Cheap 2 seater anyone?

[Head in the clouds]

Thanks for the response but the Joby doesn't do it for me. With an engine driven centrifugal set up you can keep the mass central as well as blow the wing and use the cooling and exhaust for thrust and not have the hazard of a propeller either. You could sound proof the engine pretty well too as it is well enclosed, direct drive to a fairly large dia impeller Nev

Something I don't think we ever resolved was the relative merits of centrifugal or axial blowers. I think ducting would be required for the inlet condition to the fan rather than the outlet from it so if it was axial it would need to be a ducted fan, and probably pressurise the entire wing cavity with valving on specific outlet nozzles as required... I imagine centrifugal blowers might be heavier? Any thoughts?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I had guessed from what you had written on this thread so far that "swinging" the wing was not an option hence me mentioning it to get your response. Guess that leaves the option of folding in the vertical like your current project and of course what Sonex with their "Onex" have done.Re Kunnu's. All good. Came up here in Jan 08 for what was to be 15 months managing the Argyle Diamond mine aerodrome facility. It has now been 5 years but we are heading back to Bundaberg later this year. I have a Rans S6ES kit to put together and the RV9a we have owned for a number of years to fly more frequently than has been lately. I guess you flew for Slingair / Heliwork?? I know a few of the guys there.

 

Anyway back to the topic of discussion.

 

Cheers

No, doesn't hinge up or down either...

 

Kun - Shows how wrong I can be when I makes guesses, I thought you must be up there flying for Slingair or Alligator. I didn't fly for them either, they were my very antagonistic competition, I had my own operation called Heliventures. You may know Howard James, he was CP and CFI of Heliwork last time I heard (many years ago), anyway he taught me in rotary wing before that when he had Golden West Helicopters.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Kun - Shows how wrong I can be when I makes guesses, I thought you must be up there flying for Slingair or Alligator. I didn't fly for them either, they were my very antagonistic competition, I had my own operation called Heliventures. You may know Howard James, he was CP and CFI of Heliwork last time I heard (many years ago), anyway he taught me in rotary wing before that when he had Golden West Helicopters.

I know Howard. He is back as CP for Heliwork. Alligator are no longer. Closed down by CASA last April then failed when the banks moved in.

 

I have held a CPL(A) since the early 70's but haved not been doing any commercial flying up here.

 

Cheers

 

 

[facthunter]

You would have to run the axial one faster. it is much more expensive to make amd more inclined to stall, so in my opinion it is ruled out for all practical purposes. might be harder to get a high pressure ratio also. The Goblin (Vampire) and the RR Dart (turboprop? are both centrifugal. Nev

 

 

[cscotthendry]

HITC, would it be possible to come up with a bolted together frame and have sail cloth covering along the lines of the Xair or Skyranger?

I'll second the above and add...

 

I've recently finished my Skyranger Nynja and from that experience, I'd suggest a couple of things.

 

1)The Skyranger family of aircraft use all straight tubing bolted together. This makes for simple manufacture of parts and easier load analysis. It also makes for easy assembly of the fuselage.

 

2)The easier and quicker it is for a builder to build, the more that will be completed and flown and the more you will sell.

 

3)Get the flying characteristics right. I've heard of quite a few ultralights that have quirky, and in some cases downright dangerous, flying characteristics. Make it easy to build, easy to fly and it will go, provided you don't run foul of a falling economy.

 

4)The manufacturer should produce the critical structural components and the builder should have scope to customise the appearance of the aircraft.

 

The extremes of kit building are having every last nut and bolt blister packed for the builder, or supplying raw materials and having the builder build from plans. IMHO, the Skyranger is just about positioned perfectly on that continuum and you couldn't go wrong looking at how that kit is manufactured. I'm not saying you should copy the Skyranger, but it's a good study in what and how much the manufacturer should do and how much the builder should do. It is also a good study in "Simplicate and add lightness".

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Firstly let me welcome you to your 'home' forum HITC. About time you came home to roost.

 

Secondly, thanks for getting people talking about a more simple, basic, affordable and non plastic aircraft. I'm with you all the way.

 

Most folks here know I keep on dreaming up designs and never get round to building anything. Well, I'm happy to say that I've started my adventure.

 

The aim is to build my, as yet un-named, 95-10 twin pusher. (Suggestions people?) It's been a long time coming and it will be a long time to fruition due to funding shortage. However:

 

Step 1. Clear out garage..............................Done. Floor seen for the first time in 5 years. Gee, so much junk one holds onto.

 

Step 2. Build two 3 X 8ft benches..............Wood collection started. So far all freebie but will have to buy some soon.

 

Step 3. Convince my other half that I WILL finish this project before I die. Oh yea of little faith.

 

Step 4. Continue to convince myself that I will finish this project before I die

 

I'm not sleeping well these days due to going over and over my design and build methods just after retiring. Haven't found anything wrong so far but then, maybe I'm a bit biased into thinking that all is well.

 

Sorry for thread drift but you see, there are other like minded folk here and we must air our wants and dreams.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

You have re-invented the "breezy". Should be fun especially watching the pilots who like to draw lines for attitude reference on the windscreen, try to fly it. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I'll second the above and add...I've recently finished my Skyranger Nynja and from that experience, I'd suggest a couple of things.

 

1)The Skyranger family of aircraft use all straight tubing bolted together. This makes for simple manufacture of parts and easier load analysis. It also makes for easy assembly of the fuselage.

 

2)The easier and quicker it is for a builder to build, the more that will be completed and flown and the more you will sell.

 

3)Get the flying characteristics right. I've heard of quite a few ultralights that have quirky, and in some cases downright dangerous, flying characteristics. Make it easy to build, easy to fly and it will go, provided you don't run foul of a falling economy.

 

4)The manufacturer should produce the critical structural components and the builder should have scope to customise the appearance of the aircraft.

 

The extremes of kit building are having every last nut and bolt blister packed for the builder, or supplying raw materials and having the builder build from plans. IMHO, the Skyranger is just about positioned perfectly on that continuum and you couldn't go wrong looking at how that kit is manufactured. I'm not saying you should copy the Skyranger, but it's a good study in what and how much the manufacturer should do and how much the builder should do. It is also a good study in "Simplicate and add lightness".

Great feedback, thanks.

 

Yes, the Skyranger is a good example of cost effective kitting, and you make some very good points. I haven't seen one go together but I'm not a fan of bolting tubing in general except where the bolts are required for joining several components in a shear and tension combination (ladderwing construction for example) or where the components need to be disconnected from time to time (disassembly of the airframe for transport for example). Otherwise bolting is not a good option for round tubing because it is heavy, requires sadlles between the tubes and requires compression sleeving or solid inserts wherever bolts are located. If all of that componentry isn't employed the vibration will wear and enlarge the holes, that allows increased motion at the bolting point and cracking is inevitable. That even happened on the older hanggliders where engine vibration wasn't a factor. And even where all of the bolt support componentry is utilised it still means that the bolt provides a point loading which is a waste really because the point of bolting becomes the weakest point in the whole tube member. So I far prefer riveting with gussets where lightness, strength and longevity are the aims.

 

Straight tubing construction is a very sensible approach and which I had not fully adopted, but I will now. And that doesn't mean that everything has to be square, not at all. I will still have all the curves I intended but acieve it by flexing the tubing under tension rather than pre-forming it. Rounded 'corners' can be achieved by using standard bends rivetted into the ends of the straight tubes. Thanks for the heads-up on that one.

 

Yes, quick and easy build is the aim, however, not being wealthy I can't start anything where I'd like it to end up so, like any start-up, it would have to fund its own growth which means that the earlier kits might be a box of CNC cut plates, a box of fabricated critical components (ribs, controls, landing gear, spars, rigging...), a box of hardware (bolts, rivets, bearings, fittings) a list of suppliers of proprietary components (fuel tanks, pump, tubing, engine, wheels, brakes, instruments, fabric, paint etc), a cutting list, a set of drilling layouts for the tubing, patterns for the windshield, doors and fabrics, an assembly manual. There's an advantage in doing it that way too, folks can start on the airframe and not spend on the expensive components until the airframe is nearing completion.

 

Yes, the flying characterstics must be totally benign, no surprises for the less experienced flyers, the Piper Cub if you like. And the proposed design should prove to be just that, it's very conventional. Falling economy... well lets hope its done that and should be about to start a recovery, history indicates that it should. All the major crashes took about 5-6 years to begin a turnaround, 1929 disaster, mid 1930s was among the world's wealthiest moments...

 

Yes, customisation should be easy enough with this concept, and more than just the paint scheme of course. Also there will be room for plenty of contribution from 'after market' suppliers in terms of fairings, wingtips, panels and the like.

 

Firstly let me welcome you to your 'home' forum HITC. About time you came home to roost.Secondly, thanks for getting people talking about a more simple, basic, affordable and non plastic aircraft. I'm with you all the way.

 

Most folks here know I keep on dreaming up designs and never get round to building anything. Well, I'm happy to say that I've started my adventure.

 

The aim is to build my, as yet un-named, 95-10 twin pusher. (Suggestions people?) It's been a long time coming and it will be a long time to fruition due to funding shortage. However:

 

Step 1. Clear out garage..............................Done. Floor seen for the first time in 5 years. Gee, so much junk one holds onto.

 

Step 2. Build two 3 X 8ft benches..............Wood collection started. So far all freebie but will have to buy some soon.

 

Step 3. Convince my other half that I WILL finish this project before I die. Oh yea of little faith.

 

Step 4. Continue to convince myself that I will finish this project before I die

 

I'm not sleeping well these days due to going over and over my design and build methods just after retiring. Haven't found anything wrong so far but then, maybe I'm a bit biased into thinking that all is well.

 

Sorry for thread drift but you see, there are other like minded folk here and we must air our wants and dreams.

Excellent Doug, I'm delighted that something has jostled you into action at last, the hardest part of any build is getting started. And a good cleanup is a good way to get the enthusiasm flowing. No apologies for thread drift warranted or required, I'm happy for anyone at all to post anything at all about Homebuilding on this thread, as Facthunter mentioned there's a lamentably low builder content on this site and more discussion about it will assuredly encourage a few more to consider building their own especially when what is available out there is so prohibitively expensive.

 

Incidentally folks can we have a few of you kit builders quantify the costs of some kits built to complete flying stage please? Also let us know what engines are installed - thanks.

 

Savannah?

 

Skyrangers?

 

X-Air?

 

Others?

 

Back to Doug's thing - mate please do consider getting rid of the twin airscrew thing and going for a single airscrew, it'll get you in the air much sooner. But if you do stick with it then don't worry about contra-rotation. Just plan to shut the power down if you do have a powertrain failure of any kind. I don't think you'd want to try and fly it with only one screw spinning anyway so the contrarotation isn't necessary. If you do that you could run one continuous chain. Another thought, if it's twin screw why not make them tractor and so energise the boundary layer and provide better low speed aileron authority? Would also get the airscrew out of the wake of the wing, where they are the screws have the wake on their centreline, and they're close to it which as you'd know from HBA discussion is not good for TV issues.

 

Yes, lack of being able to get to sleep is a good sign, means you're getting serious about it instead of just dreaming - Go Doug!

 

Stop Press - just to let the forum know what hasn't been seen here yet, I have already had a PM approach from someone who is interested in the concept and may consider involvement with getting the prototype on its way, and even he doesn't yet know the configuration of the design.

 

Also, this gentleman's longer term interest is in water ops so I had to think about the feasibility of that, and yes the addition of a detachable hull and sponsons would make a good flying boat, and a simple retract mechanism further down the track could make it amphibious. More power (and cost) would be required, but it's very feasible and would still fold to the same sized package.

 

More clues for those interested in guessing about the layout, while I continue with a simple 3D before I can show it in full -

 

1. It could be a flying boat and still fold to the same package size, but it wouldn't work if it was on floats...

 

2. Don't forget, the wings don't fold back, and they don't fold up or down. It has about 12 sq m of wing area and fits in a cuboid of 5.8m long, 2.2m wide and about 2.1m high.

 

 

[ave8rr]

More clues for those interested in guessing about the layout, while I continue with a simple 3D before I can show it in full -

1. It could be a flying boat and still fold to the same package size, but it wouldn't work if it was on floats...

 

2. Don't forget, the wings don't fold back, and they don't fold up or down. It has about 12 sq m of wing area and fits in a cuboid of 5.8m long, 2.2m wide and about 2.1m high.

HITC, I have been thinking....like alot of the others on this thread...Are you looking at folding the fuselage by any chance??

If the fuselage folded just aft of the wing then it would fold parallel with one or other of the wings. The aircraft would then fit onto a trailer sideways.

 

This may be another reason for you thinking "tricycle" undercarriage. I might be way off here but throwing in the idea anyway....

 

Cheers

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

HITC, I have been thinking....like alot of the others on this thread...Are you looking at folding the fuselage by any chance??If the fuselage folded just aft of the wing then it would fold parallel with one or other of the wings. The aircraft would then fit onto a trailer sideways.

This may be another reason for you thinking "tricycle" undercarriage. I might be way off here but throwing in the idea anyway....

 

Cheers

Oh I do like a man that thinks laterally, award yourself an icy cold beer and a slab of Barra!

 

Yes, a high tractor engine (think Thruster Gemini style) and a reverse stagger biplane with a Chinook style of cabin (no wasted weight in fibreglass pod etc) but side by side, cable operated rudder and elevator and the empennage folds off centre (hence cables go slack, no disconnection of controls) and the tailfeathers nest outside the N frame. Secure the stab leading edge to the N frame with one pin. Rudder post and horizontal stab are cable braced diamond fashion, so disconnect one side of the stab bracing and fold it and associated elevator up, secure to rudder post with another pin.

 

It's still stable and mobile on its tri-gear and you could get eight of them in the average single plane hangar.

 

Also never have to mess with the wing rigging or control connections.

 

As for STOL - four big flaps, and four differential ailerons for low speed roll controllability and crosswind capability. The tailfeathers can be as big as required for the low speeds because the rudder can extend below the fuse to keep the torsion on the fuse down and also to keep the packaged height down, and one side of the stab/elevator is tucked within the space occupied by the wings and the other side folds flat against the rudder.

 

Let me know how that Barra tastes!

 

 

[ausadvance]

Oh I do like a man that thinks laterally, award yourself an icy cold beer and a slab of Barra!Yes, a high tractor engine (think Thruster Gemini style) and a reverse stagger biplane with a Chinook style of cabin (no wasted weight in fibreglass pod etc) but side by side, cable operated rudder and elevator and the empennage folds off centre (hence cables go slack, no disconnection of controls) and the tailfeathers nest outside the N frame. Secure the stab leading edge to the N frame with one pin. Rudder post and horizontal stab are cable braced diamond fashion, so disconnect one side of the stab bracing and fold it and associated elevator up, secure to rudder post with another pin.

 

It's still stable and mobile on its tri-gear and you could get eight of them in the average single plane hangar.

 

Also never have to mess with the wing rigging or control connections.

 

As for STOL - four big flaps, and four differential ailerons for low speed roll controllability and crosswind capability. The tailfeathers can be as big as required for the low speeds because the rudder can extend below the fuse to keep the torsion on the fuse down and also to keep the packaged height down, and one side of the stab/elevator is tucked within the space occupied by the wings and the other side folds flat against the rudder.

 

Let me know how that Barra tastes!

that sounds more like an naughty story than a post! I like what Im hearing!

 

 

[Deskpilot]

By God you've got me intrigued. Keep it going.

 

Ruled out tractor design for mine as it puts the pilot in a very dangerous position. See original concept based on the AS-37.

 

[ATTACH=full]20276[/ATTACH]

 

Yep, contra rotating props are relatively more complex but hey, who else has them. Oh I do like to be different.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Hmm, no image. Let's try again.

 

 

 

[Teckair]

Geeez don't wave to anyone while flying that one!!

 

 

[boingk]

I reckon! What would the engines be... small 10~15hp units?

 

 

I've heard of people powering hangliders with them. As for contrarotating... the sound on takeoff alone would be enough justification!

 

- boingk

 

 

[Mick]

I reckon! What would the engines be... small 10~15hp units?- boingk

Some the larger of the 3W range of model motors even have twin plugs to enable the use of dual ignitions.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Oh I do like a man that thinks laterally, award yourself an icy cold beer and a slab of Barra!Yes, a high tractor engine (think Thruster Gemini style) and a reverse stagger biplane with a Chinook style of cabin (no wasted weight in fibreglass pod etc) but side by side, cable operated rudder and elevator and the empennage folds off centre (hence cables go slack, no disconnection of controls) and the tailfeathers nest outside the N frame. Secure the stab leading edge to the N frame with one pin. Rudder post and horizontal stab are cable braced diamond fashion, so disconnect one side of the stab bracing and fold it and associated elevator up, secure to rudder post with another pin.

 

It's still stable and mobile on its tri-gear and you could get eight of them in the average single plane hangar.

 

Also never have to mess with the wing rigging or control connections.

 

As for STOL - four big flaps, and four differential ailerons for low speed roll controllability and crosswind capability. The tailfeathers can be as big as required for the low speeds because the rudder can extend below the fuse to keep the torsion on the fuse down and also to keep the packaged height down, and one side of the stab/elevator is tucked within the space occupied by the wings and the other side folds flat against the rudder.

 

Let me know how that Barra tastes!

Well HITC, The icy cold beer was nice. The barra still to be caught.

Now that we have a general idea of the project, how long before we can see some line drawings? Really looking forward to future progress on this one.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Well HITC, The icy cold beer was nice. The barra still to be caught.Now that we have a general idea of the project, how long before we can see some line drawings? Really looking forward to future progress on this one.

Cheers

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks for the encouragement. I just had to go across the room and fondle my Millionaire and Daiwa guideless and imagine a few casts into the snags, God I miss the fishing up there... helifishing was a sizeable portion of my business when I was in the Kimberley.

 

Umm planes, oh yes, I did a fair bit over the weekend on getting the lines together for the fuselage, that's the tricky bit, getting a short, tall, fat fuse to look nice (looks do matter, just as much as size, so they tell me). It's coming along well and has character, just need to sort out the after regions. Then I can get the 'surfaces' and make perspective images of the 3D which will give a better idea than just line drawings would.

 

Had a couple of small jobs come in this morning so am gladly delayed doing those, it's been disastrously quiet as a draftsman in the construction industry down here...

 

Coupla days hopefully, cheers, Alan

 

 

[pylon500]

Had a request for a craft similar to the posts initial parameters, two seat, slow, STOL?, folding?, side by side (sort of).

 

This is only an initial draft, but the thoughts are, Foxbat style wing and flaperon, ThuderGull Odyssey styled staggered seating, taildragger for simplicity (but convertible to nosewheel?) but the big difference to the original plan is VISIBILITY, hence a pusher configuration and to be powered by a second hand 80hp 912.

 

 

Comments?

 

 

[planet47]

Had a request for a craft similar to the posts initial parameters, two seat, slow, STOL?, folding?, side by side (sort of).

 

This is only an initial draft, but the thoughts are, Foxbat style wing and flaperon, ThuderGull Odyssey styled staggered seating, taildragger for simplicity (but convertible to nosewheel?) but the big difference to the original plan is VISIBILITY, hence a pusher configuration and to be powered by a second hand 80hp 912.

 

I like it!!!

 

Requires good fuel range too (to go west).

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I like it P500.

 

Do you have a plan for simple wing folding to within 2400 wide?

 

It is very different from what I have in mind though because I want to be able to use new engines, it's hard to find good 2nd hand ones just when you need them, hence the choice of the R582 and there's also the MZ202 and the Hirth 3203. And yours is obviously quite fast whereas I'm investigating the slow end of things to be able to get into and out of more places. Good visibility is also a requirement for me, and should be so within the engine mounted high rather than on the nose.

 

I particularly like your tailfeather setup with the rudder being almost totally unblanketed in a spin scenario, very wise.

 

It looks like everything will flat-wrap so I guess it's to be all metal?

 

It's great to see another design being worked on, please do keep it in this thread and keep us informed as it develops. You've prompted me to get on with the images of what I've been working on, so although it's not very presentable yet I'll try and post something for discussion shortly.

 

 

[David Isaac]

What a fantastic thread Alan,

 

Great contribution, this is one of the better uses of forums. You are to be congratulated. I am very interested in this one and would participate directly if I lived on the GC.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

you need to make it a T tail or lift the elevator high enough off the ground so that people won't walk on it.

 

 

[pylon500]

OK, I'll have to admit that I hadn't read all the post before I added, was actually over on HBA being amazed at the work so far on our current machine Alan.

 

Serious work..

 

As for the concepts in my (un-named) pusher;

 

•Simple folding wing hence taildragger.

 

•Was looking at reducing hangar space rather than roadability.

 

•I think you should be able to find a running 912 for less than the price of a new 582 with benefit of more power and less fuel burn, not mention quieter.

 

•Yes, all metal construction, not really considering any fabric, quicker to build, can store outside and only about 3~5% weight gain.

 

My fin is good for stall/spin control but is a bit short moment for span, and more-so against my forward keel area:pull hair:

 

May end up with tip fins on the tail like the Challengers.

 

you need to make it a T tail or lift the elevator high enough off the ground so that people won't walk on it.

Not happy with the torsional loads on a 'boom' style fuse when side-slipping a T tail.

My previous aircraft had a similar tail position, no-one walked on it, but it gave their shins a bruising.

 

So, are we going to become Australia's HBA?

 

 

[Peter G]

Great feedback, thanks.Incidentally folks can we have a few of you kit builders quantify the costs of some kits built to complete flying stage please? Also let us know what engines are installed - thanks.

 

Savannah?

 

Skyrangers?

 

X-Air?

 

Others?

I have almost finished building a X-Air Standard with my Dad and has been a great build project....

 

to approx the costings etc I will list below...........

 

Kit was $15420 delivered

 

Rotax 582 with 3:1 gearbox, muffler, oil injection system was low hours s/h $4000

 

New bolly 68" 3blade carbon prop $1374

 

A few thousand spent changing to better zipties, fuel line, fuel clamps, windscreen clamps, spiral wrap for wires,

 

fuel pump, head sets, radio, intercom, vhf antenna, High cranking amp battery, full set of gauges, fuel drain valve, battery cables & mount, lots more small items too as well as lots of tools purchased along the way too I havent priced into the project :)

 

Total cost me just over $24,000 but if using a new engine you would be at or just over $30,000

 

cheers Pete