Looking for a good set of parasol plans

[Mike Gaskins]

I'm looking for a good set of parasol plans that would be reasonably
easy to follow for a first time builder. I don't really care about
speed or cross country capability - just something to putz around the
pattern and sight-see. I'm thinking that tube and fabric would be my
preferred materials (low cost and high strength), but I'm open to any
suggestions. Single or double place is fine. Most of the people who
would go flying with me wouldn't do so in an open cockpit plane
anyways, so a second seat would usually sit empty :).

The two designs that have initially peeked my interest are the Pober
Pixie and the Starlet SA500. I've also looked at the Baby Ace. Anybody
have any opinions on these plans in regards to ease of construction for
a first timer?

Also I doubt I'd have the space to complete the whole wing in one
piece, so extra points if the wing can be built in sections.

Thanks.

Mike Gaskins

[Anthony W]

Mike Gaskins wrote:
> I'm looking for a good set of parasol plans that would be reasonably
> easy to follow for a first time builder. I don't really care about
> speed or cross country capability - just something to putz around the
> pattern and sight-see. I'm thinking that tube and fabric would be my
> preferred materials (low cost and high strength), but I'm open to any
> suggestions. Single or double place is fine. Most of the people who
> would go flying with me wouldn't do so in an open cockpit plane
> anyways, so a second seat would usually sit empty :).
>
> The two designs that have initially peeked my interest are the Pober
> Pixie and the Starlet SA500. I've also looked at the Baby Ace. Anybody
> have any opinions on these plans in regards to ease of construction for
> a first timer?
>
> Also I doubt I'd have the space to complete the whole wing in one
> piece, so extra points if the wing can be built in sections.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Mike Gaskins

Look here. http://www.pressenter.com/~apietenp/
The Pietenpol Aircamper has a reputation that's hard to beat.

Tony

[[email protected]]

Mike Gaskins wrote:
> I'm looking for a good set of parasol plans that would be reasonably
> easy to follow for a first time builder.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mike,

Then by all means, start with the Wag-Aero Cub and work your way down.

Wag-Aero offers an excellent set of plans at a very fair price,
allowing you to study the standard against which all other parasols
have been judged for the last 60 years. If you decide to go with the
Cub you will have the option of buying those components you feel are
best left to a more experienced fabricator, reserving the easier but
more labor-intensive tasks for yourself.

Should you decide the Cub is more airplane than you need (it isn't, but
for the sake of argument...) then you will have a basis on which judge
other designs.

As for the engine, there's far more of them out there than most folks
realize, for despite all talk to the contrary our numbers continue to
fall and the smaller, older engines continue to become available, often
at give-away prices.

-R.S.Hoover

[Ed Sullivan]

On 18 Dec 2006 14:45:57 -0800, " >
wrote:


>
>As for the engine, there's far more of them out there than most folks
>realize, for despite all talk to the contrary our numbers continue to
>fall and the smaller, older engines continue to become available, often
>at give-away prices.
>
>-R.S.Hoover

By definition a Cub couldn't really be described as a parasol, a high
winged monoplane yes.

[Richard Isakson]

"Ed Sullivan" wrote ...
> On 18 Dec 2006 14:45:57 -0800, " >
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >As for the engine, there's far more of them out there than most folks
> >realize, for despite all talk to the contrary our numbers continue to
> >fall and the smaller, older engines continue to become available, often
> >at give-away prices.
> >
> >-R.S.Hoover
>
> By definition a Cub couldn't really be described as a parasol, a high
> winged monoplane yes.

I don't know Ed. Haven't you ever flown a J-3 with the door open and the
window down? That's got to be pretty close to a parasol.

Rich

[flybynightkarmarepair]

Ed Sullivan wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2006 14:45:57 -0800, " >
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >As for the engine, there's far more of them out there than most folks
> >realize, for despite all talk to the contrary our numbers continue to
> >fall and the smaller, older engines continue to become available, often
> >at give-away prices.
> >
> >-R.S.Hoover
>
> By definition a Cub couldn't really be described as a parasol, a high
> winged monoplane yes.

The change from a Parasol of the A-2/E-2 to the "razorback" J-2 was
merely cosmetic. You can very easily build a parasol from the Wag Aero
plans by omitting the upper fairingof the aft fuselage WITH NO
STRUCTURAL CONSEQUENCES.

http://www.goldenageair.org/collection/1932taylore2.htm I say that is
a parasol. A Super Cub has, for all intents and purposes, the same
structure, but with a non-structural cosmetic fairing on the fuselage.

Bob's point was the quality of the plans. Other points I'll add are
wide availability of pre-made parts.

Another design the original poster might think about: Stewart Headwind.
And the steel tube fuselage version of the Piet, the Grega Gn-1 (well,
there is a wood version too, you chose) is set up to use A-65 engines,
and wings from whatever air-knocker is hanging around the hanger. The
GN-1 is also set up to use a lot of pre-made parts from Piper Cubs,
allowing you to trade money for build time, if you've got more of the
former than the later.

http://www.stewartaircraft.com/main.html
http://www.gregagn-1.com/index.php

[Mike Gaskins]

wrote:
> Then by all means, start with the Wag-Aero Cub and work your way down.
>
> Wag-Aero offers an excellent set of plans at a very fair price,
> allowing you to study the standard against which all other parasols
> have been judged for the last 60 years. If you decide to go with the
> Cub you will have the option of buying those components you feel are
> best left to a more experienced fabricator, reserving the easier but
> more labor-intensive tasks for yourself.
>
> Should you decide the Cub is more airplane than you need (it isn't, but
> for the sake of argument...) then you will have a basis on which judge
> other designs.
>
> As for the engine, there's far more of them out there than most folks
> realize, for despite all talk to the contrary our numbers continue to
> fall and the smaller, older engines continue to become available, often
> at give-away prices.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

The Wag-Aero Super Trainer looks kinda interesting (who wouldn't want a
Super Cub and if I'm building a tube and fabric plane from scratch
anyways . . . :)), but their website looks moreso to be selling lots of
component kits. I've ordered the catalog so maybe that'll have
something additional, but I wasn't actually able to locate a plans set
anywhere on there.

Mike Gaskins

[[email protected]]

Mike Gaskins wrote:

>
>
> The Wag-Aero Super Trainer looks kinda interesting... but their website looks moreso to be selling lots of
> component kits.... I wasn't actually able to locate a plans set
> anywhere on there.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mike,

Don't give up so easily :-)

If you go to Wag-Aero's 'on-line' catalog, look for Sport Trainer (or
whatever) you'll get a list of 44 items, one of which is the DRAWINGS.
Their catalog number is Q-001-000, price is $125. And yes, you really
CAN build your very own Super Cub, should you wish to do so. :-)

However, since a lot of people already hold drawings for the Cuby,
Sport Trainer, et al, you can probably find a set to study within your
local EAA chapter. Making up a couple of test-ribs is always fun and
even if you elect not to build, they look good on the wall of the
hangar. The real key is the engine. Find a suitable engine and you're
half-way home.

I should mention here that yes, the Cub has flown behind a BIG VW
conversion... but not very well. A big-bore stroker such as an 84 x 94
(142cid) is a close match to the Lycoming O-145 (which many people will
literally GIVE you to get rid of them) but simply does not have the
low-rpm torque needed for this type of airframe. Ditto for the little
1834cc conversions, which are a close match for the A-40a (ie, 112cid).
Basically, you'll end up with a single-place Cub having a minuscule
ROC that needs its valves topped every 200 hours. Cheap, but you can't
fly it off floats, haul a heavy, etc.

The best part of the joke is that unless you are up to your elbows in
old Volkswagens, rebuilding a run-out O-200 will usually cost LESS
than building up a RELIABLE good big-bore stroker :-)

Either way, you've got some fun ahead of you. Good luck with it.

-R.S.Hoover

[Scott[_1_]]

Me! I think a Cessna 180 would be 3 times the airplane for about the
same or 1.5 times the cost of a "Super" Cub :) Personal preference I
suppose ;)

Scott



Mike Gaskins wrote:

>
>
> The Wag-Aero Super Trainer looks kinda interesting (who wouldn't want a
> Super Cub and if I'm building a tube and fabric plane from scratch
> anyways . . .
>
> Mike Gaskins
>

[Mike Gaskins]

wrote:
> I should mention here that yes, the Cub has flown behind a BIG VW
> conversion... but not very well. A big-bore stroker such as an 84 x 94
> (142cid) is a close match to the Lycoming O-145 (which many people will
> literally GIVE you to get rid of them) but simply does not have the
> low-rpm torque needed for this type of airframe. Ditto for the little
> 1834cc conversions, which are a close match for the A-40a (ie, 112cid).
> Basically, you'll end up with a single-place Cub having a minuscule
> ROC that needs its valves topped every 200 hours. Cheap, but you can't
> fly it off floats, haul a heavy, etc.
>
> The best part of the joke is that unless you are up to your elbows in
> old Volkswagens, rebuilding a run-out O-200 will usually cost LESS
> than building up a RELIABLE good big-bore stroker :-)
>
> Either way, you've got some fun ahead of you. Good luck with it.

Sounds like fun :). I've actually been very interested in the idea of
using one of the Corvair conversions in a plane for a long time.
I'll likely hold off a bit on engine choice until I have a good
semblance of an airplane built, but these engines usually give 110-115
hp which should be rather nice for a Cub airframe.

Mike Gaskins

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mike Gaskins" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> wrote:

> Sounds like fun :). I've actually been very interested in the idea of
> using one of the Corvair conversions in a plane for a long time.
> I'll likely hold off a bit on engine choice until I have a good
> semblance of an airplane built, but these engines usually give 110-115
> hp which should be rather nice for a Cub airframe.
>
> Mike Gaskins


If you want to go Corvair and you haven't checked out www.flycorvair.com you
need to.

[Fortunat1[_7_]]

"Mike Gaskins" > wrote in
ps.com:

> I'm looking for a good set of parasol plans that would be reasonably
> easy to follow for a first time builder.

You'd be very hard pressed to do better than the Pober Pixie or Baby Ace
if you want a single seater.
I have a set of each and the Pixie in particular makes a very good and
inexpensive project. Care has been taken to save cost without any
compromise in engineering standards. For instance, the drag wires are
cable eliminating the need for tie rods and their expense. The airplane
is extremely pretty and of course is a classic in that it's an updated
Heath Parasol. At the end of the day you have a proper airplane, (as
opposed to a
large model airplane) that will last and last. And for a two seater, the
Junior ace is just as good. I prefer the lines of the original '30s
airplanes, but there's not a lot of difference in the updated versions
except a different rudder outline, truth be told.
Piet's are great too! Friend of mine started one when he was only 14 and
eventually finished it.. I can't imagine how i'd get in or out of the
front pit now, though...