If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
CGS Hawk Rumor Retraction - and a public apology
In article .net, Richard Lamb
says... Mr. Slusarczyk, When you indicated that you had not heard of this alleged incident I had a horrible feeling I had done something very wrong. I checked the local news paper for accidents at the field in question and turned up nada. So I went back out to the field this afternoon and had a short conversation with the fellow who had told me about this. Kind of a very polite version of WTF, over? We quickly got to the heart of it, and I got a different read on the story. No, it didn't happen HERE, and this particular aircraft was not involved. So I took the (well known) name he gave me and did a quick google search (something I had neglected to do before relating this story to this group). Unfortunately, even that turned up negative. SAM died of cancer. I widened the search, adding the term "ultralight" and finally found something that may be related. "John", as it turns out. The story I found on NWA news had no details about the cause of the accident - only that an investigation was underway - and I found no follow up that shed any additional light to the subject. I fear I may have propagated an unfounded rumor as an alleged fact. My only feeble defense is that the level of detail described to me gave me the impression that I was hearing a first hand account from an eye witness. I'm convinced this fellow did not intentionally misled me. But I should have done my homework before bringing it up in public. Sir, please, if you can, accept my sincere apology for any negative publicity or embarrassment that I may have caused you by posting what may turn out to be misleading information. It was certainly not my intention to discredit you or your machine. Sincerely, Richard Lamb Richard I appreciate the correction and your strength of character to make it. Apology not required but accepted. I never questioned your intentions for a second. Now back to the fun stuff :-) See ya Chuck S |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol Plans...
In article .com, Monty Graves
says... Chuck Slusarczyk CSG HAWK uses 2.25 inch front spar, and so does the Rans S-4. Both high wing single place planes..... Chuck S. can verifiy his own max gross on those 2.25 inch spars, and how that was derived..... Both planes use max Rotax 503 engines weights some 60 lbs lighter than the direct drive VW. That's correct,our Single seat Hawk has 2 1/4" dia spars and our 2 seaters have a 3" dia spar. Back when the original was designed we first designed the wing and sized the spars based on a plus 6 g ultimate load factor.We then substantiated the designed wing with actual load tests.We used a lift distribution for a rectangular wing to determine the loads spanwise .Then since it was a 2 spar wing the load was divided chordwise at 70% on the front spar and 30% on the rear spar. After the sandbag tests we found we were within about 3% of the designed load. In my humble opinion the reason we don't see many wing failures with wings that I consider under designed. Is the fact that the light wing loading and inability of these planes to maintain energy prevents them from pulling more then about 3 g's before they stall. But that's just my opinion I don't want to start a "spar wars" episode :-) See ya Chuck S |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol Plans...
ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article .com, Monty Graves In my humble opinion the reason we don't see many wing failures with wings that I consider under designed. Is the fact that the light wing loading and inability of these planes to maintain energy prevents them from pulling more then about 3 g's before they stall. But that's just my opinion I don't want to start a "spar wars" episode :-) See ya Chuck S Yep. And I have pointed that out before, but nobody wanted to hear (or believe) it. That's not how "real" airplanes work, so it was just another "lie". Bottom line is that I'm simply sick and tired of the bickering and back biting, and do not wish to play any more... I'm not going to go into a long tirade against Chuck Beeson. He was once my best friend. Those days are long past. I respect him for what he has accomplished. It's a hell of a piece of work he's done. But ALL of us (Me, Sonny, Doc, Paul, Charlie, the Longs, his wife, and every body else) have all walked away from him. And for good reason. Since I'm the only one of the bunch who is an "emotionally disturbed Viet Nam Vet", maybe, just maybe, there's more to it than "me". Whether that fits with anybody's close held beliefs is simply not important to me any more. Now that's about as plain as I can put it folks. Richard |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol Plans...
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:27:15 -0500, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:14:18 GMT, Richard Lamb wrote: Rec.Aviation.Homebuilt special... Eventually, these will be made available to everybody on Matronics, but for the time being they are posted at http://www.home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/ just for the nice boys and girls of RAH and RAU. Enjoy... Richard Got the wing spar design updated yet? Or are we trying to thin the herd? clare you and vdubber have performed a service here beyond calculation. I wonder if we'd ever realise how many lives you have saved. pat on the back boys. gods aint the internet great! Stealth Pilot Australia |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol Plans...
Monty, I'm glad you made this intervention here. The Texas Parasol always
attracted me as a project after my actual plane (CH701) is finished, just for the sake of enjoying building something. I downloaded the plans from Matronic last week and I was just going to send Richard $30.00 for his CD or DVD. As of NOW the files are DELETED and you just saved me $30.00. Thanks Jean-Paul (back to the 701 construction) Roy "Monty Graves" wrote in message oups.com... I was going to let this slide, but every time I read it. It just ****es me off more. I am not one of the Canadian group. But I bought a set of plans from Richard with his recomendations that it was for a first time builder, and a good choice for a direct drive VW engine. Come to find out its not either...!!!!!!!! The problem isn't the Canadian group that Richard blames for all his problems. Its Richard himself. He is his own worst enemy. And this recent post is another example of how Richard's view of reality is shall we say cloudy at best.......... For those that don't know Richard,,,,, He is on mental disabilty for his service in Vietnam. And has been for years. Richard didn't DESIGN the Texas Parasol, Chuck Beason did along with a group of other builders flyers in the San Antonio area of Texas..... Richard wasn't one of them. Since Richard was on disabiltiy he started hanging around Chuck's shop and Chuck took a liking to him and let him help build complete planes to sell to people. Somewhere along the line. Richard became computer literate, and did CAD drawings from measurements of Chucks planes. I don't know if Richard screwed Chuck B. But Chuck B. told me over the phone that Richard did. And several people in the area I talked to personally on the phone feel Richard screwed Chuck... For the first few years Richard sold plans, those on the internet he let everyone believe he was the one that designed the plane. When in fact there wasn't a single part of the plane that Richard designed. And to top it off, when the spar debate came up. Richard sold the rights to the Texas Parasol to Ted F. of sirus aviation. All in all a sick joke kind of thing. Richard in January of this year on this newsgroup said he calculated the max gross load of 650 lbs. and the thread is in the archives. Richard's problem and the problem with the spars is Chuck designed the plane to be buillt light using the smaller 2 stroke engines....... Richard wanted the Texas Parasol to be all things to all builders........ And thats were the controversy comes in. The plans, call for 2 inch by .058 inch thick front tube spars..... Herbert Beaujon a ligitimate designer says this wing is a 500 lb max gross wing..... NOT 650 lbs that Richard first claimed to his plans holders, and future VW engine users. THATS a HUGE difference.... When confronted with this information. Richard would not reveal how he came about with the 650 lb number. But INSTEAD showing how he came up with the number Richard reduced the max gross weight of the Texas Paraso to 600 lbs instead.... Also Richard refused to do a wing load test. And he gave the exact same response as above. ", but there are several dozen of theseplanes _flying_ for over 20 years now. Doc, HARR who has been the test pilot on almost all of these, had over 650 hours on his "Lucky Lady" when the airfield changed hands and he quit. Doc loved to play acro with it. Loops (well, tall skinny ones), spins, rolls. I'll trust my life to his test work because I've seen what he can do with it" END QUOTE. WTF kind of answer is that when there is a legimate saftey concern. When I personally asked how Doc Harr's wings were built. Richard WOULD NOT reply, I assume because he didn't know how Harr's wings were built..... Come to find out. Several of Chuck B.s orginal birds had been built with a longer wing span, and shorter chord. Other pilots had noticed the "gulling" of the front spar and had added flying wires to that area of the front spar much like the king post ULS do.....which adds signicant strenth to the spar. Richard never mentioned this to any of his builders. He also never mentioned untill pressure was put on him. That just maybe, not a single airplane had ever been built with the wing design that was called for in the plans... All were different.....Richard didn't like Chucks longer wing. He didn't like the flying wires either, hence he didn't tell anyone. So not being able to get any strait answers from Richard, about exactly how Doc Harrs wings were built, and not being able to get Richard to do a load test on his own wings, to confirm his 600 lb mas gross weight. The Candian group set up there own spar load test, under the direction of an aero engineer. The aero engineer said the wing is a 500 lb max gross wing. but if its loaded to 2 G's assuming a 600 lb max its going to fail........... And low and behold it failed at 2 G's... and PROVED the wing shown in Richard's Texas Parasol drawings are 500 lb max gross Confronted with this knowlege. Richard threw up his hands discussed and just disappeared from the internet until reappering here a couple of months ago. spouting the same bull**** about "his design" grossing 650 lbs What this dirty laundry is all about is a guy that took someone elses design for a lite 500 lb gross plane using light rotax engines and, claiming it as his own, and marketing it to a group of folks claiming it now can use a VW engine, 12 gal of fuel and fly a 200 lb pilot on the same 500 lb gross wing........ And just another fact Richard never built a plane from his plans as he said...... he built a longer plane by one bay., and maybe with these wings, maybe with different wings..... I have documented persoanl emails saying he built it two different ways. I think it makes a difference as to what he has had to smoke, drink or medications he is was taking at the time a question was asked...... For reference on why the 2 inch tube spars are a concern Chuck Slusarczyk CSG HAWK uses 2.25 inch front spar, and so does the Rans S-4. Both high wing single place planes..... Chuck S. can verifiy his own max gross on those 2.25 inch spars, and how that was derived..... Both planes use max Rotax 503 engines weights some 60 lbs lighter than the direct drive VW. BTW Chuck S. I think I would stay as far away from Richard Lamb as possible... In doing research on Richard I came accross a post referring to HIS LATEST DESIGN posted to the Romance Chat newsgroup. in January of 2006. Sounds a lot like to me one of Bruce Kings BK 1.1 also from the San Antonio TX area. Richard seems to use that word DESIGN rather loosely Monty Graves Quote from Richard. "I haven't cut any metal on the latest design. But I've done a whole lot of drawing on it. (Not much else to do at the moment) Some of the sketches are posted at http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ I've got two details left to clean up. One is the attachment of the landing gear. I was trying to work it out so that the legs stay on the airframe if the wings are removed. It would make things a lot easier to live with. But there turns out to be a lot of mechanical complexity in doing it that way. The center part of the wing would have to protrude far enough outside the airframe that we'd have a challenge in making the wing pieces line up exactly right (OK, not all that hard, but a lot of extra complication). So it looks like the gear legs will be under the wing, and a simple plywood cradle for the fuselage solves the "move it" problem. The other challenge involves the design of the tail. This one ain't no baby buggy! As is, I am projecting 160 MPH cruise (on 4 gallons per hour fuel burn!) I'm working out how to build the tail so that the stabilizer (normally the fixed surface) can be adjusted (in flight) to provide longitudinal trim force without a lot of extra drag to slow it down. This is not unusual on larger aircraft, but on one so small (and it is TINY), it is a real challenge. (Extra weight that far back is a killer!) Estimated cost for the thing is about 4 grand. (except for the bubble canopy - might be another 500-800 or so there. No valid quotes yet.) Not too bad though. Well, enough of that. Let's go find a sucker to sploosh! Richard |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol Plans...
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:29:05 -0500, "Jean-Paul Roy"
wrote: Monty, I'm glad you made this intervention here. The Texas Parasol always attracted me as a project after my actual plane (CH701) is finished, just for the sake of enjoying building something. I downloaded the plans from Matronic last week and I was just going to send Richard $30.00 for his CD or DVD. As of NOW the files are DELETED and you just saved me $30.00. Thanks Jean-Paul (back to the 701 construction) Roy 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. *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com *** |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol Plans...
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol Plans...
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 06:35:38 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote: 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 either take the plans off the internet or publish all the details relating to their structural deficiencies along with the plans or get the design structurally fixed then you can have a truce. another death from those plans and you will be crucified. Stealth Pilot |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol Plans...
either take the plans off the internet or publish all the details relating to their structural deficiencies along with the plans or get the design structurally fixed then you can have a truce. another death from those plans and you will be crucified. Stealth Pilot HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT A.N.Y.O.N.E HAS DIED AS A RESULT OF ANY STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS I RESENT THE HELL OUT OF THAT, YOU BLOODY STALKING MORON! POST YOUR LONG LIST OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIED FROM _ANY_ PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRETY OF THE PLANE. MAY I KINDLY SUGGEST YOU GO **** UP A ROPE. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol Plans...
Jean-Paul Roy wrote: Monty, I'm glad you made this intervention here. The Texas Parasol always attracted me as a project after my actual plane (CH701) is finished, just for the sake of enjoying building something. I downloaded the plans from Matronic last week and I was just going to send Richard $30.00 for his CD or DVD. As of NOW the files are DELETED and you just saved me $30.00. The Sky Pup: http://www.skypup.net/ is a scratch built ultralight. Pretty good plans are available and it has a good safety record. There are several flying, several more under construction, and an active builders/users/ club (note, not a group, a club on Yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Skypup-club/ First time builders claim to have comkpleted theirs within the 400 hour estimare. Cost depends mostly on how much you pay for the engine and prop. The dry weight of the prototype was 200 lbs and it was designed for 400 lbs gross, by real engineers. -- FF |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Richard Lamb and the Texas Parasol Plans ...and Sirius Aviation | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 12 | August 9th 05 08:00 PM |
want to trade 601 plans for 701 plans | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | January 27th 05 07:50 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
Texas Soars into Aviation History | A | Piloting | 7 | December 17th 03 02:09 AM |
good book about prisoners of war | Jim Atkins | Military Aviation | 16 | August 1st 03 10:18 AM |