Hummel bird build

[Riley]

I now have my hands on both sets of plans (the correct ones), although the DVD still hasn't arrived from Hummel I have gone over the plans and manual for it and all seems well explained in a step by step kind of way so i would feel comfortable enough building it. I have had a brief look over the CX4's plans and have found them, well, confusing. There is allot of colour photos throughout the builders manual but seems to lack "method", but like its only been brief. For example, the spar and wing construction is listed on the first two pages of the manual and isn't to much more descriptive then " the wing spar and center section spar are clamped, drilled and set for the 7" dihedral" then starts with fitting the ribs.I haven't ruled out it yet but at this stage the hummel plans are much better written and drawn, but i do prefer the CX4 as an AC.

 

If anyone has built a CX that can give me some info or feedback would be great

 

AGGGH! Decisions

You have a PM regarding an experienced sardine can builder.

 

 

[ben87r]

Hey Ruffas, Is that you that you that you that i emailed the other day off the yahoo group? It just seems like a much more confusing build, I don't think it would be much more harder but the Hummel is much better laid out, more full size parts on the plans and a step by step "dummies" manual. I at this point cant work out how to start apart from make the work table. There is no doubt that $$ and build difficulty aside the CX would be a bigger, faster better plane but not sure if i could build it with my knowledge and experience

 

Thanks Riley! Much appreciated

 

 

[ben87r]

Right!! After speaking to a guy today who has built both, decision is made!! CX4 is on the go. In the garage now building the table. Hour 1! thousand or so to go!

 

 

[ben87r]

For anyone interested this thread continues here http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/thatcher-cx4-build.43045/ Cheers

 

 

[foxworker]

I cant find one of my good drawings to show, but I will try to explain;[ATTACH=full]17502[/ATTACH]

This is a project I have on hold, that was to use a R503 mounted upright with the gearbox also upright, and having cheek cowls like a flat motor.

 

On one side is the carbi's and filter(s), on the other side is the exhaust.

 

These items are more or less in line with the prop shaft so the effect is quite neat.

 

More of this project at; https://plus.google.com/photos/113292981019876413104/albums/5194978509871592929?banner=pwa

 

I'll get back to it one day.

 

Arthur.

Mate, that is beautiful. Absolutely top notch workmanship.

 

 

[facthunter]

The half VW would be difficult to get that power from. Often they leave the entire original crankcase and modify the crank. Weight is your problem and I reckon the aircraft needs 50 HP to fly to it's design potential. This does tend to point to the 503. I don't like the two stroke particularly, but power for weight they are there.. An aircooled Norton Wankel might be the go, if you can source one. By the time you build a good 1/2 VW you might almost have built the entire engine, with out the design compromise that using part of a car engine brings. Nev

 

 

[pylon500]

Mate, that is beautiful. Absolutely top notch workmanship.

Thanks for the compliment

It is a bit depressing to go into the hangar everyday, knowing it's sitting over there gathering dust.

 

 

Just too many things have turned up in the last few years (usually that I thought I could knock over pretty quickly), and I seem to have a problem saying NO to people.

 

I currently have four flyable aircraft in my hangar, two that I use for training, (NONE of them mine).

 

My Stollite got stuck mid engine change, when my Lightwing got damaged, and I'm not sure what the future is for Lightwings, so it's on hold.

 

 

 

I don't have the room to restart the LR-2 project, and in the meantime I had agreed to rebuild and re-register an imported Petrel amphibian, which went all pear shaped.

 

 

I had bought a wrecked Murphy Renegade biplane, that I thought I could quickly modify and fit a Rotec radial to, but had to put it aside to rebuild my Lightwing (see above).

 

 

My 'T-Star', which ground to a halt when I retired and built a hangar and house after moving to Taree, never restarted as the LR-2 sort of made it obsolete, although I'm now looking at it and thinking of extending the wingtips and going back to the original motor glider idea.

 

 

Add to that the BD-5 kits I have waiting to be re-arranged into something that will fit into 19-xxxx, then the assorted things that need to be done around the house.

 

Planning a rear deck soon...

 

Somehow I managed to sneak off to Oshkosh this year

 

I do a few hours a week instructing, and now I'm assisting someone to build one of my designs in the hangar also.

 

Good thing I'm retired 'cause I'm dammed if I know when I would find time to work!

 

Arthur.

 

 

[paulh]

Pylon, better than moping about and following the better half around the shops!!

 

Maybe you should reinvigorate the motor glider idea - Mr Morgan also at Taree I believe seems to be making progress with his, and looking to fill a market gap ie affordable, low running cost etc

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

I cant find one of my good drawings to show, but I will try to explain;[ATTACH=full]17502[/ATTACH]

This is a project I have on hold, that was to use a R503 mounted upright with the gearbox also upright, and having cheek cowls like a flat motor.

 

On one side is the carbi's and filter(s), on the other side is the exhaust.

 

These items are more or less in line with the prop shaft so the effect is quite neat.

 

More of this project at; https://plus.google.com/photos/113292981019876413104/albums/5194978509871592929?banner=pwa

 

I'll get back to it one day.

 

Arthur.

Sorry to be a gloomy bastard... I've worked up a design like that, but (by standard analysis) the mongrel is unstable in pitch in the balked landing case (or hauling it off the ground early), because of the high prop efficiency of the 503 (geared)... works fine with a DD VW, but the power to weight goes down the sink. Technically, it's an ASTM 2205 (LSA) non-compliance, but I suppose you could go experimental and be careful

 

 

[Riley]

pylon500 stated "......when my Lightwing got damaged and I'm not sure what the future is for Lightwing so it's on hold"

 

Arthur, are your concerns regarding the viability of rebuilding your Lightwing based on how it would fit back into your training operations or is the reluctance couched around the long term prospects of Lightwing's ability to remain in the recreational flying arena? Owning two (one for sale and one a write-off) I'm deeply interested in the basis of your reticence. cheers Riley

 

 

[pylon500]

My concerns with the Lightwing (and more so the rebuilding of it), stem from the fact that they grew up in a time when it would appear many of the rules were only being used as a suggestion, rather than a mandate.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the Lightwings are great machines, despite the variations one can find in them.

 

Many of these variations were indeed improvements, but I'm not sure how many of them made it into the certification packages?

 

We were all quite happy to upgrade the engines, update the airframes (LW-1 to GR582 to GR912) and try various props to suit our assorted roles, but now with the CASA witch hunt going through the RAAus, and Lightwings no longer being built (to my knowledge), it would appear that all Lightwings could be questioned regarding their 'authenticity'?

 

I am about to start finishing my Lightwing.

 

All the structure is done and I finally have room to start covering, but I still need to buy an engine and prop, and would ideally like to put it back online.

 

I just need to be able to interpret the various contradictions in the certification packages to see if I can end up with the plane I want.

 

ps, How 'written off' is that one?

 

 

[Riley]

My concerns with the Lightwing (and more so the rebuilding of it), stem from the fact that they grew up in a time when it would appear many of the rules were only being used as a suggestion, rather than a mandate.Don't get me wrong, I think the Lightwings are great machines, despite the variations one can find in them.

Many of these variations were indeed improvements, but I'm not sure how many of them made it into the certification packages?

 

We were all quite happy to upgrade the engines, update the airframes (LW-1 to GR582 to GR912) and try various props to suit our assorted roles, but now with the CASA witch hunt going through the RAAus, and Lightwings no longer being built (to my knowledge), it would appear that all Lightwings could be questioned regarding their 'authenticity'?

 

I am about to start finishing my Lightwing.

 

All the structure is done and I finally have room to start covering, but I still need to buy an engine and prop, and would ideally like to put it back online.

 

I just need to be able to interpret the various contradictions in the certification packages to see if I can end up with the plane I want.

 

ps, How 'written off' is that one?

Thanks for the enlightenment. I hear what you're saying regarding CASA's current game of holding everybody's feet to the fire irrespective (in many cases) of what has been proven operationally acceptable over the past two decades. At times I ponder whether I'll be giving up flying because I got too old or I give it away because of the ever-increasing curious crap that the authorities (both of them) have heaped on us in recent times. I'm all for any serious safety reg improvements but some of the issues raised in the past year have been beyond belief. We are but senseless sheep in the eyes of the higher-paid-help I fear. Went upcountry and pulled the wings, empennage and engine off the wrecked GA-55 over the long weekend. It came apart quite easily so on reflection, the airframe damage may not be anywhere near as horrid as first assessed. The R2800 is now boxed and ready to go back to Rotec for a bulk strip inspection but I won't really have a good picture of the rebuild prospects of the fuselage until I get it back to my hangar where we can 'square it off' and do some measurements. In the interim you wouldn't happen to know of a suitable 'firewall-aft' project laying around that would support the R2800 (say, L'wing, Chief, Luscombe, et al?). Godspeed with your rebuild. cheers Riley

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

My concerns with the Lightwing (and more so the rebuilding of it), stem from the fact that they grew up in a time when it would appear many of the rules were only being used as a suggestion, rather than a mandate.Don't get me wrong, I think the Lightwings are great machines, despite the variations one can find in them.

Many of these variations were indeed improvements, but I'm not sure how many of them made it into the certification packages?

 

We were all quite happy to upgrade the engines, update the airframes (LW-1 to GR582 to GR912) and try various props to suit our assorted roles, but now with the CASA witch hunt going through the RAAus, and Lightwings no longer being built (to my knowledge), it would appear that all Lightwings could be questioned regarding their 'authenticity'?

 

I am about to start finishing my Lightwing.

 

All the structure is done and I finally have room to start covering, but I still need to buy an engine and prop, and would ideally like to put it back online.

 

I just need to be able to interpret the various contradictions in the certification packages to see if I can end up with the plane I want.

 

ps, How 'written off' is that one?

All of them, to my understanding. The Tamworth office of the CAA/CASA kept visiting Australian Lightwing, and inspecting every single aeroplane against the design... I think Howie Hughes may have started implementing variations because he was so tired of the endless scrutiny, he figured he might as well get some use out of it. The result was he has a stack of individual "signings off" by CASA... your tax dollar at work!

Howie still has - I think - all the records, they're happily building quite a respectable LSA low-wing package these days. They're probably willing to do a little work on the high-wing aircraft, if offered money:faint:

 

 

[pylon500]

They're probably willing to do a little work on the high-wing aircraft, if offered money

Yeah, unfortunately a bit more than I think is worth.

Upon buying my very own (third hand) Lightwing, complete with it's singular approval to run a Bolly prop, and maybe a few other non approved mods, it was suggested to me that for a small fee, I could have the pilot notes, and thus certification and weights, updated to the LSA class for better utilisation.

 

When the aircraft got damaged by a student, and I started the rebuild, it became apparent that their were some vagaries to be dealt with.......

 

I would still like to point out that I feel the Lightwing is still one of the best trainers we've ever had, having only one(questionable) fatality in around thirty years of operation.

 

Many people have had their little inputs to improving the Lightwing along the way, not least of which was usually replacing Howard's 'Piece of Wood', with a decent propellor (Sweetapple, GSC, Brolga, Warp, Bolly?), or other little mods.

 

Now it's hard to know just where the Lightwing sits, and as such we are in fear of losing a great plane for the sake of pretending to be GA certified.

 

Know of a suitable 'firewall-aft' project laying around that would support the R2800?

YES, but it' mine, and you can't have it.

I'm talking about my Murphy Renegade project.....

 

https://plus.google.com/photos/113292981019876413104/albums/5517491041560340721?banner=pwa

 

There is a Murphy Rebel flying around with an R2800 up front, AND, I know where there are 2 Rebels in various states of disrepair, that could be 'moved on' to make room for other projects........

 

Arthur.

 

 

[Riley]

pylon500

 

Much appreciate the snippet regarding the existance of the 2 Rebels but unfortunately I'm restricted to looking for a project thats under the RAA 600 kg MTOW. Tho it would broaden the horizens immensely, I'm too long in the tooth to attempt to go GA now. Anyway, keep me in miond if you do happen to hear of something that might suit. cheers Riley

 

 

[Riley]

pylon500Much appreciate the snippet regarding the existance of the 2 Rebels but unfortunately I'm restricted to looking for a project thats under the RAA 600 kg MTOW. Tho it would broaden the horizens immensely, I'm too long in the tooth to attempt to go GA now. Anyway, keep me in miond if you do happen to hear of something that might suit. cheers Riley

Arthur

 

I've just been perving the Murphy website and learned the fact that there is a Rebel 'Sport' model that has a 600kg MTOW. Any chance you could check and advise whether either of the two stalled Rebel projects that you have knowledge of could be of this model rather than the conventional Rebel with an MTOW of 750kg? If so, I'd be dead keen to investigate the possibilities and am more than happy to contact the owners myself to do any sleuthing if you are free to relate their contact details. Subsequent to any favourable response I'd also like to make contact with the owner/operator of the R2800-engined Rebel you mentioned. cheers Riley

 

 

[pylon500]

Thread drrift......?

 

I'd also like to make contact with the owner/operator of the R2800-engined Rebel

Had a chat to the 'project' Rebels' owner, and both are VH (750kg) models.

The Rotec Rebel is supposed to be up this way soon, will try to find out name and details.....

 

Did find this.....

 

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Murphy-Rebel/1306842/M/

 

This is the one I'm thinking of, came through Taree about six months ago.

 

 

[Riley]

Thread drrift......?Had a chat to the 'project' Rebels' owner, and both are VH (750kg) models.

 

The Rotec Rebel is supposed to be up this way soon, will try to find out name and details.....

 

Did find this.....

 

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Murphy-Rebel/1306842/M/

 

This is the one I'm thinking of, came through Taree about six months ago.

Damn! (but I'm not surprised) Thanks for checking it out. Will now end the thread drift and revert to thinking about Hummelbirds & Lightwings. cheers

 

 

[pylon500]

Aghh, LightWings.......