clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:


And just to make things clear, I don't have a pony in this race.
I did not buy plans. I did not invest ANY time or money in the
project, and there was no reason for my Friend Gary to say anything
negative about the plane EXCEPT the fact he is VERY dedicated to SAFE
flying. He, and a lot of the other fellows, were hoping it would be a
good, cheap plane, and easy to build and fly. The building method is
VERY interesting, but to get proper hole edge clearances the longerons
in the cabin area should be 1" angle.
If built "inside out" with the flats of the angles in, instead of out,
you would not have issues with the fabric at the rivet heads, and you
would also have a smoother interior. Lots of other little
"improvements" that would make it a better plane - .

Really just needs a good designer to go ever it and fix the little
details - the ones that make the current rendition difficult to build
and less than adequate structurally. As they say, the devil's inthe
details - and they will kill you.

Your loyalty to your friend is noted and admired, Clare.

But for just a moment, stop and reread what you wrote above.
Sure, the inside-out approach has some interesting merit, but is that
really and improvement, a radical modification, or a new design?

The first step in designing something like an airplane is
to carefully define the (dreaded) Mission Requirements Statement.

This one, as it is, fulfills the mission requirements set out for it.
And it has done so safely for many years.

As far as I could tell from the photos and article published in the Canadian
Recreational Aviation magazine the only thing the Canadian projects have in
common with this one is that they both use extruded aluminum angle for the
fuselage truss.

You can claim these were only improvements if you want.
But what it really was is a completely new, unproved, and much heavier
machine. (I'm curious why they didn't go to a 2-1/4" front spar as we
discussed repeatedly. I know it an expensive piece of tube, but it would
have solved the problem quite adequately.)


My friend, Al Robinson is doing exactly the same thing! But man, what a
difference in attitudes.

His Texas Pete is a two-seat side by side with a Geo Metro of power.
Gross weight will be right about 900 pounds.
(His pics and details are posted on the Texas Parasol group at Yahoo Groups)
(as are reports of some of those who finished and have flown their (real)
Texas Parasols)

The modifications he has made to the wing structure were supervised and
blessed by none other than the late Lt. Graham Lee. I don't think Graham
had a degree, but he was one hell of an engineer.

Al is getting close to being ready to static test his wing - and I intend to
be there to help when he does. He kindly invited me, and I wouldn't miss is.
If it holds ok, we'll cover it and go flying.

If it doesn't look safe to BOTH of us, we'll come up with something else.
Most likely (if necessary!) an I beam main spar built up using extruded
aluminum angle front and back of an aluminum sheer web.
At least that's our fall back plan.
That type construction allows us to custom tailor the load factor allowance
to what ever the builder desires.

I've got the thing drawn up, but I've not built it and tested it yet, so
it hasn't been published. And it's not going to be unless it IS tested.

I have personally flown both of my parasols (well duh!) and several of the
others.

Doc has flown damned near all of them and scared the pee outta me several
times in the process.

Sonny is building his FOURTH original design based on this stuff.

Paul Hammond flew his every weekend for years.

Doc is home taking care of the kids.

I'm sitting here trying to be patient and not pull my hair out.


So if is possible, can we call a truce and go make fun of milli-amp
for a while?

Richard