 7.650 4.723 0.003 0.003
11 8.500 4.608 -0.000 0.000

Shear web thickness is for a box type spar. For single web, double
it.

================================================== ======================

[Richard Lamb]

"Rich S." wrote:

> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > This one is a bit smaller.
> > call it 16 foot span and 15 feet long.
> > and maybe a full foot shorter in height.
> > I think it was 6o to 66 sq ft for the wing area is
> > about the same for both.
>
> I can't see any scale or measurements on your sketches. Maybe I need better
> glasses. :)

No, you just need the source files, which are drawn full scale.
These are pictures of the cad screen.


> > Or spec the Rotax 914 (turbo!) and a higher
> > aspect ratio wing (longer span) for those
> > mini-U2 missions....
>
> Or an Apex T62-32?
>
> http://avonaero.com/solar32.htm

> You could lose the cheek cowls, reduce frontal area by a bunch and maybe
> come in at your desired weight. Does a tailwheel airframe back up real well?

You, sir, are a man after my own heart.
Who wants to fly under powered aircraft!

But then there is the gas load (!)
Wet wing between the spars (no clue how much gas that is, but that's
all you get).

Climb to 10000 feet in two minutes and play sailplane?

And yes, it backs up real well.
At least on the ground.
Pick it up by the tailwheel and drag it around like a little red wagon.

It's a tiny little thing...

<g>

[Richard Lamb]

Try it again?

this one is a 76 sq. ft wing which is not the exact right wing
for this plane, but the worksheet was already done-so...what.

No idea how the columns will hold up on the net, but .....
it's worth a try...

The spar caps are 1-1/5" X 1/8" 6061 with 1-1/2" x 1/8"
6061 straps layered to the indicated (interpreted) thickness.

Bruce bolted his spar, which produced a very straight spar
assembly.

Hammering big rivets into small structures will invariably
induce some distortion.

We are doing is a beam spar rather than a proper box, so the
sheer web dimension should be doubled.

And?
No promise that any of this is close to correct...

================================================== ======================

X-Wing SPAR Build .58 R.Lamb 2001
Project Name L-One V
Run time: 01-10-2006 at 10:43:10

Wing Span [ft] 17.00 Root Chord [ft]
5.00
Wing Area [sqft] 76.50 Tip Chord [ft]
4.00
Chord thickness [%] 12.00 Mean Chord [ft]
4.50
Gross Wgt [lb] 888.00 Aspect Ratio [#]
3.78
Lift (Vs) [lb] 888.00 Wing Loading [lb/sqft]
11.61
V(min) [mph] 59.04 Max CL [#]
1.30
Load Factor [G's] 4.00 Spar Width [inches]
1.50
Cap Compression [psi] 66,000 Shear Web [psi]
10,000
Thickness [% of Chord] 12


Sta W.STA. AIR LOAD SHEAR MOM FTLB
num FT PPF LB FT.LB
1 0.000 232.000 1776.000 7268.000
2 0.850 236.000 1580.000 5842.000
3 1.700 241.000 1389.000 4580.000
4 2.550 246.000 1201.000 3479.000
5 3.400 250.000 1018.000 2536.000
6 4.250 255.000 838.000 1747.000
7 5.100 260.000 663.000 1109.000
8 5.950 264.000 491.000 618.000
9 6.800 269.000 323.000 272.000
10 7.650 273.000 159.000 67.000
11 8.500 278.000 0.000 -1.000

Spar weight parameters:

Sta W.Sta. SPAR HGT CAP THK WEB THK
num FT IN IN IN
1 0.000 5.760 0.306 0.031
2 0.850 5.645 0.251 0.028
3 1.700 5.530 0.201 0.025
4 2.550 5.414 0.156 0.022
5 3.400 5.299 0.116 0.019
6 4.250 5.184 0.082 0.016
7 5.100 5.069 0.053 0.013
8 5.950 4.954 0.030 0.010
9 6.800 4.838 0.014 0.007
10 7.650 4.723 0.003 0.003
11 8.500 4.608 -0.000 0.000

Shear web thickness is for a box type spar. For single web, double
it.

================================================== ======================

[Montblack]

[links snipped]
>> Here are some (on topic - no less) doodles of a small low wing.
>> inspired by Bruce King's tiny little BK-1..
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
>>
>> http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/littner/cp80.html

> Does look darn close but the Zephyr is a bit larger
> at 19+ span and 17' long.

> I just uploaded a cross section sketch that shows the
> size a little (intended as a pun) better.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/l-one-2x.jpg


Looks like a bigger version of this:

http://members.shaw.ca/gnat/1views.html
Gnat GK-7
Continental 4A084 military standard engine
(Est.) Empty Weight: 250 lbs.


Montblack

[Rich S.]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...

> But then there is the gas load (!)
> Wet wing between the spars (no clue how much gas that is, but that's
> all you get).

If it will cruise at 80 shp and consumption is 1.3#/shp @ sea level, you get
17 gph. That's got to decrease a bunch at altitude, doesn't it? 50-60
gallons ought to do it.

> And yes, it backs up real well.
> At least on the ground.
> Pick it up by the tailwheel and drag it around like a little red wagon.

You could paint "Beta mode" on the wagon, I guess. I was thinking of the
geometry of reverse thrust on a full-swivel tailwheel. Talk about a ground
loop!

Rich "I *hate* the smell of kerosene in the morning" S.

[Richard Lamb]

"Rich S." wrote:

> snip\

>
> I can't see any scale or measurements on your sketches. Maybe I need better
> glasses. :)
>
> Rich S.

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/!L-ONE-A4-A.JPG

there is a reference dimension under the fuselage = 48"
and a little lower just above the frames is a foot/inch scale.

that help?

[Jim Williams]

It looks like a Midget Mustang. The MM-1 span is 18.5 ft 66 sq ft and 16.5 long and anywhere between 650-780 empty or more. If it can be built under 500lbs empty with a light engine VW or 912 it sould be bullet.

Jim Williams





"Rich S." wrote:

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
...

Here are some (on topic - no less) doodles of a small low wing.
inspired by Bruce King's tiny little BK-1..

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

Richard...............

It looks vaguely familiar. . .

http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/littner/cp80.html

Rich S.

Does look darn close but the Zephyr is a bit larger
at 19+ span and 17' long.

This one is a bit smaller.
call it 16 foot span and 15 feet long.
and maybe a full foot shorter in height.
I think it was 6o to 66 sq ft for the wing area is
about the same for both.

I just uploaded a cross section sketch that shows the
size a little (intended as a pun) better.

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/l-one-2x.jpg

Guess/wish 500 pounds empty with a VW,
but
this is one place where a 912 and adjustable
prop would really rock.

Or spec the Rotax 914 (turbo!) and a higher
aspect ratio wing (longer span) for those
mini-U2 missions....

[Rich S.]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...

> there is a reference dimension under the fuselage = 48"
> and a little lower just above the frames is a foot/inch scale.
>
> that help?

Got it!

Rich S.

[Richard Lamb]

"Rich S." wrote:

> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > there is a reference dimension under the fuselage = 48"
> > and a little lower just above the frames is a foot/inch scale.
> >
> > that help?
>
> Got it!
>
> Rich S..

Great!

Now, your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to draw up
a reeeeeaaaaaaly light weight retract system for it <bg>.

Gear mounts on front side of the main spar (sorry, no tricycles)
5x5 wheels with MacGreary rubber,
band brakes with cables? or hydraulic actuation.

If need be (and it will), we'll rework the root using that 15%
Ribblet
airfoil (get all the buzz-words in!) or a 23012/15 (nil CP travel -
important
in such a tiny package) and add a P-51 style planform to provide
room for
the wheels.

now we're too cool...


Some other minor wing concerns:

At stall speeds, the root chord still has an RN (Reynolds Number)
of at least 3 million.

But the tips, being shorter, show barely 2 million.
So what does that imply?

Well, for one, many of the fancy airfoils get pretty lame below
three meg.
Which might result in:
Sloppy aileron control at low speeds at best?
Or even a TIP stall - i,e: a nice fun wing drop at the break (or
before???)

Looking for an airfoil that performs well at these low RN led me to
the
old NACA 4 digit 2312. It is considered a turbulent airfoil, rather
than
a laminar type. But it ought to hold on a little better when slow.

Which means that the rib patterns would be a pure-D beast to loft,
were if not for a little CAD magic.

The more ribs (assuming they fit right) and the thicker the skin the
better
we can hold the desired airfoil shape - but both mean _heavier_.
The dreaded C word - (compromise),

Oh golly, well, that at least scratches the surface....

[Rich S.]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...

> Now, your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to draw up
> a reeeeeaaaaaaly light weight retract system for it <bg>.

Moi? (In my best Miss Piggy voice). I'm a retarded firefighter - no engineer
fer sure.

The Emeraude uses the 23012 and I'll bet the Zephyr does as well. Add a bit
of washout to soften the stall.

I would 86 the idea of retracts and go with an RV-type gear off the engine
mount. No spar reinforcement needed, you can keep the fuselage on the wheels
when the wing(s) is/are removed, & other weight-saving advantages.

JMHO
Rich S.

[Richard Lamb]

"Rich S." wrote:

> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Now, your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to draw up
> > a reeeeeaaaaaaly light weight retract system for it <bg>.
>
> Moi? (In my best Miss Piggy voice). I'm a retarded firefighter - no engineer
> fer sure.
>
> The Emeraude uses the 23012 and I'll bet the Zephyr does as well. Add a bit
> of washout to soften the stall.
>
> I would 86 the idea of retracts and go with an RV-type gear off the engine
> mount. No spar reinforcement needed, you can keep the fuselage on the wheels
> when the wing(s) is/are removed, & other weight-saving advantages.
>
> JMHO
> Rich S.

Damn! But it worked for Huckleberry Finn!
Oh well, the extended roots don't really fit anyway.

The wing on the Zephyr looked long and narrow (higher aspect ratio due to
a pretty short chord). I didn't download his plug-in to get a look at the
rest of the stuff. 3 meg on a land line? Not today. But it is an interesting
design.

I've always rigged my parasol wings flat - no washout. The thing is so
lightly loaded it doesn't really stall anyway. But I agree that this wing,
with the tiny tip chords should probably have a bit of twist in it.
Even if it does cost some top end speed.

And you touched on one of the issues I still have with this one.
Landing gear attached to the wings can be very inconvenient if a wing
needs to be removed. So we start looking at a 3 piece wing.
Center section and removable outer wing panels with the gear mounted
on the center section. Sounds like a better idea. But consider how much
that complicates the wing structure! (damned C word anyway!)

We would need about a foot of center section sticking out from the
fuselage for the gear mounts. (I don't want any of that in the cockpit
area - in case of a gear failure. Don't want any failed structure
coming into the cockpit (i.e.: pilot). )

So, while I agree that it would be a lot more convenient to have the
plane on the gear when the wings are removed, I'm not sure that the
extra weight and complication would be worth it on such a small
ship.

BTW, this is the one place where Bruce had problems too.
His first try failed rather early (just widened the stance some).
I know he fixed it, but haven't heard how well it's standing up
(no pun intended).

Lastly, unfortunately, RV style off the engine mount (which olde
timers still call Wittman-style gear) won't work here because
we don't have 1) room behind the engine, or 2) an engine mount!

Yes, I have one sketched in. But more likely, for a VW engine,
the engine mount is nothing more that 4 aluminum spacers just
long enough to keep the flywheel and rear exhaust stacks to get
clear of the firewall.

Something I hear a long time ago, and have come to believe -
"Better is the mortal enemy of good".

Richard

are we having fun yet?

[Richard Lamb]

Jim Williams wrote:

> It looks like a Midget Mustang. The MM-1 span is 18.5 ft 66 sq ft and
> 16.5 long and anywhere between 650-780 empty or more. If it can be
> built under 500lbs empty with a light engine VW or 912 it sould be
> bullet.
>
> Jim Williams

Long was a true artist!
And the MM-1 is his masterpiece.

BTW, have you ever seen the original MM-1 gear arrangement?

The legs are flat aluminum leaf type but the bolt to a weldiment
that has a torque tube running thru the front spar back to the rear spar.

The torque tube has two concentric tubes, welded together at the rear
end - thus doubling the effective length. An interesting solution to
a thorny problem...

Richard

[Jim Williams]

Richard,
What software did you use to design the aircraft? The aircraft looks pretty damn good.
Jim Williams






UOTE=Richard Lamb]Well, since you asked...

this one is a 76 sq. ft wing which is not the exact right wing
for this plane, but the worksheet was already done-so...what.

No idea how the columns will hold up on the net, but .....
it's worth a try...

The spar caps are 1-1/5" X 1/8" 6061 with 1-1/2" x 1/8"
6061 straps layered to the indicated (interpreted) thickness.

Bruce bolted his spar, which produced a very straight spar
assembly.

Hammering big rivets into small structures will invariably
induce some distortion.

We are doing is a beam spar rather than a proper box, so the
sheer web dimension should be doubled.

And?
No promise that any of this is close to correct...

================================================== ======================

X-Wing SPAR Build .58 R.Lamb 2001
Project Name L-One V
Run time: 01-10-2006 at 10:43:10

Wing Span [ft] 17.00 Root Chord
[ft] 5.00
Wing Area [sqft] 76.50 Tip Chord
[ft] 4.00
Chord thickness [%] 12.00 Mean Chord
[ft] 4.50
Gross Wgt [lb] 888.00 Aspect Ratio
[#] 3.78
Lift (Vs) [lb] 888.00 Wing Loading
[lb/sqft] 11.61
V(min) [mph] 59.04 Max
CL [#] 1.30
Load Factor [G's] 4.00 Spar Width
[inches] 1.50
Cap Compression [psi] 66,000 Shear Web [psi]
10,000
Thickness [% of Chord] 12


Sta W.STA. AIR LOAD SHEAR MOM FTLB
num FT PPF LB FT.LB
1 0.000 232.000 1776.000 7268.000
2 0.850 236.000 1580.000 5842.000
3 1.700 241.000 1389.000 4580.000
4 2.550 246.000 1201.000 3479.000
5 3.400 250.000 1018.000 2536.000
6 4.250 255.000 838.000 1747.000
7 5.100 260.000 663.000 1109.000
8 5.950 264.000 491.000 618.000
9 6.800 269.000 323.000 272.000
10 7.650 273.000 159.000 67.000
11 8.500 278.000 0.000 -1.000

Spar weight parameters:

Sta W.Sta. SPAR HGT CAP THK WEB THK
num FT IN IN IN
1 0.000 5.760 0.306 0.031
2 0.850 5.645 0.251 0.028
3 1.700 5.530 0.201 0.025
4 2.550 5.414 0.156 0.022
5 3.400 5.299 0.116 0.019
6 4.250 5.184 0.082 0.016
7 5.100 5.069 0.053 0.013
8 5.950 4.954 0.030 0.010
9 6.800 4.838 0.014 0.007
10 7.650 4.723 0.003 0.003
11 8.500 4.608 -0.000 0.000

Shear web thickness is for a box type spar. For single web, double
it.

================================================== ======================[/QUOTE]

[Jim Williams]

Richard,
What software did you use to design the aircraft? The aircraft looks pretty damn good.
Jim Williams






UOTE=Richard Lamb]Well, since you asked...

this one is a 76 sq. ft wing which is not the exact right wing
for this plane, but the worksheet was already done-so...what.

No idea how the columns will hold up on the net, but .....
it's worth a try...

The spar caps are 1-1/5" X 1/8" 6061 with 1-1/2" x 1/8"
6061 straps layered to the indicated (interpreted) thickness.

Bruce bolted his spar, which produced a very straight spar
assembly.

Hammering big rivets into small structures will invariably
induce some distortion.

We are doing is a beam spar rather than a proper box, so the
sheer web dimension should be doubled.

And?
No promise that any of this is close to correct...

================================================== ======================

X-Wing SPAR Build .58 R.Lamb 2001
Project Name L-One V
Run time: 01-10-2006 at 10:43:10

Wing Span [ft] 17.00 Root Chord
[ft] 5.00
Wing Area [sqft] 76.50 Tip Chord
[ft] 4.00
Chord thickness [%] 12.00 Mean Chord
[ft] 4.50
Gross Wgt [lb] 888.00 Aspect Ratio
[#] 3.78
Lift (Vs) [lb] 888.00 Wing Loading
[lb/sqft] 11.61
V(min) [mph] 59.04 Max
CL [#] 1.30
Load Factor [G's] 4.00 Spar Width
[inches] 1.50
Cap Compression [psi] 66,000 Shear Web [psi]
10,000
Thickness [% of Chord] 12


Sta W.STA. AIR LOAD SHEAR MOM FTLB
num FT PPF LB FT.LB
1 0.000 232.000 1776.000 7268.000
2 0.850 236.000 1580.000 5842.000
3 1.700 241.000 1389.000 4580.000
4 2.550 246.000 1201.000 3479.000
5 3.400 250.000 1018.000 2536.000
6 4.250 255.000 838.000 1747.000
7 5.100 260.000 663.000 1109.000
8 5.950 264.000 491.000 618.000
9 6.800 269.000 323.000 272.000
10 7.650 273.000 159.000 67.000
11 8.500 278.000 0.000 -1.000

Spar weight parameters:

Sta W.Sta. SPAR HGT CAP THK WEB THK
num FT IN IN IN
1 0.000 5.760 0.306 0.031
2 0.850 5.645 0.251 0.028
3 1.700 5.530 0.201 0.025
4 2.550 5.414 0.156 0.022
5 3.400 5.299 0.116 0.019
6 4.250 5.184 0.082 0.016
7 5.100 5.069 0.053 0.013
8 5.950 4.954 0.030 0.010
9 6.800 4.838 0.014 0.007
10 7.650 4.723 0.003 0.003
11 8.500 4.608 -0.000 0.000

Shear web thickness is for a box type spar. For single web, double
it.

================================================== ======================[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

[Richard Lamb]

Jim Williams wrote:
> Richard,
> What software did you use to design the aircraft? The aircraft
> looks pretty damn good.
> Jim Williams
>

Mr. Williams is obviously a man of good taste and culture.
Probably an Ace pilot and a handsome devil too... :)
Thanks, Jim.


CAD:
The drawings are done with Design CAD 2000. My choice.
I started with the DOS version of DC - golly - 25 or 30
years ago, now. That's a really nice package too. IMHO,
way better than Autocad V10, (which I also bought way back
when?).
Both put lines on paper, but so does a pencil.
Drawing a smooth spline, on the other hand...

There was a real cool release of this program a while back
under the name ModelCAD. It was optimized to design model
airplanes(!). Tapered wing rib patterns et al.
I haven't played with it, but I'd love to if anybody out
there has a copy.

I don't think it matters much what CAD package you pick,
drawing in 3D is a little higher hurtle to get a leg over.

Or maybe it's just a question of what you learn first?
I know kids who can do beautiful 3D, but can't project
a 3 view on paper. Dunno...


Animations:
The animations are made from CAD screen shots.
(rec.aviation.homebuilt - NOT - Industrial Light and Magic)

Draw, render, save pic,
move parts, render, save pic,
repeat until done,
or until you goof,
or just can't stand it any more.

The DC programing language is BASIC-like (rather than
Autocad's Lisp interpreter?). I haven't tried to write
anything to do this kind of animation, but it's certainly
possible.
For any kind of ILM style animation, I think you'd have to.

The elevator and aileron animations are only eight frames
each (IIRC?). Four for each side. They are simply
repeated in the reverse order to show the return paths.
They were stitched together with GifAnimator.
That part is pretty simple, really.


Analysis: (and back on topic?)

The stress calculations are provided by a custom program
(originally published in Sport Aviation a LONG time ago).

I got it working (I think), and added a menu system to
allow easy editing of wing parameters, weights, G limit,
material strength, spar width, etc.
Plug in your numbers and it grinds out the details.

One of the things it creates is a spar size table that
_is alleged_ to be minimum material dimensions to carry
the given load.

But like Stealth, I wonder if it can be trusted!

And, like Stealth, I'd like to have it evaluated by
someone who knows what they are doing before diving off
the deep end.

So...

I thought of one point that might could be calibrated -
Vans RV-9.

IIRC, RV-9 spar caps are milled from a single bar of aluminum
and stepped thicker at the root. We also know how thick the
spar shear webs are - from the plans.

All we'd need the spar dimensions from the plans,
and the following data:

Span [ft] [ ] Span Load [lb/ft] [calc]
Area [sqft] [ ] Area Load [lb/sqft] [calc]
Chord root [ft] [ ] RN root [mil] [calc]
Chord tip [ft] [ ] RN tip [mil] [calc]
Chord MAC [ft] [calc] RN mean [mil] [calc]
Aspect [#] [calc] Max CL [#.##] [ ]

Gross Wgt [lb] [ ] Stall Speed [mph] [calc]
Design G's [#] [ ]

Wing Thick[%chord] [ ] Spar Compr [psi] [ ]
Cap Width [in] [ ] Spar Shear [psi] [ ]


Any takers?

Richard

[Richard Lamb]

Jim Williams wrote:
> Richard,
> What software did you use to design the aircraft? The aircraft
> looks pretty damn good.
> Jim Williams
>
>
>

I was sitting here the other night, before the phone line was
installed, taking an imaginary walk around an imaginary airport
looking at the imaginary airplanes, and I had a thought -
"I gotta get a life!"

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/!tour(1).jpg

[Richard Lamb]

Richard Lamb wrote:

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/tour1.jpg

unix hates me...

[UltraJohn]

Richard Lamb wrote:

> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/tour1.jpg
>
> unix hates me...
My unix (linux) had no problem. Nice Drawing when so you start building? ;-)
John

[Jim Williams]

Mr Lamb knows me very well. Your too kind, but right. Get the numbers right on the design and I'll start cuting metal .
Jim



Jim Williams wrote:
Richard,
What software did you use to design the aircraft? The aircraft
looks pretty damn good.
Jim Williams


Mr. Williams is obviously a man of good taste and culture.
Probably an Ace pilot and a handsome devil too... :)
Thanks, Jim.


CAD:
The drawings are done with Design CAD 2000. My choice.
I started with the DOS version of DC - golly - 25 or 30
years ago, now. That's a really nice package too. IMHO,
way better than Autocad V10, (which I also bought way back
when?).
Both put lines on paper, but so does a pencil.
Drawing a smooth spline, on the other hand...

There was a real cool release of this program a while back
under the name ModelCAD. It was optimized to design model
airplanes(!). Tapered wing rib patterns et al.
I haven't played with it, but I'd love to if anybody out
there has a copy.

I don't think it matters much what CAD package you pick,
drawing in 3D is a little higher hurtle to get a leg over.

Or maybe it's just a question of what you learn first?
I know kids who can do beautiful 3D, but can't project
a 3 view on paper. Dunno...


Animations:
The animations are made from CAD screen shots.
(rec.aviation.homebuilt - NOT - Industrial Light and Magic)

Draw, render, save pic,
move parts, render, save pic,
repeat until done,
or until you goof,
or just can't stand it any more.

The DC programing language is BASIC-like (rather than
Autocad's Lisp interpreter?). I haven't tried to write
anything to do this kind of animation, but it's certainly
possible.
For any kind of ILM style animation, I think you'd have to.

The elevator and aileron animations are only eight frames
each (IIRC?). Four for each side. They are simply
repeated in the reverse order to show the return paths.
They were stitched together with GifAnimator.
That part is pretty simple, really.


Analysis: (and back on topic?)

The stress calculations are provided by a custom program
(originally published in Sport Aviation a LONG time ago).

I got it working (I think), and added a menu system to
allow easy editing of wing parameters, weights, G limit,
material strength, spar width, etc.
Plug in your numbers and it grinds out the details.

One of the things it creates is a spar size table that
_is alleged_ to be minimum material dimensions to carry
the given load.

But like Stealth, I wonder if it can be trusted!

And, like Stealth, I'd like to have it evaluated by
someone who knows what they are doing before diving off
the deep end.

So...

I thought of one point that might could be calibrated -
Vans RV-9.

IIRC, RV-9 spar caps are milled from a single bar of aluminum
and stepped thicker at the root. We also know how thick the
spar shear webs are - from the plans.

All we'd need the spar dimensions from the plans,
and the following data:

Span [ft] [ ] Span Load [lb/ft] [calc]
Area [sqft] [ ] Area Load [lb/sqft] [calc]
Chord root [ft] [ ] RN root [mil] [calc]
Chord tip [ft] [ ] RN tip [mil] [calc]
Chord MAC [ft] [calc] RN mean [mil] [calc]
Aspect [#] [calc] Max CL [#.##] [ ]

Gross Wgt [lb] [ ] Stall Speed [mph] [calc]
Design G's [#] [ ]

Wing Thick[%chord] [ ] Spar Compr [psi] [ ]
Cap Width [in] [ ] Spar Shear [psi] [ ]


Any takers?

Richard

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:55:21 GMT, Richard Lamb > wrote:

> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/tour1.jpg

Well, geeze, Richard, if you're gonna build virtual airplanes, take 'em up for a
spin instead of letting them sit in hangars....

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/MSFS/formation.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Lamb]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:55:21 GMT, Richard Lamb > wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/tour1.jpg
>
>
> Well, geeze, Richard, if you're gonna build virtual airplanes, take 'em up for a
> spin instead of letting them sit in hangars....
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/MSFS/formation.jpg
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>

Why thanks, Ron!

I'll just slip in here behind the Junkers...


http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/form-up.jpg

[Richard Lamb]

Thanks Ron,

Right neighborly of you guys.
I'll just slip in here behind the Fokker-like thing.



http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/formup.jpg


oh ****!
Throttle back!
WAY back!
prop to fine pitch!
Flaps! FLAPS!

[Richard Lamb]

Filled in WingSpan and GrossWeight from Vans web site.
IIRC, Van uses a 23012 airfoil?
If so, the 12% stays, and I'd guess CLmax of about 1.3.

Wing Chord?
Spar cap materials?


>
> Span [ft] [ 28] Span Load [lb/ft] [calc]
> Area [sqft] [ -- ] Area Load [lb/sqft] [calc]
> Chord root [ft] [ ? ] RN root [mil] [calc]
> Chord tip [ft] [ ? ] RN tip [mil] [calc]
> Chord MAC [ft] [calc] RN mean [mil] [calc]
> Aspect [#] [calc] Max CL [#.##] [ ?.??]
>
> Gross Wgt [lb] [1600] Stall Speed [mph] [calc]
> Design G's [#] [ ? ]
>
> Wing Thick[%chord] [12%?] Spar Compr [psi] [ ?? ]
> Cap Width [in] [ ? ] Spar Shear [psi] [ ?? ]
>
>
> Any takers?
>
> Richard
>

[Montblack]

("Richard Lamb" wrote)
> Right neighborly of you guys.
> I'll just slip in here behind the Fokker-like thing.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/formup.jpg


Is that the Seahawk's new aerial attack I've heard about? They're going to
need it next week!


Montblack
http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/results.nsf
GREAT NFL (Game-by-Game) HISTORY SITE!

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> Thanks Ron,
>
> Right neighborly of you guys.
> I'll just slip in here behind the Fokker-like thing.
>
>
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/formup.jpg
>
>
> oh ****!
> Throttle back!
> WAY back!
> prop to fine pitch!
> Flaps! FLAPS!
>
>
You aren't thinking big enough. Ask Ron for a copy of the picture
showing his Flybaby being in flight refueled by a KC-135:)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ron Wanttaja]

> Richard Lamb wrote:
> > Thanks Ron,
> >
> > Right neighborly of you guys.
> > I'll just slip in here behind the Fokker-like thing.
> >
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/formup.jpg

That fokker is a Fly Baby:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/junkers.HTM

I suspect the spruce content in your design is too low to play with our club...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:20:02 -0600, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> wrote:

> You aren't thinking big enough. Ask Ron for a copy of the picture
> showing his Flybaby being in flight refueled by a KC-135:)

Twarn't my bird, it was that of a Fly Baby owner in South Africa. The pix
(which I freely admit stealing the idea from the RV folks) is at the bottom of:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/altered.HTM

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Lamb]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks Ron,
>>>
>>>Right neighborly of you guys.
>>>I'll just slip in here behind the Fokker-like thing.
>>>
>>>http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/formup.jpg
>
>
> That fokker is a Fly Baby:
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/junkers.HTM
>
> I suspect the spruce content in your design is too low to play with our club...
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:20:02 -0600, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> You aren't thinking big enough. Ask Ron for a copy of the picture
>>showing his Flybaby being in flight refueled by a KC-135:)
>
>
> Twarn't my bird, it was that of a Fly Baby owner in South Africa. The pix
> (which I freely admit stealing the idea from the RV folks) is at the bottom of:
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/altered.HTM
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>

"Um, say Lead",
"Can you get this gaggle up to 100 knots?"

[Rich S.]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Filled in WingSpan and GrossWeight from Vans web site.
> IIRC, Van uses a 23012 airfoil?

Richard............

I think Van uses a 23013. The Emeraude uses a 23012. That way I can go
"Neener, neener" at my buddy's RV-4 (as he goes screaming past me).

Rich S.

[Richard Lamb]

Rich S. wrote:
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>Filled in WingSpan and GrossWeight from Vans web site.
>>IIRC, Van uses a 23012 airfoil?
>
>
> Richard............
>
> I think Van uses a 23013. The Emeraude uses a 23012. That way I can go
> "Neener, neener" at my buddy's RV-4 (as he goes screaming past me).
>
> Rich S.
>
>
Thanks, Mr. S.


Now would somebody measure the wing chord?

[Richard Lamb]

UltraJohn wrote:
> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/tour1.jpg
>>
>> unix hates me...
>
> My unix (linux) had no problem. Nice Drawing when so you start building? ;-)
> John

Well, I don't rightly know, John.

I have some of the metal already... extrusions for the wings,
some 6061-T6 strap for the spars, some .032 sheet for fuselage
formers, etc.
But I don't have metal for skins yet.

And at the moment, no place to work on it.
I managed to sell my place as Zuehl.
(don't miss the squabbling, but I do miss my shop.)
For the time being I'm back to apartment life.


Richard

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks Ron,
>>>
>>>Right neighborly of you guys.
>>>I'll just slip in here behind the Fokker-like thing.
>>>
>>>http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/formup.jpg
>
>
> That fokker is a Fly Baby:
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/junkers.HTM
>
> I suspect the spruce content in your design is too low to play with our club...
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:20:02 -0600, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> You aren't thinking big enough. Ask Ron for a copy of the picture
>>showing his Flybaby being in flight refueled by a KC-135:)
>
>
> Twarn't my bird, it was that of a Fly Baby owner in South Africa. The pix
> (which I freely admit stealing the idea from the RV folks) is at the bottom of:
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/altered.HTM
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>
Oh drat, I thought you had the only in flight refuelable Flybaby. If
I recall correctly the F-4E IFR receptical with drive weoghed about 100
pounds. Think you could w**k one in?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Richard Lamb]

Rich S. wrote:
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Here are some (on topic - no less) doodles of a small low wing.
> inspired by Bruce King's tiny little BK-1..
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
>
> Richard...............
>
> It looks vaguely familiar. . .
>
> http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/littner/cp80.html
>
> Rich S.
>
>

I thought this was a really cute Hummel (SWR @New Braunfels)

> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/huml-03c.jpg

Looks like a full VW installation (as opposed to VW/2).
Which gives enough thrust to fly well, but seems to be a bit
heavy for the little wing (per BK).

Bruce King flew his Hummel (full 1825 VW) to Sun-N-Fun and
to Oshkosh. I'd hale that as the most successful VW powered
project I know of.

King gave BK-1 a little larger wing for the same weight and
got a much better flying airplane for his effort.

Haven't seen Bruce in a while. Last time was at the Hondo
Christmas parade. On a tiny flatbed trailer, Bruce and BK-1
buzzed the crowd on Main St!

But absolutely NOBODY believed that little airplane could
really fly...

[Morgans]

>>
>> My unix (linux) had no problem. Nice Drawing when so you start building?
>> ;-)
>> John
>
> Well, I don't rightly know, John.
>
> I have some of the metal already... extrusions for the wings,
> some 6061-T6 strap for the spars, some .032 sheet for fuselage
> formers, etc.
> But I don't have metal for skins yet.
>
> And at the moment, no place to work on it.
> I managed to sell my place as Zuehl.
> (don't miss the squabbling, but I do miss my shop.)
> For the time being I'm back to apartment life.
\
Shoot, something that small could be built in the spare bedroom, or living
room!
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Lamb]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>>
>>> Richard Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Ron,
>>>>
>>>> Right neighborly of you guys.
>>>> I'll just slip in here behind the Fokker-like thing.
>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/formup.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> That fokker is a Fly Baby:
>>
>> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/junkers.HTM
>>
>> I suspect the spruce content in your design is too low to play with
>> our club...
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:20:02 -0600, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You aren't thinking big enough. Ask Ron for a copy of the picture
>>> showing his Flybaby being in flight refueled by a KC-135:)
>>
>>
>>
>> Twarn't my bird, it was that of a Fly Baby owner in South Africa. The
>> pix
>> (which I freely admit stealing the idea from the RV folks) is at the
>> bottom of:
>>
>> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/altered.HTM
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>>
>
> "Um, say Lead",
> "Can you get this gaggle up to 100 knots?"
>
>
I forgot that I had this one, Ron...

Sketched it out one evening, but the texturing kept being weird.
The canopy didn't like my cloud reflections. I dunno.

But it doesn't fly very well below 100 kts...

(I was going to write a keyboard function that allow menu selection
of wing camber, area, sweep, etc. while in flight, but I never quite
got around to it. Think of it as virtual variable geometry :^)


http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/formup2.jpg


ta

Richard