Guernsey Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 There so ugly they should never fly Bugger....that's me grounded. Alan.
pylon500 Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 They're so ugly they should never fly Actually, that's why they fly...... They're so ugly, the Earth repels them (upwards) 1
Guest ratchet Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Thanks for the feedback ratchet. Which is why I have suggested something which hasn't been done before at all. 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. It has been done. I owned a sorrell SNS-8 hiperlite biplane. 4 pins removed the rear fuse. Only disconnected the elevator rod. Wings and aileron controls stayed untouched. 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. Try here sorry don't know how to selectively quote.
503 Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Looks like a Woopy rooster do we need a new thread ( most ugly aircraft )
Guest ratchet Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I would prefer a designer of most ugly planes. This would have to be chris heintz from zenair. Functional designs but only a mother could love the look. And yes i owned a zodiac once. I will now run and hide.
planet47 Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 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. One day I would like to fly out west to Sticksville territory to visit family & friends so need a plane that can carry some stuff as well as the occasional passenger, one that has a good fuel range and a bit more speed than what I have now and one that doesn't require a ground crew every 1-2 hours in order to get from one place to another, etc. I also like to be able to appreciate the scenery along the way. Everyone's needs and wants are different. The floopy sort of reminds me of those jumping castles that young kids muck around on. For now I'll give the floopy a miss!!!
nong Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I think you have the right idea ratchet. Rod Stiff didn't slay the market by building another Thruster or lightwing. He knew that pilots wanted aircraft that were less limited in speed and range. He knew the vital importance of designing the product for economical repetition manufacture. Rod didn't blindly accept multi-strand control cables and the complexity of pulleys. Why join little bits of metal at great labour cost? Better to make a mold and use a readily available, well proven and easy to use composite. Dual poles on a single pole mechanism? Lets do it! Rod used an innovative series production plan , with each subbie putting up his own operating capital. As a result of his innovation, a punter can hand over sixty thousand or so at opening time at Bundaberg and be at Wagga by 4pm. To sum up... Jabiru produced the definitive cheap to buy and operate two seater....... by aiming higher. Low and slow, limited scope flying....real ultralighting, might well have a continuing appeal. I don't think its future will be based on the sailing boat structures of the past. Due to the continued urbanisation of farmland, quiet running electric powerplants seem like a fair bet. Bucketloads of corporate dough is being directed into elec. powerplant research. As an example, Lithium- Ion motorcycle batteries, new to the market, are almost weightless. Yes, they have problems, but there is a trend. I personally love two-stroke powerplants. Hell, I recently hotted up a DT175, no less! But..... the fuel burn of a 582 just isn't on. That is not cheap flying. I think the first job is to find a better powerplant, rather than accepting the easily obtained, barely satisfactory, obvious choices.
Guest ratchet Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 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. One day I would like to fly out west to Sticksville territory to visit family & friends so need a plane that can carry some stuff as well as the occasional passenger, one that has a good fuel range and a bit more speed than what I have now and one that doesn't require a ground crew every 1-2 hours in order to get from one place to another, etc. I also like to be able to appreciate the scenery along the way. Everyone's needs and wants are different. The floopy sort of reminds me of those jumping castles that young kids muck around on. For now I'll give the floopy a miss!!! There's plenty of those planes around. Jabs, fantastics, high wing low wing, 2 stroke or 4, and you can have a bit of STOL for a speed penalty or speed for a STOL penalty or a high wing for a shade gain or a low wing for a visibility gain or a biplane for style or a tri gear for comfort or taildragger for paddocks or retracts for the day you forget to lower them or anything else. The point i'm making is that just about every combo has been thought of and tried. It's just that some are a shade closer to what we need than others. To design something revolutionary needs a revolutionary concept and not just reprioritising priorities like I'll split the fuse to make it foldable ( you could equally have a removable boom on a spline---same concept and no big deal). Having owned a split fuse negative stagger biplane, there are reasons the world never bought them in numbers. Do something truly portable with the wing and we have a breakthrough. Trikes are halfway there.
Guest ratchet Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I think you have the right idea ratchet.Rod Stiff didn't slay the market by building another Thruster or lightwing. He knew that pilots wanted aircraft that were less limited in speed and range. He knew the vital importance of designing the product for economical repetition manufacture. Rod didn't blindly accept multi-strand control cables and the complexity of pulleys. Why join little bits of metal at great labour cost? Better to make a mold and use a readily available, well proven and easy to use composite. Dual poles on a single pole mechanism? Lets do it! Rod used an innovative series production plan , with each subbie putting up his own operating capital. As a result of his innovation, a punter can hand over sixty thousand or so at opening time at Bundaberg and be at Wagga by 4pm. To sum up... Jabiru produced the definitive cheap to buy and operate two seater....... by aiming higher. Low and slow, limited scope flying....real ultralighting, might well have a continuing appeal. I don't think its future will be based on the sailing boat structures of the past. Due to the continued urbanisation of farmland, quiet running electric powerplants seem like a fair bet. Bucketloads of corporate dough is being directed into elec. powerplant research. As an example, Lithium- Ion motorcycle batteries, new to the market, are almost weightless. Yes, they have problems, but there is a trend. I personally love two-stroke powerplants. Hell, I recently hotted up a DT175, no less! But..... the fuel burn of a 582 just isn't on. That is not cheap flying. I think the first job is to find a better powerplant, rather than accepting the easily obtained, barely satisfactory, obvious choices. Yes. we need some real technical breakthrough to change things. Note that modern rag n tube ultralights aren't much different from a 1945 piper cub. It may be from better understanding of how nature generates lift e.g. shark skin has a weird way of binding the boundary layer using rough scales. Fish do it with slime. How? dunno. But those kinds of efficiencies could lead to smaller and even very foldable/rollable wings. As u say, if we could get the energy density of batteries close to fossil fuels, we'd go electric the whole way. That means energy recovery on descent so we don;t throw away all the energy used in the climb. etc etc
planet47 Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Yes. we need some real technical breakthrough to change things. Note that modern rag n tube ultralights aren't much different from a 1945 piper cub. It may be from better understanding of how nature generates lift e.g. shark skin has a weird way of binding the boundary layer using rough scales. Fish do it with slime. How? dunno. But those kinds of efficiencies could lead to smaller and even very foldable/rollable wings. As u say, if we could get the energy density of batteries close to fossil fuels, we'd go electric the whole way. That means energy recovery on descent so we don;t throw away all the energy used in the climb. and Having owned a split fuse negative stagger biplane, there are reasons the world never bought them in numbers. Go you! I have heard your point - pity about mine though!
Head in the clouds Posted January 28, 2013 Author Posted January 28, 2013 Low and slow, limited scope flying....real ultralighting, might well have a continuing appeal. I don't think its future will be based on the sailing boat structures of the past. I agree on both points, my proposed structure is different from anything I've seen used in aircraft construction. ......quiet running electric powerplants seem like a fair bet. Bucketloads of corporate dough is being directed into elec. powerplant research. Yes, and mainly into series hybrid development which is undoubtedly also the way of the future for aircraft. Along with some very much more learned people I have been a part of a lengthy discussion which explored the possibilities of electric powered and electric series hybrid options for light aircraft, here is a link to the discussion - http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/general-auto-conversion-discussion/13621-hybrid-power-ic-engine-generator-motor.html#post146737 As you will note there is to date only one certified electric aircraft, the Stemme motorglider and two electric single seat ultralights, the eGull and the eLazair, and there are a couple of others under development. Without doubt the hardware is under development but it is not readily available yet and will be expensive initially. The object of this thread is a cheap 2 seater, so hybrid power is out of the question for now. As an example, Lithium- Ion motorcycle batteries, new to the market, are almost weightless. No, Lithium Iron batteries (LiFePO4) not Lithium Ion (Li-ion) are now available for motorcycles and other motorsports use. I have one in my current aircraft project. It is 18Ah with 270CCA and only weighs 1kg compared with the similar capacity gel cell at between 7 and 9 kg. Lithium Ion batteries are too temperamental for vehicle use, needing their cells balanced regularly for efficient use, and they are only 5% lighter than Lithium Iron batteries. Also Lithium Iron batteries cannot catch fire whereas Li-ions regularly do - also a subject discussed at great length, in the series hybrid thread that I pasted the link of (and more recently by Boeing re the 787 Li-ions). ..... the fuel burn of a 582 just isn't on. That is not cheap flying. There is always a compromise, you can pay $20K upfront for a four stroke that burns about 9ltrs/hr for 65hp or you can pay $8K and burn up more money on fuel at say 14ltrs/hr for the 65hp. The 65hp two stroke will also need rebuilding more often than the four stroke so the running costs will be around $10/hr more for the two stroke. The two stroke is lighter and so will give better performance overall, albeit slight. from my research most folk are happy to get in the air for say $30K and pay off the rest at $10/hr on running costs, than having to pay $42K to get flying in the first place. 4T engine is always an option for some anyway. And for comparison most people found the 503 to be a very acceptable engine even though it burnt far more fuel per hp than the crankcase induction 582 does. I think the first job is to find a better powerplant, rather than accepting the easily obtained, barely satisfactory, obvious choices. Strangely very few people seem to be aware of the literally dozens of powerplant options that are available, Hirth, MZ, Simonini, Valley Eng, to name just a few of the turnkeys, let alone all the conversion parts available - see this lengthy thread where we researched quite a lot of them (just the 2 stroke ones, there's another thread for the 4 stroke ones, I'll try and find it and post it here later - http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/light-stuff-area/11041-challenge-you-all.html#post109376
Head in the clouds Posted January 28, 2013 Author Posted January 28, 2013 Yes, the hiperlite is a nice little biplane, I know it well. But it doesn't do anything like what I propose. First, it's a taildragger, and much as I personally prefer a taildragger for a multitude of reasons the majority of folks learn in nosewheel aircraft and many of them are put off even trying taildraggers (even if they had a school with a tailwheel aircraft locally) by the 'heros' who do fly draggers and go around with elitist stickers saying 'men fly draggers' and the like, and forever preaching misinformation about draggers somehow requiring superior skills. So the majority of people want a nosewheel and the market dictates... Secondly, the hiperlight does not have a folding fuselage, it has a rigid big box of an empennage, which when removed then needs somewhere to store it, nearly as bad a situation as removing the wings of a struct braced plane and then needing somewhere to store them... But it's worse than that, once you pull the aft fuselage off the whole shebang falls on its ass because it's now a taildragger without a tail... And ... you do have to disconnect controls, and not just the elevator pushrod as you suggest, unless you had a fly-by-wire rudder? Not only that.... I'll address the next issue a bit further down the post where you allude to the ails of the hiperlite Has a motor and looks like wing warping control. Some clever stiffeners and wires could make it more coneventional in airfoil with ailerons or winglets like a pterodacyl. Like I said, the market dictates. See the couple of comments here already, jumping castle etc, and you mention pteradactyl... I say dodo. Or DoA (That's Dead on Arrival, not Dept of Aviation, and NO I'm not going into that discussion) If you want a market just do what others do and make it cheaper or prettier. Anything innovative always gets......resistance including new fangled horseless carriages. I thought you wanted to break new ground? To the first part, yes, that's exactly what I propose, but both not either. Cheaper is the first objective. Prettier is a difficult thing, so much is in the eye of the beholder. And pretty requires design skills that I may not have in as much abundance as some clever others. So I'm working on the premise that something doesn't have to be pretty to be cute, and it's well known that the cute factor sells. A simple way to make something cute is to bash its nose in, Pekinese dogs are a working example of that... so short-nosed aeroplanes automatically have a little of the cute factor. As for the second part, no, I never said I wanted to break new ground, you introduced that somewhere along the line. I would rather stick with the tried and proven and already demonstrated to be desirable, most particularly from a business perspective. you earn your dough as an innovative, breakthrough designer vs someone who varies the designpriorites (staggered seating for less drag and speed, (done), removable fuse (done)). Goodyear never had our polymers or carbon fibre or even good enough engines. Quite true, all of it. However I don't have the rose tinted spectacles for this concept that are needed to see any pet project through to completion. You on the other hand find it appealing, so if you're looking for a design challenge... repackaging known features. It's true that getting them all to work together is hard work, but to me an inflatable plane is at the same stage as helicopters before sikorsky. Great idea, great thinker thinker needed to make it happen. No, I'm not looking for anything truly innovative. The one I'm building now is my 18th own-design homebuilt and I've tried pretty much all I ever want to, now I'm just putting together some of the various ideas I used in different projects, to make something very basic, simple to assemble, low cost and easy to fly and which hopefully has a fairly universal appeal. To that end I've noted that biplanes are timeless and also are the smallest package barring multiplanes. The point i'm making is that just about every combo has been thought of and tried. It's just that some are a shadecloser to what we need than others. Yup the fuse to make it foldable ( you could equally have a removable boom on a spline---same concept and no big deal). Like I said I'm not trying to do anything revolutionary, just make something that simply folds into a small package, hangarage is hard to get and expensive these days... I also want to avoid disconnecting controls to avoid the possibility of someone, one day, forgetting to re-install something. I lost a good friend due to something like that. Having owned a split fuse negative stagger biplane, there are reasons the world never bought them in numbers. The worst issue with the hiperlite, in my mind, is having to climb into it through the windshield... One of its better ones is that although it has a low wing, being a biplane the span is small enough to be able to land on roads in emergency, and still fit between the guide-posts and road signs. Do something truly portable with the wing and we have a breakthrough. Trikes are halfway there. Already done by PPGs (Powered Para Gliders). They're as truly portable an aircraft as you can get IMHO, and a blast to fly! much different from a 1945 piper cub. Well then I don't follow your point, the Piper Cub is still considered to be one of the truly great aircraft of the world. Rutan blazed the 'real technical breakthrough' path and even he ended up with his best and latest designs being tractors not pushers and tailed not canards or tandem wings - and the Cubs outsold all his designs put together by more than a thousand to one. 1
Guest ratchet Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Yes, the hiperlite is a nice little biplane, I know it well. But it doesn't do anything like what I propose. First, it's a taildragger, and much as I personally prefer a taildragger for a multitude of reasons the majority of folks learn in nosewheel aircraft and many of them are put off even trying taildraggers (even if they had a school with a tailwheel aircraft locally) by the 'heros' who do fly draggers and go around with elitist stickers saying 'men fly draggers' and the like, and forever preaching misinformation about draggers somehow requiring superior skills. So the majority of people want a nosewheel and the market dictates...Adding a nose gear won't set the world on fire. Secondly, the hiperlight does not have a folding fuselage, it has a rigid big box of an empennage, which when removed then needs somewhere to store it, nearly as bad a situation as removing the wings of a struct braced plane and then needing somewhere to store them... But it's worse than that, once you pull the aft fuselage off the whole shebang falls on its ass because it's now a taildragger without a tail... So you now have a standing tri gear and a fuselage that magically disappears and doesn't need to be stored or folded up. And ... you do have to disconnect controls, and not just the elevator pushrod as you suggest, unless you had a fly-by-wire rudder? 2 springs on the rudder horns. Nothing like splitting a fuse and removing an elevator pin that ideally should be lockwired back in. Not only that.... I'll address the next issue a bit further down the post where you allude to the ails of the hiperlite Like I said, the market dictates. See the couple of comments here already, jumping castle etc, and you mention pteradactyl... I say dodo. Or DoA (That's Dead on Arrival, not Dept of Aviation, and NO I'm not going into that discussion) some people have no vision. kids... No, I'm not looking for anything truly innovative. The one I'm building now is my 18th own-design homebuilt and I've tried pretty much all I ever want to, now I'm just putting together some of the various ideas I used in different projects, to make something very basic, simple to assemble, low cost and easy to fly and which hopefully has a fairly universal appeal. To that end I've noted that biplanes are timeless and also are the smallest package barring multiplanes. Will probably go the way of the other 18 designs i never heard of. Don't get me wrong. Life is short. Do what you want, but you asked for feedback and i'm simply saying you'll end up with something that suits you like the other 18 designs since without real innovation you'll just design something that meets your priorities. Maybe others will like that but the chance is that 100 yrs of aviation has delivered designs that are reasonably close to yours and they;re either dead or available. Like I said I'm not trying to do anything revolutionary, just make something that simply folds into a small package, hangarage is hard to get and expensive these days... I also want to avoid disconnecting controls to avoid the possibility of someone, one day, forgetting to re-install something. I lost a good friend due to something like that. You mean like Winton's swing wing that pivoted to align with the Fuse for trailering/hangarage? Lots of smart people have been over this ground. In the end you;ll have fun at least. The worst issuewith the hiperlite, in my mind, is having to climb into it through the windshield... No. crap visibility. No wing shade on the ground. low wing pelted with crap. all biplanes need to build 4 wings unless your carry through structure crushes your bum and bangs your head. there;'s more... One of its better ones is that although it has a low wing, being a biplane the span is small enough to be able to land on roads in emergency, and still fit between the guide-posts and road signs. Then get a helicopter, they do that better too. Already done by PPGs (Powered Para Gliders). They're as truly portable an aircraft as you can get IMHO, and a blast to fly! If you like wing collapses close to the ground and think that feet are good replacements for landing gear when a landing finally goes wrong. Did a week of paraglider flying off cliffs. Was bored. Bloke drowned the week before after trying to go x country and drowned in the surf. Saw instructors dragged across the launch site. Straw poll showed an amazing no. of injuries- plates in ankles etc. If u ever want to be turned off paragliding google a site that shows an ortho surgeon's x rays of the injuries. Makes a motorcycle prang look healthy. Some people love it. Some people love sharing needles. There;s no accounting... Well then I don't follow your point, the Piper Cub is still considered to be one of the truly great aircraft of the world. Rutan blazed the 'real technical breakthrough' path and even he ended up with his best and latest designs being tractors not pushers and tailed not canards or tandem wings - and the Cubs outsold all his designs put together by more than a thousand to one. Point was that in performance terms little has changed between ultralights and cubs. Also what rutan achieved was because of application of a brilliant NEW technology called composites. Pushers and canards had been invented decades before. Look build design 19 if you like. you'll have fun. But for me it's unlikely to make me buy your 30K new design when I could buy a 14,000 drifter and probably get 80% of what i want with spares and parts backup, solid user base and broad experience i can draw on for maint if needed. If you could get me rolled up wings that have the same properties as a sparred, ribbed wing then you have my dough. Otherwise, that's my feedback. Good luck.
DGL Fox Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Ratchet, The post heading said.. "Cheap 2 seater anyone", HIC is just trying to design us a new affordable plane using exsiting technology, I am still willing to look at it. All of us still go out and buy a new car from time to time it still has 4 wheels, doors, seats and a engine that in general has been around for donkey years but we buy one because it has some new or updated features and of course it has the new smell, same thing with a plane. So IMO until someone comes up with a entirely new propulsion and with an anti gravitational system like the Jetsons nothing that I can think of will be truely mind blowing its all about finding a great combination of features that people want at the time and combining them into a new aircraft and if you can do that well, I think you will do alright. David 1 4
Guest ratchet Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Ratchet,The post heading said.. "Cheap 2 seater anyone", HIC is just trying to design us a new affordable plane using exsiting technology, I am still willing to look at it. All of us still go out and buy a new car from time to time it still has 4 wheels, doors, seats and a engine that in general has been around for donkey years but we buy one because it has some new or updated features and of course it has the new smell, same thing with a plane. So IMO until someone comes up with a entirely new propulsion and with an anti gravitational system like the Jetsons nothing that I can think of will be truely mind blowing its all about finding a great combination of features that people want at the time and combining them into a new aircraft and if you can do that well, I think you will do alright. David Exactly David. Which is why i still drive a 1991 camry i bought for 2K. Parts still available. Goes from A to B with aircon, carries enough people and I fix it myself. Never needed ABS, variable cams etc. Technology for me stopped at fuel injection. Most cars are bought for fashion/ego reasons rather than functionality. Yes they drive nicer and we can bluetooth our ears off but it's in the same ballpark performance. Maybe hybrids are a real innovation but maybe not after battery paks and even then they are best at city driving. Plenty of small cars will equal or exceed their highway economy. Now an electric with the same range/performance as a conventional car (including towing up a mountain range) would be a REAL innovation and either needs a breakthrough in battery or motor technology. Otherwise it's another car. You choose a bigger boot, 4wd, LCD screen, whatever. big deal. You cornered the market on people who will pay for a car that has a big boot, LCD and 4wd. Until next year. Meanwhile my old camry does 80% of what i need for almost nothing. Don't need new and heaps of other old cars will do the same. Maybe some people will pay for that new 100% that lasts 5 years. Good on them. What people call innovation is only incrementalism. A folding prop is incrementalism. A jet engine is innovation. But in the end as we all know this design will be interesting, small volume, with some takers for a while. The sapphire fills a gap for some people. fastish, trailerable if that;s what you want. Trade offs are no luggage, needs speed brakes to land shortish, single seat. There would be 30 in the country? And none made new. Have a go I say but I have more time for people who try hard things and fail than mix n matching what's known and tried. This bloke will have fun however but I just wanted to place it in context. If he wants permission to have fun then he doesn't need me. But my feedback is that it will be little more than a fun exercise with a handful of takers. None of these ideas are new and nor has any of the very capable people out there been unable to repackage them to meet a viable market where all niches have been explored to this point and where repackaging the known is usually not worth it for tiny sport activities. Design a better bicycle pedal I say!
David Isaac Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Potentially we are talking two different endeavours here. One is a combination of good simple designs provided in the short term at a reasonable price. The other is innovation, that will come at great cost in time and money and may never materialize and certainly probably not a good investment for most of the innovators. What Alan is doing is providing a purpose built product now for a limited sector of the market. There isn't much out there at the moment. The Drifter is great but not readily trailerable and is tandem and tail wheel (I like all these, but my wife wont travel tandem). I say go for it and if he wants to look at innovative technologies along the way I also say go for it. 3
Head in the clouds Posted January 29, 2013 Author Posted January 29, 2013 Adding a nose gear won't set the world on fire. No, but it'll please the folks who want to fly a trigear, and based on a poll conducted on a US site, that's around 90% of those who learned to fly within the last 10yrs. Any responsible person considering a business development needs to conduct due diligence, part of which is market research. If 90% of the market want trigear and you want to succeed in the marketplace then you'd better add a nosewheel... as I said before, the market dictates. So you now have a standing tri gear and a fuselage that magically disappears and doesn't need to be stored or folded up. yes, you have a plane that is stable and manoeuverable on its own gear whether it's folded up or rigged for flight, that's a huge advantage compared to the hiperlite. No the empennage doesn't 'magically disappear', the outer part of it collapses and the inner part of it folds between the wings - without disconnecting any controls. 2 springs on the rudder horns. Nothing like splitting a fuse and removing an elevator pin that ideally should be lockwired back in. You're referring to the hiperlite rudder cable disconnection? No it wasn't two springs on the rudder horns, they were for the tailwheel steering and didn't need to be disconnected. You say you had one so you must know the disconnect system for the elevator pushrod and the rudder cables. I assume your comment about "removing an elevator pin that ideally should be lockwired back in" refers to my proposal? If so, no. I already said several times that my control system doesn't require disconnection, it's very simple it uses cables which become slack as the empennage folds between the wings and since the empennage doesn't get removed, just folded, then there's no need to disconnect the cables. Will probably go the way of the other 18 designs i never heard of. Don't get me wrong. Life is short. Do what you want, but you asked for feedback and i'm simply saying you'll end up with something that suits you like the other 18 designs since without real innovation you'll just design something that meets your priorities. Maybe others will like that but the chance is that 100 yrs of aviation has delivered designs that are reasonably close to yours and they;re either dead or available. As you've seen I'm quite happy to discuss any of this with you but if you feel a need to become sarcastic I won't waste my time responding to you. In fact one of my designs was produced in some numbers and is quite well known, you quite possibly have heard of it, but we're not here to discuss that. Any planes I designed and built have been solely for my own satisfaction and so it's unlikely you would know of most of them although other folks on this site have recognised a few. I haven't previously set out to attract a market but have simply sold the last to finance the next, and then only when people have asked to buy them. I've not actively tried to sell planes before, except as a Drifter dealer. You mean like Winton's swing wing that pivoted to align with the Fuse for trailering/hangarage? Lots of smart people have been over this ground. In the end you;ll have fun at least. No, I didn't mean like Colin's swingwing although it was a clever and attractive little plane. No. crap visibility. No wing shade on the ground. low wing pelted with crap. all biplanes need to build 4 wings unless your carry through structure crushes your bum and bangs your head. there;'smore... You're reference is the Hiperlite again. Yes, poor visibility, mine has the engine above like a Gemini/Vision so you don't have to look over the engine. Ever been in one of those? Great visibility. Yes, all low wings get pelted with crap, so do high wings, especially if you fly out of cow paddocks. You can avoid the problem by using wheel pants or adopt the Concorde solution... Yes, biplanes have four small wings to build, much easier than two large ones... and only the same overall amount of size and work. Then get a helicopter, they do that better too. Done that, I had five, MD, Hughes and Bell turbines, Hughes, and Robinson pistons, ran them commercially for 15yrs, yes they land on roads just fine - but what has that to do with this topic? If you like wing collapses close to the ground and think that feet are good replacements for landing gear when a landing finally goes wrong. Did a week of paraglider flying off cliffs. Was bored. Bloke drowned the week before after trying to go x country and drowned in the surf. Saw instructors dragged across the launch site.Straw poll showed an amazing no. of injuries- plates in ankles etc. If u ever want to be turned off paragliding google a site that shows an ortho surgeon's x rays of the injuries. Makes a motorcycle prang look healthy. Some people love it. Some people love sharing needles. There;s no accounting... Yes, Paragliding does attract yahoos and risk takers, although you don't have to be one. Ground prox collapses are invariably when the nut holding the lines decides to impress everyone with a showy landing. No sympathy from me... I was referring to Powered Para Gliding, not Paragliding, so you don't need a windy hillside and therefore instructors don't get 'dragged across the launch site'. Totally different modus op. I think I'd be bored flying a jumping castle but there's no accounting, as you say. Point was that in performance terms little has changed between ultralights and cubs. You haven't flown the newer Cubs then? Also what rutan achieved was because of application of a brilliant NEW technology called composites. Pushers and canards had been invented decades before. A little research would change your mind on that, composites were first used in the 1930s. Look build design 19 if you like. you'll have fun. But for me it's unlikely to make me buy your 30K new design when I could buy a 14,000 drifter and probably get 80% of what i want with spares and parts backup, solid user base and broad experience i can draw on for maint if needed. Yes, I think a Drifter would suit you better, fine aircraft. Although I doubt you can get one in new condition for $14K. Last time I spoke to the Drifter factory who 'might' get around to producing them again one day, you'd be looking at around $42K, that was about 4 years ago, so say $45K now - if you could get one. I've noted that good condition used ones go for around $28-30K in the last couple of years. If you could get me rolled up wings that have the same properties as a sparred, ribbed wing then you have my dough Already exists, the Impact, and beautiful too - 3
DGL Fox Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Never needed ABS, variable cams etc. Technology for me stopped at fuel inject Ratchet, lets hope that you and your 1991 Camry never have a serious accident, you might then wish you went past the fuel injection technology and got the later model with air bags and ABS etc..
Guest ratchet Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 No, but it'll please the folks who want to fly a trigear, and based on a poll conducted on a US site, that's around 90% of those who learned to fly within the last 10yrs. Any responsible person considering a business development needs to conduct due diligence, part of which is market research. If 90% of the market want trigear and you want to succeed in the marketplace then you'd better add a nosewheel... as I said before, the market dictates. True just saying it's an old feature which anyone can add to a design package. yes, you have a plane that is stable and manoeuverable on its own gear whether it's folded up or rigged for flight, that's a huge advantage compared to the hiperlite. No the empennage doesn't 'magically disappear', the outer part of it collapses and the inner part of it folds between the wings - without disconnecting any controls. So now you have a box that needs a dolly for the main wheels to slide up a ramp sideways. It's still a whopping big box and no assembled wing, really likes being trailered big distances with inevitable stresses. That's why i prefer the concept of an inflatable or roll up wing that somehow retains the properties of a real conventional airfoil or better once reassembled. You're referring to the hiperlite rudder cable disconnection? No it wasn't two springs on the rudder horns, they were for the tailwheel steering and didn't need to be disconnected. You say you had one so you must know the disconnect system for the elevator pushrod and the rudder cables. Been a while but on mine i'm sure the rudder and tail wheel cables were spliced together. So it was 4 springs. I assume your comment about "removing an elevator pin that ideally should be lockwired back in" refers to my proposal? If so, no. I already said several times that my control system doesn't require disconnection, it's very simple it uses cables which become slack as the empennage folds between the wings and since the empennage doesn't get removed, just folded, then there's no need to disconnect the cables. No i meant the hiperlite elevator disconnect is a safety issue since apart from being hard to access via a split fuse, the pin needed to be secured properly with lockwire in my opinion. Don't trust that ball. As you've seen I'm quite happy to discuss any of this with you but if you feel a need to become sarcastic I won't waste my time responding to you. In fact one of my designs was produced in some numbers and is quite well known, you quite possibly have heard of it, but we're not here to discuss this Not sarcasm. 17 of your designs were for fun i assume and remain at that level. The odds are this will be the same. Any planes I designed and built have been solely for my own satisfaction and so it's unlikely you would know of most of them although other folks on this site have recognised a few. I haven't previously set out to attract a market but have simply sold the last to finance the next, and then only when people have asked to buy them. I've not actively tried to sell planes before, except as a Drifter dealer. No, I didn't mean like Colin's swingwing although it was a clever and attractive little plane. No just saying others have addressed the intact wing travel idea before with the swing wing as one solution. Trouble was the trailer was 30' or more long. Just providing context. You're reference is the Hiperlite again. Yes, poor visibility, mine has the engine above like a Gemini/Vision so you don't have to look over the engine. Ever been in one of those? Great visibility. Yep. they're OK. Not as good as a drifter obviously but in the latter you have no crash cage. Yes, all low wings get pelted with crap, so do high wings, especially if you fly out of cow paddocks. You can avoid the problem by using wheel pants or adopt the Concorde solution... Spats jam with mud and twist or bind with the tyre. Not worth the 2 knots speed gain in your design region. Yes, biplanes have four small wings to build, much easier than two large ones... and only the same overall amount of size and work. Not in my experience. You use the jig 4 times, measure everything 4 times, set up the paint 4 times etc. Done that, I had five, MD, Hughes and Bell turbines, Hughes, and Robinson pistons, ran them commercially for 15yrs, yes they land on roads just fine - but what has that to do with this topic? Just saying that landing between road poles is a funny design goal. Better to fly where there are none and 90% of the time people will pick a paddock than a road. Yes, Paragliding does attract yahoos and risk takers, although you don't have to be one. Ground prox collapses are invariably when the nut holding the lines decides to impress everyone with a showy landing. No sympathy from me... I was referring to Powered Para Gliding, not Paragliding, so you don't need a windy hillside and therefore instructors don't get 'dragged across the launch site'. Totally different modus op. True. I was interested for that reason i.e. to take up PPG but again the concept of feet replacing metal landing gear was unappealing since eventually a landing will be stuffed up and with 40kg extra on your lower vertebra and ankles, they, rather than metal will give. Fly enough and it will happen. I think I'd be bored flying a jumping castle but there's no accounting, as you say. Maybe a jumping castle now but the Wright flyer was a piano cable abortion. You haven't flown the newer Cubs then? You mean they perform better because someone added 180hp to them? Amazing. I meant the first cubs performed no better than our 150kg ultralights. Technology there has not changed much. Adding metal at the front is just money and not brains. A little research would change your mind on that, composites were first used in the 1930s. Depends what you call composites but then again I suppose all those dumb engineers in WWII ignored 1930s composites and instead used bakelite or worse. Yes, I think a Drifter would suit you better, fine aircraft. Although I doubt you can get one in new condition for $14K. Last time I spoke to the Drifter factory who 'might' get around to producing them again one day, you'd be looking at around $42K, that was about 4 years ago, so say $45K now - if you could get one. I've noted that good condition used ones go for around $28-30K in the last couple of years. What???? I have followed the used market for years and NEVER seen a used drifter of any description above 22K and that was for a strutter that never sold. Mid range prices on a 582 WB with less than 1000 a/f hrs is about 15-18K. Anyway, why would i want a NEW drifter anyway? The only reason would be for an original maxair because the Austflights are heavier. Otherwise these a/c will still be around in 30 years long after i'm dead. Already exists, the Impact, and beautiful too -
Guest ratchet Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Ratchet, lets hope that you and your 1991 Camry never have a serious accident, you might then wish you went past the fuel injection technology and got the later model with air bags and ABS etc.. Not where i live. Low traffic and roos are the only ones at risk.
David Isaac Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Not where i live. Low traffic and roos are the only ones at risk. Roos in the Bahamas ... LOL. You got your own zoo there buddy! 2 1
Guest ratchet Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Roos in the Bahamas ... LOL. You got your own zoo there buddy! Damn. what happened to privacy?
pylon500 Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 I'm sure you will do what you like. You asked for feedback and here it is.Whatever you want to do you will and will find reasons for it in any case . I guess we will, we enjoy designing and building. Come back and show us your inflatable electric jumping castle, once it's finished. Meanwhile, we will debate the merits of tailwheel over training wheel.. ps, to get out of quote (on a Mac) I just press the down arrow...
Guest ratchet Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 I guess we will, we enjoy designing and building.Come back and show us your inflatable electric jumping castle, once it's finished. Meanwhile, we will debate the merits of tailwheel over training wheel.. ps, to get out of quote (on a Mac) I just press the down arrow... Oh I never said I would be into the design thing. Far too busy diving in Bali, touring in europe and enjoying my retirement. But you go right ahead brother.
503 Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 crazy ideas ,pack it up like a car/remote control Aerial.....push in pull out fuselage ........ Silly ideas wings
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now