1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?

"Tater Schuld" wrote

heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
would tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?

sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
up. make sure to sandbag for CG!

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
Is there no limit to what some *don't* know?
--
Jim in NC

"Richard Lamb" wrote

I got to "fly" that contraption - once.
That was enough.

It was sorta fun, but with the truck driver manning the "throttle", the
limited lateral range, and limited roll range, it was - well -
interesting...

I heard it was later destroyed by some guy who claimed 10,000 hours of
glider
time...

That sounds like something Capt.. Zoom, the test pilot would have done,
don't you think?

What would you bet that he looped and rolled it, too? g
--
Jim in NC

"Peter Dohm" wrote

It would still be nice to have a safe way to realistically simulate engine
failures. \

How about idle power and a small parachute mounted on a quick release line?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

"Richard Lamb" wrote

I put some new pics up this evening.
2a.jpg - 2h.jpg are the latest of my parasol. Doc named her "Betty
Boop".
tank(xxx).jpg are pics of beating out the fuel tank parts.
therapy.jpg - well, it's just that - excellent therapy...

\
Nice looking plane. And that is a nice ..... hammer, too! g

Thankee, Morg!

It's real good therapy....


Richard

Morgans wrote:


"Richard Lamb" wrote

It's a finger tip airplane. One finger tip on top of the stick.

Somebody used to a Cessna or Piper is going to be at a real disadvantage
for the first flight(s?).
Until they get used to it.
Then, the old Cessna suddenly feels like flying a 2-ton dump truck.


So, when are the plans going to be available? :-)

Real Soon Now (tm!)

Started selling plans back about 2000 and have had several built.
First one completed from plans was in New Zealand (!?!)

It's been quite a trip.
Most fun I've ever had on the ground with my clothes on,
and at the same time the biggest hassle I've EVER had.
Guess you have to expect that when dealing with the public.

Anyway, I've decided to put the plans up for free download.
Matronix has offered to give me room for them and I'll get them uploaded
(hopefully) next week. It's a couple of rather big PDF files and I'm
not going to try to upload via this tin can and twine lash at home.
The public library looks like my best bet.

I also have a CDr that I'll still sell for $30. It has the plans, all
the old web site stuff, plus a whole mess of construction pics.
I figure even if people can get the plans for free, people who build
will still want the construction photos, tips, etc.


What are the specs?

Well, depends on how heavy you build it, what it's powered by, etc.

Wingspan 26 ft
Wing Chord 4.6’ (56-inch)
Wing Area 125 sq. ft
Aspect Ratio 5.8
Reynolds # 1.5 to 3 million
Empty Weight 350 to 450 lb.
Gross Weight 650 lb. max.
Power 40 to 65 HP

PERFORMANCE
Stall 30 mph
Cruise 55 to 75 mph
Vne 100 mph

Welcome to the world of alternate materials, guys.

One of the unique features is that the fuselage frame is built from
extruded 6061-T6 angle with driven rivets (AD-470 types).

There is a slight weight penalty involved compared to pop-riveted
aluminum tube, but the resulting structure is hell bent for stout,
and right inexpensive (I built one frame for $100 scrounging a bit).

The wings use aluminum tube spars at leading and trailing edges with
a bent up "C" channel (.025 6061-T6 sheet) at each rib location acting
as compression ribs.

Foam or light plywood ribs are then simply routed
out and glued to the compression ribs using (of all things!) Liquid Nail.
I did a bunch of testing a while back and Liquid Nail held to aluminum
better than anything else. Period. Sounds strange, maybe, but it works.

Chuck Beeson claims to have built over 70 airplanes like this. Several
of those were repeats, however. Build one and sell it, then later buy
it back, make some changes and sell it again. Still, it's a pretty
impressive piece of work. Chuck uses 2 strokes and called them ultralights
even if they weighed 350.

And, as I said in another thread, I've worked with him on at least a dozen
NEW planes over 10 years. So I know he has build a bunch of them.
He and I built six of these little darlings in 12 weeks. Bare frames on
the gear, wings and tail installed but not covered or with motors, etc.
Chuck was selling them as kits and was out of stock and had nothing to sell.
We worked 8 hours a day - 4 days a week. Six complete airframes in 12 weeks
is not too bad, folks. I've also know him to turn out a complete airplane
- from scratch - in just six weeks.

Doc Harr, Paul Hammond, Sonny Mosel, and myself have all used VW's and get
more like 450 - 465 empty.

At 650 gross she theoretically can pull right at 4 G's yield.
Doc had nearly 700 hours of aerobatics on his when he finally sold her (2004?).
The thing is with so little weight and so much drag, speed bleeds off
rapidly in hard maneuvers and it's difficult to actually pull that hard.


The Down Side:

There is a limit to how much weight one can hang on a two inch diameter spar
tube.

A bunch of guys (I'll not name) got together and started building a whole
bunch of these a few years ago. But they didn't like the fabric cover and
changed it to all metal skins (fuselage and wings both!) Then added heavy 4
stroke engines on them and suddenly discovered they were WAY too heavy to make
4 G margins.

Ok, to be fair, they had a professional aero engineer who was supposed to
design a heavier wing for it, but he died (natural causes) before finishing.
Next thing I know, I was getting bitched out for the wing being too "weak"
and they were threatening to "tell the FAA on me". What a mess.

I think there were a couple of guys who finished their planes in fabric and
got them flying ok. But the rest was a just total loss.
(that was the hassle part I mentioned)

But other than that, the trip has been a real blast.
Great people, interesting ideas, and a lot of enthusiasm for it.
It's been fun.

Richard

Morgans wrote:


"Richard Lamb" wrote

I got to "fly" that contraption - once.
That was enough.

It was sorta fun, but with the truck driver manning the "throttle", the
limited lateral range, and limited roll range, it was - well -
interesting...

I heard it was later destroyed by some guy who claimed 10,000 hours of
glider
time...


That sounds like something Capt.. Zoom, the test pilot would have done,
don't you think?

What would you bet that he looped and rolled it, too? g

Zoom, maybe.
I dunno about mere mortals.

That thing would be real easy to set down a little sideways...
Right in front of a speeding Dodge Ram!

Actually, the driver tries to stay right behind the airplane.
If you start drifting to one side of the other he'd stay with you -
up to a point. Then he decides to "chop power", and down you come!

That was the only time I've ever felt an airplane decelerate like that -
while still airborne.

Like I said, Once.


Richard

("Richard Lamb" wrote)
[trimmed the heavy post g]
Anyway, I've decided to put the plans up for free download. Matronix has
offered to give me room for them and I'll get them uploaded (hopefully)
next week. It's a couple of rather big PDF files and I'm not going to try
to upload via this tin can and twine lash at home. The public library
looks like my best bet.

I also have a CDr that I'll still sell for $30. It has the plans, all the
old web site stuff, plus a whole mess of construction pics. I figure even
if people can get the plans for free, people who build will still want the
construction photos, tips, etc.


How about a download-lite for the curious?


Montblack

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Tater Schuld" wrote

heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
would tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?

sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
up. make sure to sandbag for CG!

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
Is there no limit to what some *don't* know?

yeah, I'll admit it. I'm interested in flying, in too remote of a place to
get a mentor, and too cheap to afford instruction.

I also looked at the prices of buying a certified plane, and the prices of
renting one, and was disheartened.

one of my biggest complaints is that there is no possible flying potential
for someone who works at minimum wage. EAA wants bigger and bigger
memberships, and wonders why it is so hard. I believe that if they could get
the price of flying down so that a minimum wage a afford it (minimum wage
income, not minimum wage IQ), you could get a LOT more people interested. a
plane in every garage and that sort of thing.

so I am looking at homebuilt plans, trying to see what would fit that
criteria. still looking for the perfect one plane. might still be looking 5
years from now.

ok, back on the topic. tow the plane, use sandbags to simulate the pilot,
and you eliminate what percentage of first flight failures? wrong control
throws, broken or stuck cables, improper wing incidence, incorrect control
surface areas, improper structural load theories..

and you KNOW that plane can get airborne. a big confidence builder for the
first time builder/flyer

"Highflyer" wrote in message
...

"kd5sak" wrote in message
m...

Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead
was best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was
best. And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither
"turnback" nor "straight ahead" would work and I had to do something
creative! :-)

ok, now fess up!

add my name to the list of those who want to know.

I guess you did something that violates have a dozen rules, otherwise you'd
say so. forced spin? a outside loop? immelman? stall-drop?

Montblack wrote:

("Richard Lamb" wrote)
[trimmed the heavy post g]

Anyway, I've decided to put the plans up for free download. Matronix
has offered to give me room for them and I'll get them uploaded
(hopefully) next week. It's a couple of rather big PDF files and I'm
not going to try to upload via this tin can and twine lash at home.
The public library looks like my best bet.

I also have a CDr that I'll still sell for $30. It has the plans, all
the old web site stuff, plus a whole mess of construction pics. I
figure even if people can get the plans for free, people who build
will still want the construction photos, tips, etc.



How about a download-lite for the curious?


Montblack

Oddly enough, curious Sir, I think we can handle that request.

There are two main files that constitute the "plans".

The first is named P1-Text.pdf which is "only" 7.5 meg.
It describes the techniques and gives directions, tips, and photos on how to
work the material and such. It runs about 50 pages.
That would be the first thing to look at - an introduction, so to speak?

The other file, the drawings, is 16.5 meg file named P1-Draw.pdf.
These are CAD drawn engineering type drawings that describe the layout,
shape, and assembly.

Now, before everyone gets in a rush, I've been told by some that the plans are
Great! (and they go off and build the thing) - and by others that they suck
(and that NObody could build anything from such drivel!)

My own humble opinion is that they are not half bad.
The only reason I ever got a wild hair to tried to do this is because I bought
a set of Graham Lee's Neiuport 11 plans way back when. Now that's a very
popular project, but the "plans" (if anyone else has a copy, sound off?) ARE a
little - skimpy? in some areas...

Lt. Lee assumed that by that point in the project, you'd have learned what it
is all about and don't need Tab-A into Slot-B directions. Judging by the
number of planes finished and flying, he seems to have been right about that.

The only place I know I messed up was on the main gear. All the parts are
detailed, but I missed getting a dimensioned assembly drawing to show how
to rig Height and Track. That omission has been addressed with a JPG of
the set up.

Like I said earlier, I'll try to get them up to Matt this next week.
Then, you can judge for yourselves!

Thanks all,

Richard