The Last Airplane

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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/plansb...raftplans.html

Stealth Pilot

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

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/plansb...e-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.

http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/...et.02.11.2006/

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

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/texasp...guid=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