Cheap 2 seater anyone?

[Marty_d]

Thanks Alan, the tailwheel is safely back with me, waiting for its next adventure. Perhaps on a delta...What about the Airstralia Budgie? An iconic Aussie bird and a play on the word "budget" which is the aim of the aircraft.

Yes, but if someone used one for nefarious purposes, it may become the "Budgie Smuggler". Probably wouldn't want that.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I know it's already been used, - and please don't take offence - but I think "Guppy" fits somehow!

 

 

[Litespeed]

Hi Alan,

 

Hadn't been on this forum for quite a while- WoW, you have been busy.

 

Keep it up and I look forward to progress.

 

As far as the trolls go- I always think "Its hard to fly like a Eagle, when your surrounded by Turkeys".

 

Bugger them and keep it public for the education of us all.

 

As far as the design goes a few comments-

 

I, as a known pauper and general cheapskate, like the use of non avaition metals wherever suitable- so a big tick on that.

 

Cheaper the better.

 

Easier/faster to build, the better.

 

The more robust/bush/beach friendly the better.

 

From what I can tell from the pics- it has a substantial front frame- I like that, some crash protection is always high on my list.

 

Having the engine up high, whilst not pretty does mean the pilot does not end as a crash barrier for the engine.

 

The whole folding bit is brilliant- I never envision having a hangar so, trailer it must be.

 

Big ticks all round from me.

 

I do like the idea of having metal skins though on the wings/ and or fuse. Purely to reduce the cost of paint for us cheaparses and I love polished metal.

 

Great effort so far and keep it up.

 

I would love to help build but we are too far apart.

 

I can certainly help with a nice hand formed engine cowl though when the time comes, to pretty up the little beasty. I have hammers waiting.

 

Great work.

 

Phil:naughty:

 

As for a name - how about Sky Devil? or Bush Devil or since it is for low and slow- Sky Hook.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Yes, but if someone used one for nefarious purposes, it may become the "Budgie Smuggler". Probably wouldn't want that.

The Budgie Smuggler has indeed been already used by a well known politician- he keeps his brain there.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Another name just hit me-

 

Airstralia Australis...........or Duetto................Or for the play on words .......Cockatoo ( suitable for flight for one cock or two, and the have a big beak) or Kookaburra- might not be fast but always gets the last laugh. Or maybe even just Parrot.

 

All these above I like- much more marketable than Wombat, Numbat- or though if 2 stroke vibration is the thing- may be Numnuts.

 

All is good jest:cheers:

 

Phil

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I do like the idea of having metal skins though on the wings/ and or fuse. Purely to reduce the cost of paint for us cheaparses and I love polished metal.....I would love to help build but we are too far apart.

 

I can certainly help with a nice hand formed engine cowl though when the time comes, to pretty up the little beasty. I have hammers waiting.

Hi Phil,

 

Welcome back to Recflying.

 

Metal wings, hmmm, yes I know but ... no. This is going to be a much lighter wing and being biplane it's very strong. With fabric wings it'll also fit the European 450kg microlight class, and the long wing version (haven't mentioned that on this forum before) will fit the motorglider category, so fabric it is. But don't panic, there's no paint on the plane at all. The whole fabric thing has been quite a headache but I finally got it all worked out and trialled last weekend. The fabrics are all pre-sewn and coloured Dacron (just order your colour scheme when you order your kit) and then a unique system will be used to tension them without battens. No heatshrink, no dope, no paint. Coverings should only take a day or two to install and then you'd be ready to fly, instead of weeks messing about with dope and paint (or prep and primer and paint on metal).

 

The forward fuselage is all thin GRP and clear polycarbonate skinned, the aft fuselage has to be fabric to allow the collapsing system that permits it to fold, so since there has to be some fabric on it, the wings and tail might as well be fabric as well. And it saves having to install about 3000 rivets then prep and paint it all. If you wanted polished aly skins you'd have to use 2024T3 Alclad and it'd add a couple of grand to the kit cost.

 

Yes, shame you're not up here, I'll be looking for someone to help put the prototype together fairly soon now.

 

An engine cowling is definitely on the cards, it would be nice with a cowling like the Sigma 4, but a fair bit smaller to fit the MZ202 engine -

 

 

 

 

[Litespeed]

Fair enough about the covering, I will just have to find other ways for my shiny metal fetish- the cowl.

 

Glad to be back

 

Phil

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Hi Alan,

 

Looking real nice, how about for a name... Stormbird 1 or Oz Stormbird or just Stormbird... keep up the good work mate..I don't live far away if you ever need a dogsbody to give you a hand.. just give us a yell..

 

David

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

My Corella uses a thin fiberglass and polycarbonate at the front of the fuselage as well and Dacron pre sewn wing skins that uses straps with cam locks to pull on tight

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

My Corella uses a thin fiberglass and polycarbonate at the front of the fuselage as well and Dacron pre sewn wing skins that uses straps with cam locks to pull on tight

Interesting - I haven't heard of a Corella aircraft - any pictures? Is this the UD2 in your sig line? If so, being a Cohen I imagine it's a bit Thrusterish? If the tensioning is done with camlocks I'm guessing they pull spanwise (toward the wing root, pulling the port and stbd wing fabrics together over a tapered wing? Or do they provide the spanwise tensioning and battens provide it chordwise?

 

On the C2S (call it that for now) I want to stick with rectangular conventional (ribs, not battens) wings and control surfaces so I can't use taper or battens to tighten the fabrics. What I've come up with is very simple because the wing, tail and control surface fabrics are just flat sheets with a seam around the edge then a few hours with some lengths of thin stainless rod, lots of thin cord and a hot knife - sounds agricultural in print but should be quite elegant in the flesh. It's not a method that would work on many designs, it's only suited to this one because the rear spar is a C section and the flaps and ailerons have their own round spar which is hinged from bushings at each end rather than being hinged directly off the wing's rear spar.

 

I'd be really interested in pics of your Corella

 

 

[Greg Spiers]

Thank you Alan.

 

If you actually get to read this after all the others and their wish lists it is refreshing to see people wanting to get back to basics and for good reason. I am now venturing into Gyros because of being driven out of fixed wing by elitism, cost, the need for additional study/exams when I have been flying for years and proximity to airports. Just like GA it just gets harder, more costly and lots less fun. The most fun I have had other than flying helicopters for some years was in a drifter and my own PA22. 60 to 80 knots, watch the would pass under you peacefully, get to see stuff like crocs, buffs, lizards, even watch a bit of a cricket game from the best seat in the house. String bag aircraft are even better now with the availability of reliable engines, good technology in metals and fabrics and they don't have to cost a bomb. I am staggered at the cost of LSA aircraft given they don't contain anywhere near the value in materials, your paying for someone else' development when it's all been done before (don't get me wrong, Gyros are the same). I completely rebuilt my PA22 (Piper Colt 108) from the ground up, myself, under distant supervision, for $8,000, an engine was going to cost me $35,000 but I could rebuild it for about $10,000.

 

Back to basics guys, it's much more fun!!

 

Greg

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Back to basics guys, it's much more fun!!

My sentiments exactly ...

 

Time for an update, thanks for the reminder Greg.

 

I haven't been able to give up my day job yet, in fact that's been rather busy lately so progress on the C2S has suffered as a consequence. I did have a good run at it before work took priority again, and the end of the design phase is actually in sight now. I've got as far as finalising the control geometry and starting to develop the CNC cutting files for the gussets and brackets.

 

Here are some screen-shots of detail, disregard the apparent misalignment of the ball in some rod-ends, that's deliberate to determine the max amount of flex in guided push-rods at extremes of travel (it's 3mm over 1240mm for anyone who's interested).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Loving your work and ideas. Just 3 questions. What program are you using? Can you take measurements direct from each part, ie, no need to draw plans? In the 2nd image, it's not clear to me, how you've connected you aileron push rod at the spar end. Would you be so kind as to post a detailed imaged?

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you want to convert a scale drawing, even a pdf to CAD (raster system), I've bought the system from pdf2cad.com and it is very simple.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Loving your work and ideas. Just 3 questions. What program are you using? Can you take measurements direct from each part, ie, no need to draw plans? In the 2nd image, it's not clear to me, how you've connected you aileron push rod at the spar end. Would you be so kind as to post a detailed imaged?

Hi Doug,

 

AutoCAD, yes everything is modelled at full-size so you can dimension or measure directly off the model. Some of those images are in perspective projection and others are in parallel, but that's only for the rendering, in modelspace it's all isometric.

 

Although I can build the prototype direct from the model I will be doing the detailing (creating the shop drawings) as well so that I can distribute the drawings to workshops in China, India, Mexico, USA etc to get quotes for parts production. Not sure what the last part of your question is about (the bit about "at the spar end") - the pushrod runs parallel to the spar. [EDIT - got it now, I wasn't reading the question right, so the images should answer your question]. The port and starboard aileron pushrods link together via two bellcranks under the seats/central member, then each of them run parallel to the main spar of the lower wing, supported by a pair of pillow blocks attached to the spars, they terminate outboard at a half-span bellcrank which is housed in a fitting that also connects the compression strut and one end of one of the drag/anti-drag wires. The bellcrank is offset to provide Ackerman effect for differential motion to the ailerons (more up than down) and it turns the push/pull motion from side-to-side to fore-and-aft to connect to the control horn of the aileron on the lower wing.

 

Connected at a point in the same (horizontal) plane as the hingeline of the aileron is an interplane pushrod that runs in the same (vertical) plane as the N frame and it joins to the upper aileron also in the plane of its horizontal hingeline. Keeping that pushrod's connection in the hingeline plane is important or the upper wing's aileron will not have the same geometry as the lower wing's aileron. That's a bit annoying because it would be easier to connect the interplane pushrod to the top of the lower aileron and the bottom of the upper aileron, but you can't ... and I've located it in the same vertical plane as the N frame so that it is in the N frame's wake and shouldn't add any drag at all.

 

The pushrod has to go out to a half-span bellcrank because there are flaps on the inboard half of all four wings - they are operated by using their spar tubes as torque tubes and those tubes extend into the cabin behind the seats, and pushrods from the flap lever connect direct to the upper flap spar tubes. The lower flaps are operated by pushrods connecting the upper-to-lower similar to the aileron arrangement but inside the cabin rather than external.

 

Not sure if that's what you were asking about though, but here are close-ups of the outboard bellcrank -

 

 

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Whether you'd need a twin endorsement or not isn't really the issue. A 95:10 aircraft isn't limited in the number of engines and can be flown with an RAAus certificate so it could have 20 engines (or motors if electric for example) placed anywhere you like and you don't need a multi-engine endorsement. But - 95:10 aircraft are limited to one seat.And - 95:25 specifically states one engine and one propellor, so you can't have more than one engine or one engine driving two propellors or one engine and no propellor (i.e. a jet). 95:25 aircraft can have one or two seats.

 

If you built a push-pull twin engined two seater then it would have to be in GA experimental category which means you need a PPL with DL(aviation) medical at the very least and would have to have a multi-engine endorsement. Actually I'm not even sure you could fly it with the reduced medical requirement if it's a twin, you might have to have the Class 2 medical.

 

The quick single handed folding method is sorted, less than 2 minutes with ease, no controls to disconnect, just rip a metre of velcro, pull out two pip pins, unclip one rigging cable connection, fold two different items, replace two pip pins in different locations to secure everything for trailering or compact storage (dimensions 5.8m long, 2.2m wide, 2.1m high). Any guesses?

CAO 95.25 no longer exists. Are you looking at a kit, for -19 registration; or are you looking at a complete aeroplane? If it's the latter, then you need to start with the design standard and the category limitations, and design from there. Do NOT make the mistake of building the aeroplane first, and then trying to fit it into a certification category; if your product needs a TC, you have to design compliance into it.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

CAO 95.25 no longer exists. Are you looking at a kit, for -19 registration; or are you looking at a complete aeroplane? If it's the latter, then you need to start with the design standard and the category limitations, and design from there. Do NOT make the mistake of building the aeroplane first, and then trying to fit it into a certification category; if your product needs a TC, you have to design compliance into it.

Yes, 95.55. 95.25 was a typo, corrected later in the thread IIRC. Certainly a kit initially, for ABLE under 95.55 1.2 (e) and it could probably also be built as ABE for GA registration and flown with an RPL for those who get tired of the RAA debacle.

 

Yes, aware of the F37 ASTMs compliance requirements, thanks.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Thanks for the detailed explano H.

 

 

[Modelmakeroz]

Thanks for the input and yes well that's a thought but wasn't really the intention. Then I'd have to direct people to it or chase traffic. I'm not interested in that, the point is that I can just get on and build it myself, I know where I'm headed with it. The reason for posting it up here, where there's already a bunch of interested people, was to try and get more people enthused with the whole design process and spread a bit of information about basic design and show how simple it can be. Perhaps get more people into building from scratch or kits as well, especially if they can see how some designs aren't as complex as others.

Alan,

I've just discovered this thread. I'm researching various threads as I'm coming from a long way behind. I intend to continue with the thread until the end as I'm finding it very interesting. I would like to get involved in the project, I want my own plane and this ticks a lot of boxes.

 

I don't know how to PM anyone, butvI definitely want to follow the development.

 

Regards,

 

Mike

 

 

[robinsm]

There is still cheap 2 seater flying available, I bought a kit, put it together and leaned to fly in it all for less than $26000. Beats the crap out of the price of a plastic, admittedly, 55kts but you cant have everything...

 

 

[rankamateur]

Although I can build the prototype direct from the model I will be doing the detailing (creating the shop drawings) as well so that I can distribute the drawings to workshops in China, India, Mexico, USA etc to get quotes for parts production.

Isn't this exactly the same thing as giving your design away? BRM Land Africa was stolen from ICP Italy on a CD, You will be freely giving your design away entirely.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Isn't this exactly the same thing as giving your design away? BRM Land Africa was stolen from ICP Italy on a CD, You will be freely giving your design away entirely.

Well the Savannah itself is hardly an original design...

 

Let's face it though, you can have the complete plans of most kit aircraft for a few hundred dollars anyway, if someone wants to copy it they don't have to break the bank doing so.

 

 

[skeptic36]

I don't know how to PM anyone, butvI definitely want to follow the development.

Click on their Avatar, then a box will appear that has an option to " start a conversation"

 

 

[Modelmakeroz]

Click on their Avatar, then a box will appear that has an option to " start a conversation"

Great thanks

 

 

[Modelmakeroz]

There is still cheap 2 seater flying available, I bought a kit, put it together and leaned to fly in it all for less than $26000. Beats the crap out of the price of a plastic, admittedly, 55kts but you cant have everything...

Rob,

Is your Xair foldable trailerable?