A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Texas Parasol Plans...

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 12th 06, 07:59 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

I was trained to audit blueprints for errors but the errors in the
Parasol drawings will be obvious to all -- compare the dimensions of
the cabanes to the width of the fuselage, or the dimensions shown for
the landing gear/strut carry-throughs.

Since the parts don't fit, the plane won't fly, which makes any
question of safety moot. But in the process of discovering that you'll
**** away a lot of money on metal that will end up being unusable.

Do how do these plans look? Does everything look like it would work, now?
Jim in NC
Old February 12th 06, 02:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

Morgans wrote:

Do how do these plans look? Does everything look like it would work, now?


Dear Jim,

The drawings Richard posted are the same garbage he was flogging for
$80 a copy four years ago. The cabanes and the carry-throughs for the
LG & struts appear to be for a fuselage that is 24" wide whereas the
fuselage as shown is only 22". The drawings do not contain enough data
to develop the angles of either the axle-carrier cluster or the rear LG
'gooseneck' where it attaches to the carry-throughs. The LG yoke does
not match the hole locations shown for its attachment to the front
carry-through and if the carry-throughs are attached as shown then
either the location for the landing gear attachment OR the strut
attachment will be in error since doing it one way violates the rule
for edge-distance whilst doing it the other requires re-locating the
carry-through... which throws out the locations for all of the other
structural members in that portion of the fuselage.

The point here is that Richard's statement about flying a plane built
from those drawings is pure Texas bull****. He built an airplane and
it flew but when the errors became evident and several of us asked him
to provide various dimensions from that airplane he simply refused to
do so. Rather curious behavior for the 'designer' of an airplane,
don't you think?

Work it out for yourself, Jim. Take your yo-yo and a piecea cardboard
and simply lay-out the forward carry-through. The errors are immediate
obvious and on the surface, don't look too serious. Now try resolving
them. You've got the point where the carry-thrus attach to the lower
longerons and that's pretty much fixed because you've already
fabricated the side-frames. Now you've got to accommodate the LG yoke,
the landing gear leg and the strut attachment. That's where you'll run
into conflict, espeically so if you've already drilled the
carry-throughs... which are now junk because the holes are in the wrong
locations. (Along with those four cabanes, if you bent them according
to the plans.)

So what are you going to move? The fasteners for the landing gear legs
must ALIGN between the front & rear carry-throughs, otherwise the legs
won't pivot. But the flanges of the forward carry-throughs are NOT
parallel to each other because of the curvature of the lower longeron
-- you'll run out of edge-distance before you get the legs to align
WITHOUT interference with either the longeron or the strut-end. Adjust
any one of the errors to fit and the result will create a conflict with
the other two points of attachment. And we're looking at some
significant loads here; forward wing strut, forward landing gear leg,
all of which goes into the carry-throughs then into the longeron
attachment. You wanna GUESS at the dimesions? Because that's what it
boils down to.

This is all simple geometry, Jim, right there in front of you on the
drawings. Richard finally admitted that he more-or-less built the
landing gear in-place, which means he KNEW the drawings were bull****.
So what did he change? What were the dimensions of the finished
structure? And that's where he goes all coy and sez he'll leave it up
to you to figure out. Now isn't that cute.

Will it fly? Of course it will fly! Lookit how many 'Chuck Birds' are
already flying. But the plans Richard drew up simply don't make sense
and he's obviously incapable of correcting them.

Designer my ass.


Old February 12th 06, 04:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

In article .com,

Will it fly? Of course it will fly! Lookit how many 'Chuck Birds' are
already flying. But the plans Richard drew up simply don't make sense
and he's obviously incapable of correcting them.

One small question what's a "Chuck Bird" ? :-)

See ya

Chuck S

Old February 12th 06, 05:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Chuck Beeson and his Texas Chuckbirds

Reproduced (with permission) from Experimenter magazine.

Chuck Beeson and his Texan Chuckbirds

by Dick Cavin
June 1988

Unless you attended the EAA South-west Regional Fly-In at
Kerrville, Texas the past six years you have probably never heard of
Chuck Beeson and his ultralight-type Texan Chuckbirds. One of the
reasons for this dearth of publicity was that Chuck simply wasn't
ready for the spotlight.

Chuck is a rugged individualist. He has
spent 35 of his 52 years in aviation as a pilot and A&P. His
childhood years were spent designing and building models. In addition
to over a couple of dozen J-35, Champs and the like that he has
completely restored from bare bones, he has designed and built 29
airplanes in the ultralight weight class (or just beyond).

Of that 29, no two are exactly alike. Before ultralights came on the
scene, Chuck busied himself with the building of seven Pietenpols!
One was powered with a Chevrolet Vega engine conversion, effectively
Making it a single place with its overly heavy engine. Most of his 29
flyweights have been parasol monoplanes, but there were six biplanes
of varying configuration, one low-wing and six two-placers. In every
case except one, Chuck has designed, built and flown each airplane
(for several hours at least) before selling them to local pilots who
had the experience to take care of themselves and their airplanes.
Fourteen of them are still flying regularly from a grass roots style
airpark in suburban San Antonio where all are based. Others are
spread out over Texas. Some of the first airplanes didn't quite suit
Chuck, so he would take them apart and make a modification to correct
the deficiency, sometimes building a new fuselage, wing, or tail
group. Sometimes it meant building a new aileron, or perhaps putting
a new engine or prop on, but always it was experiment, experiment and
perfect, improving each model a little from the last one in an
ongoing evolutionary process.

Not only has Chuck had the opportunity to experiment and improve on
various airframes, but he has also evaluated several engines. In
addition to the popular Rotaxes he has tried three Zenoah engine
models and most recently the Subaru. He has also used Continental
A-65s in a couple of models, but removed them in favor of the two
cycle engines because the lighter weight two cycles give improved
performance. With their gear boxes the torque of the two cycles was
multiplied so that their thrust was as good or better than the A-65,
even though their horsepower was less. Chuck favors the Zenoah 40 hp
liquid cooled engine for his parasol kits. He has several of them
flying with this engine and four of them have gone over 400 hours
with only plug changes and no other problems. Not only are they
light, but they're also cheap, since they are a surplus engine 10,000
were on the market at one time. Combined with a Rotax 2.58:1 gearbox
and a Tennessee 60" x 28" wood prop, the Zenoah engine
makes a dependable powerplant package that's hard to beat for thrust,
weight . . . and cost. It also is a very smooth running engine from
idle rpm to full power. Chuck originally used the two-cylinder
opposed Zenoah that was air cooled, but after three over-temperature
seizures he said, "Enough is enough", and went to liquid-cooled Zenoahs
in the 40 and 50 hp range.

He is exceptionally pleased with the Subaru engine, too, having flown
it on his latest parasol and a new biplane prototype, which features a
swept upper wing for ease of entry to the cockpit. Not only is it smooth
as silk, it is super easy to start. He has flown it direct drive and with a
cog belt speed reduction unit that machinist friend Tom Arnold made
for it. Presently Chuck leans toward the direct drive unit, as the
excess of horsepower and low wing loading give him adequate take off
and climb performance and better cruise. For those tiny fields,
though, the increased thrust from the belt drive reduction is the
logical choice. It will pull a healthy static thrust of 287 lbs., so
this will also be a plus factor for high altitude take offs.

Chuck's philosophy towards kit purchasers is to eliminate every
material or process that demands much in the way of skills, tools,
and time for the first-time builder. Of course, the builder will
still have to complete over 51 percent of the work if the aircraft is
to be registered in the experimental amateur built category, which
most certainly will. The simplicity and straightforwardness of
Chuck's basic design not only reduces the required hours of building
for the beginner, but also does the same thing at the manufacturing
level. Chuck says he has been able to eliminate about 100 man hours
of labor with his progressive design refinements. /P
This philosophy dictates the use of extruded aluminum angle for the
fuselage structure, which not only is lighter, but also is actually
stronger than a welded steel tube structure. He uses 3/4 inch x 1/8
inch 6061 T-6 angle for the basic fuselage structure, with larger
one-inch by one-inch by 1/8 inch angle used in concentrated load
areas. It is joined together with regular 1/8 inch universal head
solid AN rivets (not pop rivets) with two rivets per joint minimum.
How strong is the fuselage? With it supported on both ends, Chuck
loaded fifteen 80 lb. sacks of cement in the middle of the fuselage
(1200 lbs. total) without measurable deflection. Rotating it 90
degrees produced the same result. If one supports a soda straw at
each end it doesn't take much pressure to collapse it in the middle,
while an angle is much more resistant to buckling, explained Chuck.
While welded steel tube structures may be adequate in strength for
the loads imposed on them in service, there is no comparison in the
required building time.

Chuck says he can easily build a fuselage in two days, using simple
table top assembly jigs, while a welded structure would require five
to eight times as many man hours. Besides costing more in labor and
materials, the steel tube structure would still be subject to rust
and corrosion. If stringers are added for shape it would also mean
welding stub tubes with angle fittings, where on the aluminum
structure it only means a simple angle clip to be riveted on. Basic
fuselage weight is a svelte 24 lbs. In his basic "no
weldment" concept Chuck only uses one welded assembly - at the
apex of each landing gear vee, as it is tied to the axle and center
strut with 1/4 inch AN bolts. Even the engine mount uses the heavier
one-inch by one-inch by 1/8 inch extruded angles, again bolted with
AN bolts. Here he uses two parallel angles per side, running fore and
aft, and separated with two Lord mounts per side. These in turn are
attached to bracing vees that tie them to the fuselage structure via

The landing gear is strictly J-3, with shock cord on each center
strut absorbing landing loads. For simplicity, Chuck uses a single
curved tube (instead of a vee) to feed loads from the shock cord
units into the transverse double angles that also pick up compression
loads from the front vee strut on the side. These double angles are
in parallel, with the tube in between secured with a bolt that ties
all three pieces together. This also permits some rotational movement
of the vee struts at their top end. Wheels are 5 inch plastic go-kart
wheels. No brakes are used on the ultralight version. Wherever
aluminum tubing is used on the airplane Chuck ties it into the
fuselage structure with either angles or flat straps on each side of
the tube and secures it with bolts.

In higher load areas, such as attachment points of the lift struts to
the fuselage, he uses one or more doubler tubes of .058 wall inside
the outer tube the last six inches. At the other end where these
1-3/8 inch by .035 lift struts tie to the 2 inch by .049 tubular
spars he uses two .090 stainless steel plates on each side, slightly
joggled to mate with both tube diameters, again using 1/4 inch bolts
through the neutral axis of both the spars and lift struts. The jury
struts are one inch by .049 inch tubing, tied to the spars and lift
struts with stainless steel straps that go over and under the tubes
and are blind riveted. Chuck originally had vee type lift struts
(like a J-3) on his first one, but removed them and went to parallel
struts when he found the arrangement too flexible with the pylon type
cabane he uses. To pick up drag loads he supplemented the lift struts
with 3/32 aircraft cable in an "X" configuration between
the struts, which also picks up torsion loads at the outer strut
attach Points.

Chuck has used two different wing spans in his parasols. The kit
model has a 26 ft. span, while some earlier models had a 22 ft. span.
Chord is four feet on either. Wing area is 104 square feet on the kit
airplane. With empty weights of 240 to 250 lbs and an average payload
of 210 lbs. (five gallons of fuel and an 180 lb. pilot) the wing
loading is a modest 4.42 lbs per square foot. This translates to a
"stall" speed of about 20 mph. The airfoil Chuck uses is
his modification of a Clark Y. This gives a 14 percent thick wing
section. Ribs are all 1/2 inch Klegecell polyvinyl foam and are cut
to shape on a high speed router. Each rib takes only seconds to make
, he says, and requires no edge sanding. There are no compression
struts in the wing, as each rib has a two inch wide bent up C channel
of .025 glued alongside the rib to take compression loads. This
channel also serves to attach the ribs to the spars at each end via
blind rivets. There is a single one-inch by .049 inch drag strut
inside the wing that runs from the root end to a point about four
feet outboard.

The aileron is also simplicity itself. It is a bent up piece of .020
aluminum that is pop riveted to the 1.5 inch x .035 inch tubular
spar, top and bottom. Three piano hinges are used per side and
attached via five pop rivets and epoxy adhesive to the wing's rear
spar. Ailerons are full span and have a formed rib at each end. At
the customer's option he can have full span ailerons, half span
ailerons with half span flaps, or full span flaperons. Ailerons are
operated via push-pull tubes with self-aligning bearings that run
from a fitting at the root end of the aileron to a bellcrank at the
aft end of the stick's torque tube. No differential throw is built
in, but Chuck says that like most ultralights you have to lead turn
entry with the rudder anyway, so adverse yaw isn't a problem. With
3-1/2 degrees of dihedral and the generously sized rudder the pilot
can quite easily pick up a low wing with rudder alone.

The Chuckbird's cabane is basically a pylon where wings are attached
without a center section, thus eliminating eight fittings in the
process. The vertical cabane struts are one inch by .058 inch tubes,
which are attached to the fuselage structure with 1/8 inch thick
straps and four bolts. Coming together at the top, heavy angles in
the horizontal plane on the fore and aft sides provide a secure
attachment for the wing spars. Spars are clamped in position and
match drilled. Parallel heavy angles run fore and aft on each side of
the cabane tubes and are bolted to them and the attach angles,
closing the force box. A 1/8 inch drag strap runs diagonally forward
and down from the spar attach point to further stiffen the pylon fore
and aft.

The parasol fuselage is 16 ft. long from nose to trailing edge of the
rudder. The cockpit width is 19 inches, which would be tight in a
closed version, but since it is a fresh air machine there is no
restriction to a person's shoulders, so it is quite comfortable for
even large pilots. Entrance and egress is easy, since the upper
longeron is low enough to step over easily. Head room looks to be
adequate for even a seven footer. The canvas seat is unique. It is
adjustable fore and aft and is so designed that a person's tailbone
never comes in contact with a cross tube. Visibility over the nose is
excellent, especially since the cowling narrows down to slightly over
a foot in width at the front. The control stick is a husky one inch
by .058 inch tube, as is the torque tube. One-eighth-inch straps are
bolted to the bottom of the stick for the proper gear ratio to the
elevators, giving generous flare power at the 20 mph landing speed
without undue sensitivity at cruise. Eyebolts through the stick are
used to attach swaged ends of the 3/32 inch control cables. Teflon
bearings support the torque tube at both ends. Rudder pedals are bent
up .090 aluminum and are piano hinged to the floor. The floor itself
is a beefy sheet of .040 2024 T-3. It is riveted to the parallel
one-inch angles crossing under the fuselage at the front and rear
spar attach points, transferring the higher loads of the lift struts
and landing gear to the fuselage structure, giving a "wider
footprint" to load paths.

The five-gallon tank sits forward of the instrument panel and is an
off-the- shelf PVC snowmobile tank. There is a half-round shaped
piece of .020 over it that is pop riveted to a 1/2 inch tube at the
top of the firewall. The cowling itself is all metal and attached to
the firewall top and bottom and to a 1/8 inch by 1/2 inch strip
standing away from the sides for engine air exit. Even though the
engine is liquid cooled and the radiator is hung below the firewall a
generously sized opening in the front of the cowl is a big help in
keeping engine temperature well within bounds on those blistering
95-100 degree Texas summer days (a big plus in engine reliability).
The tail group is built from one inch by .049 tubes, with the curved
ends made in a forming jig. The stabilizer/elevator spans 8 ft. The
elevator spar is one inch by .058 inch, while other tubes are one
inch by .049 inch. Formed .020 aluminum ribs give shape between the
tubes. Two double eyebolts are used for each elevator hinge. Bracing
is via a 3/32 inch cable that ties horizontal and vertical tail spars
together. No turubuckles are used on any part of the airframe, thus
saving 15-20 lbs. of weight and at about $15.00 each, it saves
significant money, too. Chuck uses a simple trick to tauten the
cables. He uses "master" cable with a turubuckle to make up
a finished cable. With a "tang" fitting and a long bolt he
can pull them up tight. Slick!

Chuck uses Stits HS90X fabric for covering the entire airplane,
attaching it to the ribs and other structure with Super Seam
adhesive. He likes Stits because the warp and woof weave are equal, a
help in heat shrinking. The turtle deck uses Klegecell formers and
one inch x 1/4 inch wood stringers and he attaches the fabric to it
in the same manner, so no rib stitching is used on the entire
airplane, making the 100-hour building time from the kit a reasonable

After taking in all these top flight construction details, would you
believe that Chuck has built all of these 29 airplanes without ever
drawing a single line of plans? He has done it all from what was
stored in his memory and from experience! They have all flown well,
but the latest parasol flies the best yet, he says. Chuck's
philosophy on kitting an airplane is on the conservative side. He
thinks it is wrong for someone to build a prototype and then
immediately start selling plans and kits. His airplanes have now
accumulated well over 3000 hours with no structural problems, so he
now feels he is safe in offering it in kit form. Even so he has hired
a consulting engineering firm to do a computer verification of the
structure. They do corroborate his static tests of a + 3.5 and -1-1/2
G loading. On one wing test to 3.5 Gs the spars were deflected 18
inches before the load was released, and they returned to position
without any permanent set. The engineers are also drawing up an
excellent set of (dimensionless) assembly drawings to guide the new
builder. He will also do a step-by-step video of the entire building
process for each kit purchaser. The video will include the final
covering of the wing and fuselage, plus rigging and test flying. You
might well ask what Chuck's next kit will be. It might be his new
Subaru powered biplane - after sufficient testing. He is now building
his version of a 1909 Bleriot just for the fun of it, something he
values highly.

Because he treasures the joy of sport flying around the
grass-root-type airports, he doesn't want to greatly expand his
production and be saddled with all kinds of big business money
worries. He just wants to make still another RHLA (Real Honest Light
Airplane) available for the average guy who wants to fly. Chuck
prices the parasol airframe kit at $3995, which includes everything
aft of the firewall except instruments, dope or glue. He will furnish
a firewall forward kit for $1,000, which includes the water cooled 40
hp Zenoah, muffler, cowling, engine mount and propeller. He will
continue to build the ultralight version, ready to fly, for $6995 for
those who have no place or time to build. All hardware is AN quality.
I think it is safe to say that we'll be seeing Chuckbirds in a good
many other parts of the country as their reputation spreads.
Old February 12th 06, 05:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

Rich any more info on this crash? I haven't heard about it .Usually any time a
Hawk goes in I hear about it.

That's what I wanted to contact you about.

I couldn't raise you via email, hence the (old fashioned)
airport page. (Guess ya had to be there...)

This is probably best discussed off-line?

Old February 12th 06, 06:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article .com,

Will it fly? Of course it will fly! Lookit how many 'Chuck Birds' are
already flying. But the plans Richard drew up simply don't make sense
and he's obviously incapable of correcting them.

One small question what's a "Chuck Bird" ? :-)

This construction method was developed by Chuck Beeson, thus the "Chuck
Bird". When Richard started drawing up the construction plans and
selling them, the name changed to the Texas Parasol.

R.S. Hoover, Juan Lozano and I had some dialog with Richard Back In The
Day about the way the wing struts were attached to the spars, and the
use of fasteners in tension rather than shear, and he more or less blew
us off.

I think the design is generally OK (it's the DETAILS that look hinky),
and a good starting point for an experienced builder to improvise, but
as a design capable of construction by a first time builder straight
from the plans, it's on par with a Teenie Two, which is damining with
the faintest of praise.


I respect Richard for the effort of drawing up the plans and the
manual, and for, after an unsatisfactory experience with Sirius
Aviation (regrettably not uncommon), putting the plans into the public
domain. Perhaps a Open Source effort can iron out the difficulties
R.S. Hoover and others have pointed out.

Old February 12th 06, 06:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

In article .net, Richard Lamb

This is probably best discussed off-line?

Hi Richard
Makes no difference to me except it probably wouldn't be of interest to many
here on RAH. Drop me a note at with any info you

See ya
Chuck S

Old February 12th 06, 10:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default CGS Hawk Rumor Retraction - and a public apology

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.


Richard Lamb

Old February 12th 06, 10:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article .net, Richard Lamb

This is probably best discussed off-line?

Hi Richard
Makes no difference to me except it probably wouldn't be of interest to many
here on RAH. Drop me a note at with any info you

See ya
Chuck S

Since I brought it up here, I thought it best to correct it here.

Again. my apologies.

Old February 12th 06, 11:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

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

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

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!



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.