The Last Airplane [Archive]

July 25th 08, 07:29 PM

Recent problems mentioned here brought me a lot of mail on a variety
of topics. Within the sphere of Flying on the Cheap and low-cost
methods of construction, someone asked if I'd ever considered some
kind of Last Ditch airplane, an absolute minimum flying machine for
people who are determined to build and to fly their own airplane...
until Fate steps in.

Airplanes are usually defined by their mission and powerplant and even
a simple machine can be fairly complex. But in this case the
'mission' need be no more than a single safe flight of the builder/
pilot and the powerplant was assumed to be something made from VW
components and would probably be of stock displacement.

We swapped a few messages defining such a machine and its fabrication
but there were no surprises; it is a doable thing. Then the guy sunk
the hook: “I wonder what it would look like?”

That's the easy part: Form follows function. A minimum flying
machine would look like a Chuck-Bird, Chuck Beason's delightful
little parasol. There are a other designs that could serve as your
precursor but all fail the 'minimum' test at one point or another.

-R.S.Hoover

RST Engineering

July 25th 08, 08:12 PM

I did a search on Chuck-Bird, which morphed into Chuckbird which morphed
into Texas Parasol, and I stopped searching at that point.

Seems that somebody took liberties with the design of Chuckbird and was
selling plans for either it or the Parasol that had been compromised in some
manner. You wrote several (dozen) paragraphs in a lot of libraries on the
deficiencies that you and/or others found.

However, somewhere there has to be a repository of "real" plans for a
aircraft as compelling as the Chuckbird, but I'll be damned if I can find
it.

Pointer, please?

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle

> wrote in message
...

That's the easy part: Form follows function. A minimum flying
machine would look like a Chuck-Bird, Chuck Beason's delightful
little parasol. There are a other designs that could serve as your
precursor but all fail the 'minimum' test at one point or another.

-R.S.Hoover

cavelamb himself[_4_]

July 25th 08, 09:30 PM

RST Engineering wrote:

> I did a search on Chuck-Bird, which morphed into Chuckbird which morphed
> into Texas Parasol, and I stopped searching at that point.
>
> Seems that somebody took liberties with the design of Chuckbird and was
> selling plans for either it or the Parasol that had been compromised in some
> manner. You wrote several (dozen) paragraphs in a lot of libraries on the
> deficiencies that you and/or others found.
>
> However, somewhere there has to be a repository of "real" plans for a
> aircraft as compelling as the Chuckbird, but I'll be damned if I can find
> it.
>
> Pointer, please?
>
> Jim
>

Chuck Bird and Texas Parasol are one and the same, Jim.

I drew up the plans, took all the photos, and wrote the book.

We (Chuck, Doc, and I) were trying to make plans and kits for it.

We had some limited sucess, but it all came apart a result of Chuck
selling "his" stuff and pocketing the proceeds.

There was a lot of talk here about so-called deficiencies.
Lots of spiteful gloom and doom talk.

And simple solution offered for those who just have to meddle.
(2-1/4" front spar tube)

But no, it's just easier (and a lot more fun) to bash, isn't it.

We have never had a structural problem with any properly built and flown
airplane.

Which continually disappoints a bunch of people.

Too bad.

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

[email protected]

July 25th 08, 09:34 PM

On Jul 25, 12:12 pm, "RST Engineering" >
wrote:

> However, somewhere there has to be a repository of "real" plans for a
> aircraft as compelling as the Chuckbird, but I'll be damned if I can find
> it.
>
> Pointer, please?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After discovering the extent of the errors in the 'Texas Parasol'
drawings I took the liberty of re-drafting the whole thing in
DeltaCAD. But because of the apparent conflicts between the designer
and the fellow who sez he is, I haven't made the drawings public.

I also designed a kinda 'junk-yard' wing using plywood spars. Hell
for stout and much heavier than the alum-tube/spar wing of the
original but durt cheap. I'd hoped that posting the original msg
would stimulate interest, since this is a design amenable to virtually
any form of construction, from welded tube to composites.. I even did
the numbers using fence rail as the struts and got nearly 2x the
required strength at a gross of 700 lb.

Figure out some way to use DF bannister rails as the spars, golf-cart
wheels as your LG and so forth, you're looking at a ready-to-fly
airframe for under $1000. But not a very good flyer, unfortunately.
Stock displaecment engine, the thing won't be able to get out of its
own way. Which isn't to say it won't give you a nice ride; just not
very exciting, with cruise, TO, stall and top-speed clumped on top of
each other :-)

-Bob

Anthony W

July 26th 08, 04:01 AM

wrote:

> After discovering the extent of the errors in the 'Texas Parasol'
> drawings I took the liberty of re-drafting the whole thing in
> DeltaCAD. But because of the apparent conflicts between the designer
> and the fellow who sez he is, I haven't made the drawings public.
>
> I also designed a kinda 'junk-yard' wing using plywood spars. Hell
> for stout and much heavier than the alum-tube/spar wing of the
> original but durt cheap. I'd hoped that posting the original msg
> would stimulate interest, since this is a design amenable to virtually
> any form of construction, from welded tube to composites.. I even did
> the numbers using fence rail as the struts and got nearly 2x the
> required strength at a gross of 700 lb.
>
> Figure out some way to use DF bannister rails as the spars, golf-cart
> wheels as your LG and so forth, you're looking at a ready-to-fly
> airframe for under $1000. But not a very good flyer, unfortunately.
> Stock displaecment engine, the thing won't be able to get out of its
> own way. Which isn't to say it won't give you a nice ride; just not
> very exciting, with cruise, TO, stall and top-speed clumped on top of
> each other :-)
>
> -Bob

I for one am very interested. Please let us know if you change you mind
about making the plans available. I would be willing to pay for your
efforts.

Tony

[email protected]

July 26th 08, 06:08 AM

On Jul 25, 8:01 pm, Anthony W > wrote:

>
> I for one am very interested. Please let us know if you change you mind
> about making the plans available. I would be willing to pay for your
> efforts.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Tony,

I'm afraid you've misunderstood my intent. I paid $80 for a set of
'Texas Parasol' plans that turned out to be worthless. At that time
there was quite a bit of interest in the design. By the time they
encountered the errors they had quite a bit of time and metal invested
in the project. I corrected the errors and made copies available to
some of those builders. But having lost all confidence in the
'designer' I elected not to build the thing. Later, I re-drew the
whole thing (about two dozen drawings) showing alternative methods for
attaching the tail, wing and landing gear.

The whole story is in the various archives and deserves your
attention, especially so with regard to the many contradictions, most
in the 'designers' own words.

I believe there is still a Group dedicated to the Texas Parasol. I
will dig out the drawings and see if they can be posted in the
archives there.

-R.S.Hoover

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

July 26th 08, 04:03 PM

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:29:46 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>
>
>Recent problems mentioned here brought me a lot of mail on a variety
>of topics. Within the sphere of Flying on the Cheap and low-cost
>methods of construction, someone asked if I'd ever considered some
>kind of Last Ditch airplane, an absolute minimum flying machine for
>people who are determined to build and to fly their own airplane...
>until Fate steps in.
>
>Airplanes are usually defined by their mission and powerplant and even
>a simple machine can be fairly complex. But in this case the
>'mission' need be no more than a single safe flight of the builder/
>pilot and the powerplant was assumed to be something made from VW
>components and would probably be of stock displacement.
>
>We swapped a few messages defining such a machine and its fabrication
>but there were no surprises; it is a doable thing. Then the guy sunk
>the hook: “I wonder what it would look like?”
>
>That's the easy part: Form follows function. A minimum flying
>machine would look like a Chuck-Bird, Chuck Beason's delightful
>little parasol. There are a other designs that could serve as your
>precursor but all fail the 'minimum' test at one point or another.
>
>-R.S.Hoover

surely the best simplest 'last aeroplane' would be the open framework
Legal Eagle ultralight by Leonard Millholland.
it would have to be the most competent minimalist aircraft going.

http://www.ultralightnews.com/plansbuyerguide/legaleagle-aircraftplans.html

Stealth Pilot

RST Engineering

July 26th 08, 05:11 PM

Any pointer to this group would be most appreciated.

Jim

> I believe there is still a Group dedicated to the Texas Parasol. I
> will dig out the drawings and see if they can be posted in the
> archives there.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>

flybynightkarmarepair

July 26th 08, 05:25 PM

On Jul 26, 8:03 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:29:46 -0700 (PDT), "
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >Recent problems mentioned here brought me a lot of mail on a variety
> >of topics. Within the sphere of Flying on the Cheap and low-cost
> >methods of construction, someone asked if I'd ever considered some
> >kind of Last Ditch airplane, an absolute minimum flying machine for
> >people who are determined to build and to fly their own airplane...
> >until Fate steps in.
>
> >Airplanes are usually defined by their mission and powerplant and even
> >a simple machine can be fairly complex. But in this case the
> >'mission' need be no more than a single safe flight of the builder/
> >pilot and the powerplant was assumed to be something made from VW
> >components and would probably be of stock displacement.
>
> >We swapped a few messages defining such a machine and its fabrication
> >but there were no surprises; it is a doable thing. Then the guy sunk
> >the hook: “I wonder what it would look like?”
>
> >That's the easy part: Form follows function. A minimum flying
> >machine would look like a Chuck-Bird, Chuck Beason's delightful
> >little parasol. There are a other designs that could serve as your
> >precursor but all fail the 'minimum' test at one point or another.
>
> >-R.S.Hoover
>
> surely the best simplest 'last aeroplane' would be the open framework
> Legal Eagle ultralight by Leonard Millholland.
> it would have to be the most competent minimalist aircraft going.
>
> http://www.ultralightnews.com/plansbuyerguide/legaleagle-aircraftplan...
>
> Stealth Pilot

IF you can weld, or come up with the cash for a pre-welded fuselage.
And I think 1/2 VW engines are a waste of time, me. Better dreamers
build the Double Eagle, IMHO.

http://www.doubleeagleairplane.com/

But if you don't weld, the Texas Parasol makes SOME sense. And if you
ignore the lift strut attachment details in the plans, and make the
front spar 2.25"...the wings look very quick to build. If you have a
DSL connection and about 2 hours, you can download the plans for
free. This package is sort of an easter basket, but includes a lot of
details that developed AFTER the initial plans release, and is, IMHO,
worth the time to download it an look it over. This is NOT, again,
IMHO, a First TIme Builder's project. Too many details are left
undeveloped.

/

Finally, Graham Lee's Miranda bears looking at. The aluminum tube
with gusset construction well proven on blizzards of his Nieuport
replicas in a cabin biplane. To the best of my knowledge though, no
one has yet built this design, and it is not exactly "minimal". I
haven't seen the plans for this one yet.

http://www.nieuports.com/index.asp?page=miranda

flybynightkarmarepair

July 26th 08, 05:52 PM

More Texas Parasol resources:

Yahoo Group for Texas Parasol. Richard posts there, frequently,
sniped at by several, and supported by several.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasparasol/?yguid=131192371

A builder making rapid progress, and making a number of very sensible
mods (including a flywheel end drive, aluminum ribs, no structural
attachments in highly stressed areas of the spar, etc..):

http://dktp.topcities.com/index.html

[email protected]

July 26th 08, 06:07 PM

On Jul 26, 8:03 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
>
> surely the best simplest 'last aeroplane' would be the open framework
> Legal Eagle ultralight by Leonard Millholland.
> it would have to be the most competent minimalist aircraft going.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Either of Leonard's designs would be the logical first-choice, his
welded fuselage being clearly superior with regard to strength vs
weight. Indeed, I have said as much -- many times -- when I was a
subscriber to the Legal Eagle Group. (*) But Leonard's design fails
the minimalist test by requiring not only a skilled weldor but a wide
range of tubing sizes. With the Chuck-Bird the only welding is
reduced to a couple of joints that could be done with an arc-welder
and a minimum of skill. By reducing the fuselage to a riveted, bolted
or even bonded structure, you've not only reduced the required skill-
level, you've opened up the range of accepted materials to such an
extent that virtually anyone should be able to lay hands upon suitable
'fuselage-stuff.' (As an experiment, I was able to fabricate a half-
scale fuselage structure using 3/8" square longerons and Kevlar roving
as the shear-web.)

-R.S.Hoover

PS -- (*) - Should you express an opinion that differs from that of
the moderator or principle users of a particular Group you will often
be 86'd or invited to take your opinions elsewhere. This form of Info
Nazism is quite common on the Internet since it is always done for the
'good of the Group,' etc. (In the case of the Legal Eagle, a couple
of the Groups 'leaders' pointed out that since I had not bought the
plans and was not building a Legal Eagle, my comments (which were
about engines) were seen as criticism of Leonard's efforts. They
weren't, but when someone makes it clear you are not welcome, the only
honorable thing to do is to drop out of the Group.)

[email protected]

July 26th 08, 10:08 PM

Dear Jim,

I found & joined the Group flybynight mentioned. This is not the
origianl (2002?) Group. Their Files archive does not include any of
the many drawings I'd uploaded.

I'm not sure I want to post anything there but I'll be happy to send
you copies of the drawings if/when they reappear :-) (Serious problem
here with maintain back-ups. If a file sees no activity for a year or
more I usually erase it. But as I recall, the TP drawings were
identified as design work, meaning they may have survived.)

-R..S.Hoover

cavelamb himself[_4_]

July 27th 08, 12:52 AM

RST Engineering wrote:
> Any pointer to this group would be most appreciated.
>
> Jim
>
>

Yahoo groups...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasparasol/

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

Anthony W

July 27th 08, 07:18 AM

wrote:

> Dear Tony,
>
> I'm afraid you've misunderstood my intent. I paid $80 for a set of
> 'Texas Parasol' plans that turned out to be worthless. At that time
> there was quite a bit of interest in the design. By the time they
> encountered the errors they had quite a bit of time and metal invested
> in the project. I corrected the errors and made copies available to
> some of those builders. But having lost all confidence in the
> 'designer' I elected not to build the thing. Later, I re-drew the
> whole thing (about two dozen drawings) showing alternative methods for
> attaching the tail, wing and landing gear.
>
> The whole story is in the various archives and deserves your
> attention, especially so with regard to the many contradictions, most
> in the 'designers' own words.
>
> I believe there is still a Group dedicated to the Texas Parasol. I
> will dig out the drawings and see if they can be posted in the
> archives there.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

This isn't the first time I've misunderstood something important...

I did consider building the TP but after all the discussions about it, I
decided not to. With your improvements, I would sure give it more
consideration. I think I downloaded the original plans but I don't know
if I still have them.

Tony

Anthony W

July 27th 08, 07:31 AM

flybynightkarmarepair wrote:

> IF you can weld, or come up with the cash for a pre-welded fuselage.
> And I think 1/2 VW engines are a waste of time, me. Better dreamers
> build the Double Eagle, IMHO.
>
> http://www.doubleeagleairplane.com/
>
> But if you don't weld, the Texas Parasol makes SOME sense. And if you
> ignore the lift strut attachment details in the plans, and make the
> front spar 2.25"...the wings look very quick to build. If you have a
> DSL connection and about 2 hours, you can download the plans for
> free. This package is sort of an easter basket, but includes a lot of
> details that developed AFTER the initial plans release, and is, IMHO,
> worth the time to download it an look it over. This is NOT, again,
> IMHO, a First TIme Builder's project. Too many details are left
> undeveloped.
>
> /
>
> Finally, Graham Lee's Miranda bears looking at. The aluminum tube
> with gusset construction well proven on blizzards of his Nieuport
> replicas in a cabin biplane. To the best of my knowledge though, no
> one has yet built this design, and it is not exactly "minimal". I
> haven't seen the plans for this one yet.
>
> http://www.nieuports.com/index.asp?page=miranda

I can weld but it's been more than a few years since I was in good
practice. I downloaded the TP plans and if I can get my hands on Bob's
updates, I may consider building it. I like the idea of simple but I
also think a welded tube fuse is pretty simple too.

Right now I'm building a small business but after we relocate in a year
or 2 I expect to have the space to start building again. I had to scrap
my las project...

Tony

[email protected]

July 27th 08, 08:27 AM

On Jul 26, 11:18 pm, Anthony W > wrote:

> I did consider building the TP but after all the discussions about it, I
> decided not to. With your improvements, I would sure give it more
> consideration. I think I downloaded the original plans but I don't know
> if I still have them.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Tony,

You'd best put a smiley on 'improvements' or you'll have all sorts of
TP supporters dancing on your head :-)

IF... you followed the $80 plans, drilling holes where shown then
trying to bolt the thing together... you'd discover that the plans
were WRONG... and that you'd just trashed a lot of aluminum. Take
that to the fabled 'designer' and he would INSIST the plans were
correct, in effect saying 7" was really 11", that everything fit
perfectly well and that if you had a problem with that, it was
entirely YOUR problem.

That's when you realize the Fabled Designer is a few cans shy of a six-
pac.

My 'improvements' were merely corrections to the drawings. They were
fairly extensive because of the stack-up, in that once you'd corrected
the cross-member dimensions you would have to correct the attachment
of the forward lift-strut, the under-cart V-member and so on.

But there were two areas where the plans violated accepted engineering
practice. One was the lift-strut attachment at the spar, the other
was the attachment of the cabanes to the longerons. Since these
errors are to accepted standards virtually ANYONE who saw them would
understand the need for correction. Indeed, suitable corrections have
been included in the archives of the TP Group.

With regard to the wing & spar controversy, I didn't get that far
along before I realized the plans were some sort of scam and dropped
the project. (At that time I was not aware of Richard's mental
problem.) Indeed, given the price of suitable aluminum tubing, from
the outset I was thinking more along the lines of a wooden wing &
tail-feathers.

What first attracted me to the design was the potential to develop a
light, strong fuselage using matched-hole tooling, a factor that
remains valid.

A wing using aluminum tubing spars and foam ribs is surely the
lightest way to go but the performance of such wings is generally poor
due to the scalloping of the cover. By comparison, a wooden wing of
the Ison type -- the same as used by Leonard Mulholland -- performs
very close to spec, thanks to its rigid leading-edge, and may be
extended so as to improve its aspect ratio.

The simplicity of the design is its main attractant but only when that
simplicity is valid. If your landing gear does not align properly or
your bolt-holes violate the rule for edge-distance, it really doesn't
matter how simple the design may be.

-R.S.Hoover

cavelamb himself[_4_]

July 27th 08, 12:45 PM

Anthony W wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
>
> This isn't the first time I've misunderstood something important...
>
> I did consider building the TP but after all the discussions about it, I
> decided not to. With your improvements, I would sure give it more
> consideration. I think I downloaded the original plans but I don't know
> if I still have them.
>
> Tony

Anthony,

His "imprvements" have not been built or flown.

And his intent here is just more bashing.

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

July 27th 08, 12:52 PM

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:07:32 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Jul 26, 8:03 am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>>
>> surely the best simplest 'last aeroplane' would be the open framework
>> Legal Eagle ultralight by Leonard Millholland.
>> it would have to be the most competent minimalist aircraft going.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Either of Leonard's designs would be the logical first-choice, his
>welded fuselage being clearly superior with regard to strength vs
>weight. Indeed, I have said as much -- many times -- when I was a
>subscriber to the Legal Eagle Group. (*) But Leonard's design fails
>the minimalist test by requiring not only a skilled weldor but a wide
>range of tubing sizes. With the Chuck-Bird the only welding is
>reduced to a couple of joints that could be done with an arc-welder
>and a minimum of skill. By reducing the fuselage to a riveted, bolted
>or even bonded structure, you've not only reduced the required skill-
>level, you've opened up the range of accepted materials to such an
>extent that virtually anyone should be able to lay hands upon suitable
>'fuselage-stuff.' (As an experiment, I was able to fabricate a half-
>scale fuselage structure using 3/8" square longerons and Kevlar roving
>as the shear-web.)
>
>-R.S.Hoover
>
>PS -- (*) - Should you express an opinion that differs from that of
>the moderator or principle users of a particular Group you will often
>be 86'd or invited to take your opinions elsewhere. This form of Info
>Nazism is quite common on the Internet since it is always done for the
>'good of the Group,' etc. (In the case of the Legal Eagle, a couple
>of the Groups 'leaders' pointed out that since I had not bought the
>plans and was not building a Legal Eagle, my comments (which were
>about engines) were seen as criticism of Leonard's efforts. They
>weren't, but when someone makes it clear you are not welcome, the only
>honorable thing to do is to drop out of the Group.)
>
>
I wouldnt worry about them Bob.
cheap has never been a criteria I've even considered in relation to
aviation.

structurally sound, design strength, margin of safety, flight
qualities, stall speed, Vne, structural cruising speed, glide ratio,
cg range, endurance and such are terms that interest me. oh and
fatigue life, particularly fatigue life is what interests me.
"free plan" is a criteria used by the incompetent.

Chuck Slusarzic is a stand out pioneer because his was the first fully
stress analysed ultralight. I wonder if the "Free Plans" types even
realise what that means.

Stealth Pilot

[email protected]

July 27th 08, 04:08 PM

On Jul 27, 4:52 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
>
> I wouldnt worry about them Bob.
> cheap has never been a criteria I've even considered in relation to
> aviation.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

That simply means you are wealthy.

The MEDIAN income in the United States is about $28,000 per year.

When the President of the EAA refers to one of Van's kits as
'inexpensive' and the Lycoming to power it as 'affordable' he's
saying homebuilt aviation is only for the wealthy. It's not, but the
bureaucracy that controls the EAA has moved so far from our roots that
they now treat an affordable homebuilt as a special case, something to
be singled-out and pointed to: See? Even poor people can build
airplanes.

About half of my mail comes from those 'poor people.' 'Cheap' is a
valid factor in their homebuilt equation because they have no other
choice.

Being poor does not mean being dumb, any more than flying on the cheap
means an unsafe airframe or an unreliable engine. For the most part,
what it means is that you don't have the option of BUYING solutions to
the problems you encounter; you will have to figure them out for
yourself, perhaps with a bit of help from your friends.

So they solve the problems and go flying. But don't expect to see
these people at Oshkosh or other EAA-sponsored fly-in's. They have
been priced out of the market. Fortunately, there are no traffic cops
in the sky and despite our growing population, America remains mostly
empty space.

-R.S.Hoover

Anthony W

July 28th 08, 02:01 AM

wrote:

> Dear Tony,
>
> You'd best put a smiley on 'improvements' or you'll have all sorts of
> TP supporters dancing on your head :-)
>
> IF... you followed the $80 plans, drilling holes where shown then
> trying to bolt the thing together... you'd discover that the plans
> were WRONG... and that you'd just trashed a lot of aluminum. Take
> that to the fabled 'designer' and he would INSIST the plans were
> correct, in effect saying 7" was really 11", that everything fit
> perfectly well and that if you had a problem with that, it was
> entirely YOUR problem.
>
> That's when you realize the Fabled Designer is a few cans shy of a six-
> pac.
>
> My 'improvements' were merely corrections to the drawings. They were
> fairly extensive because of the stack-up, in that once you'd corrected
> the cross-member dimensions you would have to correct the attachment
> of the forward lift-strut, the under-cart V-member and so on.
>
> But there were two areas where the plans violated accepted engineering
> practice. One was the lift-strut attachment at the spar, the other
> was the attachment of the cabanes to the longerons. Since these
> errors are to accepted standards virtually ANYONE who saw them would
> understand the need for correction. Indeed, suitable corrections have
> been included in the archives of the TP Group.
>
> With regard to the wing & spar controversy, I didn't get that far
> along before I realized the plans were some sort of scam and dropped
> the project. (At that time I was not aware of Richard's mental
> problem.) Indeed, given the price of suitable aluminum tubing, from
> the outset I was thinking more along the lines of a wooden wing &
> tail-feathers.
>
> What first attracted me to the design was the potential to develop a
> light, strong fuselage using matched-hole tooling, a factor that
> remains valid.
>
> A wing using aluminum tubing spars and foam ribs is surely the
> lightest way to go but the performance of such wings is generally poor
> due to the scalloping of the cover. By comparison, a wooden wing of
> the Ison type -- the same as used by Leonard Mulholland -- performs
> very close to spec, thanks to its rigid leading-edge, and may be
> extended so as to improve its aspect ratio.
>
> The simplicity of the design is its main attractant but only when that
> simplicity is valid. If your landing gear does not align properly or
> your bolt-holes violate the rule for edge-distance, it really doesn't
> matter how simple the design may be.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

So if this design isn't salvageable, lets get back to cheap and simple.
I scraped my Volksplane because it would have weighed a ton if I had
completed it. I could have shaved some more weight off as I went but it
was designed heavy in my opinion. A simple to tube frame isn't out of
reach for most folks since welding is making a comeback for the masses.
Everybody knows at least one person that welds and could be talked into
helping. I learnt to weld in mechanic's school 30 years ago and with
some practice I could be back up to speed.

I was considering a sport plane sized version of the Ragwing motor-bipe.
The TP was in that size but it's looking less viable all the time.

Tony

Anthony W

July 28th 08, 02:02 AM

cavelamb himself wrote:

> Anthony,
>
> His "imprvements" have not been built or flown.
>
> And his intent here is just more bashing.

On thing I know about Bob is that he doesn't bash.

Tony

Griff

July 28th 08, 02:03 PM

I had looked at the TP for most of the same reasons everyone else
had.The idea of a low cost,simple build,( I may be wrong here )UL was
interesting. Contacting the group,I found out the UL part was nearly
impossible. I chose a larger ac,designed by someone with 50 years of
experience designing homebuilts that became certified and have again
become homebuilts. I decided with costs spread out over 5-6 years and
a VW powerplant made it affordable,and inexpensive to operate.I know
the design is sound, all the numbers have been run, the only thing
that is yet to be determined are my skills and judgement in
construction.

Jodel D 18 builder,
Griff

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

July 28th 08, 02:34 PM

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:08:45 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Jul 27, 4:52 am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>>
>> I wouldnt worry about them Bob.
>> cheap has never been a criteria I've even considered in relation to
>> aviation.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>That simply means you are wealthy.
>
>The MEDIAN income in the United States is about $28,000 per year.
>
>When the President of the EAA refers to one of Van's kits as
>'inexpensive' and the Lycoming to power it as 'affordable' he's
>saying homebuilt aviation is only for the wealthy. It's not, but the
>bureaucracy that controls the EAA has moved so far from our roots that
>they now treat an affordable homebuilt as a special case, something to
>be singled-out and pointed to: See? Even poor people can build
>airplanes.
>
>About half of my mail comes from those 'poor people.' 'Cheap' is a
>valid factor in their homebuilt equation because they have no other
>choice.
>
>Being poor does not mean being dumb, any more than flying on the cheap
>means an unsafe airframe or an unreliable engine. For the most part,
>what it means is that you don't have the option of BUYING solutions to
>the problems you encounter; you will have to figure them out for
>yourself, perhaps with a bit of help from your friends.
>
>So they solve the problems and go flying. But don't expect to see
>these people at Oshkosh or other EAA-sponsored fly-in's. They have
>been priced out of the market. Fortunately, there are no traffic cops
>in the sky and despite our growing population, America remains mostly
>empty space.
>
>-R.S.Hoover

Bob I stuffed up.
the design I actually meant was Izon's Airbike. it looks to me to be a
suberb minimalist aircraft.
the one I quoted in my brain fart looks a little less engineered to
me.

the texas parasol has known structural problems so why people overlook
that just because the plans are free is a mystery to me.

for the poor people you have the Turbulent files I sent. that aircraft
has a 40 year history of safe use. you can give away copies of the
stuff whenever you think it will help someone.

A set of Corby Starlet plans in Australia is $250 form John Corby
himself. for that you get an aircraft that didnt win a design contest
(it was a runner up) was flown to second place in a national
australian aerobatic contest and has a 30 year history of safe use all
over Australia. it was designed by an aeronautical engineer( John
Corby) who did a full stress evaluation on it.

if guys want wooden aircraft which can use alternative timbers the
Druine Turbulent is a good choice. it has a cantilever wing that is
light years ahead of a Bowers Flybaby in aeronautical sophistication.
The Corby Starlet may be less build effort.

$250 in the entire cost of an aircraft is something that I see as an
investment if the plans I'm buying are backed by full structural
analysis.

An engineer is someone who can build for $10 what any idiot can for
$100.
I'm a $10 aviator. I'm not poor. I'm an engineer. oddly I build the
same way the poor people do by choice. theirs is a far more
interesting path and they have nothing to be ashamed of for treading
it. they should tread the path as an engineer though with head held
high.

keep up the good work.
Stealth Pilot

Bob Kuykendall

July 28th 08, 04:55 PM

On Jul 27, 4:45*am, cavelamb himself > wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> His "imprvements" have not been built or flown.
>
> And his intent here is just more bashing.

Cite, please?

Thanks, Bob K.

[email protected]

July 28th 08, 07:09 PM

On Jul 28, 8:55 am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:

> Cite, please?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.airtalk.org/next-vt20548.html?postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

I suggest you read the whole thread (about six pages).

If telling the truth is 'bashing' then I'm proud to plead guilty.

-R.S.Hoover

Bob Kuykendall

July 28th 08, 07:36 PM

On Jul 28, 11:09 am, " > wrote:

> http://www.airtalk.org/next-vt20548.html?postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta....
>
> I suggest you read the whole thread (about six pages).
>
> If telling the truth is 'bashing' then I'm proud to plead guilty.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Ah, now that was kinda spooky, especially when I was reading my own
contributions and then thinking "I don't remember ever posting to
AirTalk..." Then I realised that it's an archive of this RAS thread
(google groups link):

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.homebuilt/browse_frm/thread/beab7c22ab6cc342/060927dee93cacbe?hl=enŸãdee93cacbe

Thanks again, Bob K.

[email protected]

July 28th 08, 09:12 PM

On Jul 28, 6:34 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
>
> the texas parasol has known structural problems ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the Chuck-Bird does not.

Let's not get the apples mixed up with the oranges. The original
thread addressed the LAST airplane to be built by a fully competent
builder. The fact it happens to be a parasol is a coincidence,
although citing the Chuck-Bird as a precursor is not.

-R.S.Hoover

cavelamb himself[_4_]

July 28th 08, 09:44 PM

wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:34 am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>
>>the texas parasol has known structural problems ...
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> But the Chuck-Bird does not.
>
> Let's not get the apples mixed up with the oranges. The original
> thread addressed the LAST airplane to be built by a fully competent
> builder. The fact it happens to be a parasol is a coincidence,
> although citing the Chuck-Bird as a precursor is not.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Amazing.

Astounding, even.

They are exactly the same thing, you know.

Chuck and I built bunches of them.

We picked the latest greatest and documented it as bes we could.

Tell ya what.

Find a copy of the Chuckbird plans.
They are identical - except for the cover page!

Ihappen to know that BECAUSE I WROTE THEM!

Asshowler

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

Peter Dohm

July 29th 08, 12:05 AM

> wrote in message
...
> On Jul 26, 11:18 pm, Anthony W > wrote:
>
>> I did consider building the TP but after all the discussions about it, I
>> decided not to. With your improvements, I would sure give it more
>> consideration. I think I downloaded the original plans but I don't know
>> if I still have them.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Tony,
>
> You'd best put a smiley on 'improvements' or you'll have all sorts of
> TP supporters dancing on your head :-)
>
> IF... you followed the $80 plans, drilling holes where shown then
> trying to bolt the thing together... you'd discover that the plans
> were WRONG... and that you'd just trashed a lot of aluminum. Take
> that to the fabled 'designer' and he would INSIST the plans were
> correct, in effect saying 7" was really 11", that everything fit
> perfectly well and that if you had a problem with that, it was
> entirely YOUR problem.
>
> That's when you realize the Fabled Designer is a few cans shy of a six-
> pac.
>
> My 'improvements' were merely corrections to the drawings. They were
> fairly extensive because of the stack-up, in that once you'd corrected
> the cross-member dimensions you would have to correct the attachment
> of the forward lift-strut, the under-cart V-member and so on.
>
> But there were two areas where the plans violated accepted engineering
> practice. One was the lift-strut attachment at the spar, the other
> was the attachment of the cabanes to the longerons. Since these
> errors are to accepted standards virtually ANYONE who saw them would
> understand the need for correction. Indeed, suitable corrections have
> been included in the archives of the TP Group.
>
> With regard to the wing & spar controversy, I didn't get that far
> along before I realized the plans were some sort of scam and dropped
> the project. (At that time I was not aware of Richard's mental
> problem.) Indeed, given the price of suitable aluminum tubing, from
> the outset I was thinking more along the lines of a wooden wing &
> tail-feathers.
>
> What first attracted me to the design was the potential to develop a
> light, strong fuselage using matched-hole tooling, a factor that
> remains valid.
>
> A wing using aluminum tubing spars and foam ribs is surely the
> lightest way to go but the performance of such wings is generally poor
> due to the scalloping of the cover. By comparison, a wooden wing of
> the Ison type -- the same as used by Leonard Mulholland -- performs
> very close to spec, thanks to its rigid leading-edge, and may be
> extended so as to improve its aspect ratio.
>
> The simplicity of the design is its main attractant but only when that
> simplicity is valid. If your landing gear does not align properly or
> your bolt-holes violate the rule for edge-distance, it really doesn't
> matter how simple the design may be.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
Just for the record, in a structural sense, the discussion of the lift strut
to spar attachment seems to be related to a hole drilled through the sheer
web. I do have a copy of the plans, which I believe include a reinforcement
sleeve--which I would elect to include.

As of this time, all of the plans I have ever seen for "plans-only" aircraft
require some basic knowledge--especially of which parts will necessarily be
"cut and try" and then trim file or sand some more. That has been equally
true of the Vari-EZ and all of the other designs that have appeared around
my local chapter. That has also been true of the "fast glass"
kits--especially the early ones.

So, I am not dissapointed by the fact that a set of drawings, which were
made following the construction and flight of a homebuilt aircraft, won't
result in parts that bolt together as thought they were the result of a type
design. I have no right to expect such a thing!

Peter
Just my $0.02