Cheap 2 seater anyone?

[paulh]

This is my first post on a thread so I hope this is the correct method.

 

You guys are on to something, a modern Aussie design that has similarities in concept to older US designs that are still in production like the Quad City Challenger, Rans Airaile, Quicksilver GT500 and Titan Tornado. Never hear of Kolb etc in Oz.

 

A lower cost recreational aircraft that is fun, safe, can take a friend for a ride, and could travel to a breakfast fly in or camping trip.

 

Some comments about the concept from a low hour pilot working towards aircraft ownership:-

 

Tail draggers look good, are simple, light, etc but most newbies learn on NW, so there is the extra cost to get a TW endorsement, and there are not that many schools with similar aircraft to the type proposed. The RAAus pilot average hours is apparently less than 50 hrs per year so being current on a TW is a potential risk factor. NW option will have much wider appeal.

 

Cruise speed not too slow, otherwise it becomes too limited, and the camping trip becomes an endurance test for the hardy types if there is a headwind. Faster than a trike would be good.

 

Airframe not too draggy and lower sink rate so has some glide ability for safety, nice not to have a high revving two stroke going hard just to keep it in level flight.

 

The aluminium tube and angle structure is a great well proven method,easier to analyse and build than composites and wood/foam. Easier to see for inspections, with less risk of possible internal flaws.

 

Covering could be a combination of fabric and aluminium, this has potential for a long life and a nice paint job.

 

Safety - needs structure to protect pilot and pax, and no strange handling quirks with doors off/on.

 

Fuel tank location and restraint for safety and ease of filling without risk of spills inside cabin.

 

Engine mounting not inverted like a Challenger, if two stroke need oil tank and pump no premixing fuel.

 

Four stroke engine option

 

Looks not ugly duckling, as people generally like to feel good when they look at their expensive recreational vehicle or are showing it to friends.

 

Consider trikes as potential competitors, they are popular, have cool factor and built in adventurer appeal. The popular brands also look well engineered.

 

The sketches look great, efficient engineering design is always a challenge, but can be very rewarding, so keep the creative thoughts flowing!

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Hi Paul,

 

Welcome to the forum and thanks for your valued input.

 

Sorry everyone who have been patiently waiting, I'm sorry I got caught up with work so haven't had time to put much work into the model. So I decided to just throw something together for discussion. It's very basic at present the crew compartment will be faired into the wings and all that, it's just a depiction so you can see the general configuration. See post #35 for a description of the folding concept.

 

It's only letting me upload some of the files for some reason, I'll try the rest in the next post.

 

EDIT - Some of these images load sometimes and won't at other times. I know they're working on the site at the moment so that may be the problem or it may be a browser issue. Anyway there should be 3 images on this post and 4 on the next post. If you see little boxes with no image just right click on them and 'open in a new tab'

 

 

 

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Hopefully the perspective views will load here. EDIT - still having constant problems with getting these images to open all together, so will put two of them here and two in a later post and see if that works...

 

 

 

 

[Deskpilot]

You're not getting bored with AussieMossie are you?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

You're not getting bored with AussieMossie are you?

Hah, no Doug, OzMoz design is completed and so now it's all about building it but I revel in the design side of things too. So I've always been designing the next one while building the previous one. As you probably remember from HBA the next was to be the Delta, my avatar, but I've changed my mind on that and am trying to work toward something with some mass appeal in the hope of kitting it successfully and the delta would be too much of a niche market.

 

So, as a few have said, with the declining economy there is likely to be a better demand for lower upfront flying cost. And there seem to be quite a few of us that miss the 'old times fun' of slower aircraft which allowed us to go to places other than airports...

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Good answer. We seem to think alike in that I put aside my delta and returned to something very basic as well. Our reasons, however, are some what different. I'll not be thinking about marketing my design any time soon, if ever.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

The other two perspectives that won't open in the previous post -

 

Stuff it, I give up. If you don't see three images in the first post, two in the next and two in this one then just right click on the boxes with the missing images and open in a new window. Sorry, I've tried to edit and fix this problem at least ten times for each post...

 

EDIT - OK now try clicking on the thumbnails, see if that works (if there are any thumbnails there...)

 

 

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

xx - double post

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Hi HIC,

 

No I see it all, seems to be all there for me, the models look nice, so are you letting the cat out of the bag yet on how you intend to fold the wings?

 

David

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Hi HIC,No I see it all, seems to be all there for me, the models look nice, so are you letting the cat out of the bag yet on how you intend to fold the wings?

David

Hi David, Oh yes, did that some while back, see post #35. The wings don't fold, being a biplane they're already a small package, the fuselage folds... I'll put up some images of it folded in the next couple of days. Cheers, Alan

 

 

[Teckair]

Interesting a biplane with a nose wheel I think I have seen one before but I can't remember what it was.

 

 

[facthunter]

Neither can I, but I don't think I will lose much sleep over it. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Teckair]

Yep there's a few there.

 

 

[dazza 38]

That bottom yellow bi plane, looks like the russian built aircraft that they use for spraying.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

That bottom yellow bi plane, looks like the russian built aircraft that they use for spraying.

This one's the Australian Airtruck cropduster, also a trigear biplane -

 

 

This one's a Polish cropduster, built for the Russians, the world's only biplane jet... and the only jet cropduster -

 

 

 

 

[503]

There so ugly they should never fly

 

 

[djpacro]

Then there is the Ozzie Mozzie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchanan_BAC-204_Ozzie_Mozzie

 

 

[paulh]

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

 

pylon500 that looks like it has great potential, looks efficient, but not expensive, wing fold would be a distinct advantage. The staggered seating is clever, gives a slim fuselage but the pax is not looking at the back of your head.

 

 

[pylon500]

The staggered seating is clever

There's actually another reason for the staggered seating, in that where you have an aircraft with the pilot in the front, then generally he/she is the balance weight for the aircraft.

You now get the situation where one pilot would leave the aircraft tail heavy but two pilots make it nose heavy.

 

A lot of the advertising for 'forward' seated aircraft don't tell you about the balance weights you have to lug around with you, to adjust between one up and two up.

 

There are even some 'normal' aircraft out there that have this problem, just because the pilots don't sit right on the CofG.

 

I learnt to fly in a glider that had this staggered seating arrangement (ES-52 Kookaburra);

 

https://plus.google.com/photos/113292981019876413104/albums/5208737076349224081/5208737729184253106?banner=pwa%3E

 

Which had multiple benefits, great view for the student, but an instructor that can still point to things for you,

 

Slim fuselage as mentioned and the need for only one set of instruments.

 

Some will point out that if you were a scrawny 16 year old as I was then, I still needed a couple of weights up front if I went solo.

 

 

[planedriver]

There's actually another reason for the staggered seating, in that where you have an aircraft with the pilot in the front, then generally he/she is the balance weight for the aircraft.And if you take the misses flying, it's so easy to ignore her.

 

I knew your designs always had a lot of merit Arthur.

 

That's so thoughtful!

[Head in the clouds]

Then there is the Ozzie Mozzie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchanan_BAC-204_Ozzie_Mozzie

Not a biplane -

 

 

 

[facthunter]

A problem with tricycle U/C on pushers it the plane sits on it's tail when you get out. To correct this often the mainwheels are set back a bit too far, causing the plane to fall on it's nosewheel on landing if you hold it off. Nev

 

 

[Guest ratchet]

Hi all,

 

A few folks on RecFlying have remembered me from the earlier days of hanggliding and ultralights but for those who don't here's a quick introduction -

 

I flew hanggliders for a short while in the 1970s and then built a trike around 1980.

 

In 1982 I started building ultralights in earnest with advice and assistance from other builders of the time - people like Sander Veenstra, Robbie Labahn, Werner Bekker, Gordon Bedson, Ross Nolan, Charles Ligetti among others. I built 17 planes altogether and sold all but two which I tested to destruction before building the next. Most of them were very simple structures and quick to build and they performed quite well. I tried most construction methods including welded CRMO fuselages, fabric and all metal wings, composites, aly monocoque fuselages and traditional rag and tube.

 

In the later 1980s I instructed in Drifters and then went commercial flying helicopters for the next fifteen years. A couple of years back I sold my C172 as it became just too expensive to maintain for the few hours a year that I used it and so I returned to recreational aviation.

 

For the last 18 months I have been building a new design using just about all of the most complex things I learned in the 1980s and it has recently occurred to me that the cheap, fun and easy quick-build aircraft we had so much enjoyment with 25yrs ago just don't seem to exist any more. Back then we were only allowed to have single seaters but now that we have the freedom to build two seaters we don't seem to have many folks designing their own and getting airborne at an affordable price.

 

Half the problem seems to be this need for speed that is so evident in the clubrooms. There seems to be a fair bit of leg-pulling from the plastic 100kts plus brigade if someone's plane only does 80kts or so, and I find it notable that back when we had so much fun 65kts was considered to be supersonic.

 

Let's face it you can't build a fast plane with pocket money. From my experience cost is a cubic function of speed so if you want a cheap plane build a slow one. Now before anyone stops reading on just bear this in mind - back when we were getting the most out of our flying it was the owners of the slower planes (and they were all slow, so I mean the very slow ones) who had the most fun.

 

I see these plastic and slick metal kit-planes a lot these days and they're very lovely, no doubt about that, and they're just what we all thought we wanted back then. But when you look back on it all, going away camping for the weekend, fishing and landing on beaches for a swim was so much more enjoyable for me than a 120kt dash to some airport and a cab ride into town for an expensive overnight motel, another cab and a dash home at flight levels the next day.

 

Some Drifter folks are still able to 'go anywhere' but even they're getting faster and heavier with bigger engines, struts and all that. And they're forty grand if you could buy one! I bought the first certified Drifter from Austflight for $13K in 1986.

 

There's really no reason why we can't have much less expensive aircraft, and comfortable two seaters too, as long as we accept that we won't be breaking any speed records, and if we have a design that takes advantage of the slow speed then we're back at the top of the fun stakes.

 

I've spent a lot of time reading this forum and also been on quite a few others trying to work out a configuration that would suit a majority of people who might be looking for an entry level aircraft and the cheapest quick construction method for building it. The parameters that I have set, and which are achievable are -

 

Two seats, side by side

 

Three axis control

 

Tricycle undercarriage

 

Rotax 582 power

 

Enclosed or doors-off flight

 

STOL

 

Quick folding - 2 mins for 1 person

 

No control disconnections for folding

 

Folds to trailerable/20ft container size

 

Before I say more I'd be pleased to get a bit of feedback about the whole concept -

 

What do you think?

 

Is this something you think is needed or are the plastics the 'go' now?

 

What ideas along these lines interest you?

 

I am working on the CAD model and drawings and expect to complete them in the next few months. The next stage would be to build a prototype. I live on the Gold Coast and would like to hear from people who might be interested in sharing the building and/or the finished plane and perhaps with a view to being a part of building a business around producing kits.

 

Cheers, Alan

This has been done to death. The only differences are in the design priorities. e,g, folding wings are good but

 

often introduce weight and complexity (the kolbs are reportedly the best), tandem is a bit faster but less

 

fun, tailwheels like paddocks but need more training etc.

 

The real problem with trailering is 30 feet of wing that has to be accommodated and protected.

 

If you wanted to do something new, try an inflatable wing like the floopy (see youtube). Modern materials

 

are strong enough and a BRS would be insurance against catastrophe. You would have the portability of

 

flexwing with the control authority of 3 axis and with gross weight to spare for camping gear.

 

A big challenge to have strength, rigidity, UV protection etc but better than shuffling the same combinations

 

many have already tried.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Thanks for the feedback ratchet.

 

This has been done to death. The only differences are in the design priorities.....

Which is why I have suggested something which hasn't been done before at all.

 

The real problem with trailering is 30 feet of wing that has to be accommodated and protected.

Maybe you've not followed the whole thread. My proposal doesn't fold the wings, there's no need to since they're less than 20ft/6m span, no folding, no de-rigging, no controls to disconnect. In my proposal the empennage folds in just a couple of minutes to provide a package that is within roadable width, also without any disconnection of controls.

 

If you wanted to do something new, try an inflatable wing like the floopy (see youtube). Modern materials are strong enough and a BRS would be insurance against catastrophe. You would have the portability of flexwing with the control authority of 3 axis and with gross weight to spare for camping gear.

I don't think I've come across a 'floopy' and couldn't find anything on Youtube about it. If you're referring to the woopy fly and the woopy jump they're certainly good toys but so far have only shown sufficient efficiency to be viable in very low temperatures. A two seat version (2 seats is a primary objective) would be absolutely huge, and that's as a glider, then add engine, fuel, 'camping gear (!)' and I don't think it'd be much smaller or lighter uninflated than a fully rigged plane such as I am suggesting.

 

Goodyear first developed the inflataplane in 1956 and spent nearly 20yrs trying to perfect it but the single seat version would still be too heavy for our current 95:10. I agree that materials have improved significantly but somehow I can't see too many people rushing to buy an inflated aircraft and I don't think it would be a cheap thing either...

 

And if you have to add a BRS as well, at another $6K ish, then it's even less of a 'cheap 2 seater'.

 

.... but better than shuffling the same combinations many have already tried.

Agreed, that's why I'm proposing something others haven't tried before...