What style of recreational aircraft do you want?

[Bob Llewellyn]

Hi Bob, ive been following your post quite a bit and find your knowledge is quite expansive, are you an aeronautical engineer by any chance? Cheers Monty.

Of sorts - I was 7/8ths of the required experience for a CAR 35 when the regs changed. I've done a couple of years of uni - long ago - and am back there now.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Of sorts - I was 7/8ths of the required experience for a CAR 35 when the regs changed. I've done a couple of years of uni - long ago - and am back there now.

Aeronautical engineering?

 

 

[kgwilson]

My list.

 

Australian design including engine

 

Fast 130 kts+

 

Low wing

 

2 seats

 

Good range 8 hrs +

 

All metal

 

Strong airframe

 

Good baggage space

 

light & predictable handling

 

That's what I'm building.

 

 

[eightyknots]

My list.Australian design including engine

 

Fast 130 kts+

 

Low wing

 

2 seats

 

Good range 8 hrs +

 

All metal

 

Strong airframe

 

Good baggage space

 

light & predictable handling

 

That's what I'm building.

Onya! KG

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Aeronautical engineering?

Originally electrical, now mechanical; but CAR 35 work is aeronautical...

 

 

[Downunder]

What I would really like to see is an aircraft with a cruse wing for regional airports/ cross country and a STOL wing for off field and bush strips.

 

Basically two different wings with one fuse. I'm not saying they should be interchangeable but two markets could be satisfied with little extra cost.

 

Also, (thinking outside the box) what about something like a drifter or thruster but with a commercially produced wing. Say a J120?

 

There was some discussion on another thread about using "commercial" components.

 

What about using commercial aviation components? A wing off this and tail off that ?

 

It could be called a Frankencraft....LOL

 

 

[metalman]

What I would really like to see is an aircraft with a cruse wing for regional airports/ cross country and a STOL wing for off field and bush strips.Basically two different wings with one fuse. I'm not saying they should be interchangeable but two markets could be satisfied with little extra cost.

Also, (thinking outside the box) what about something like a drifter or thruster but with a commercially produced wing. Say a J120?

 

There was some discussion on another thread about using "commercial" components.

 

What about using commercial aviation components? A wing off this and tail off that ?

 

It could be called a Frankencraft....LOL

The Breezy used this idea, plans for the fuselage and the wings off a piper cub, seemed to work well.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

What I would really like to see is an aircraft with a cruse wing for regional airports/ cross country and a STOL wing for off field and bush strips.Basically two different wings with one fuse. I'm not saying they should be interchangeable but two markets could be satisfied with little extra cost.

Also, (thinking outside the box) what about something like a drifter or thruster but with a commercially produced wing. Say a J120?

 

There was some discussion on another thread about using "commercial" components.

 

What about using commercial aviation components? A wing off this and tail off that ?

 

It could be called a Frankencraft....LOL

A modular aeroplane makes a fair bit of sense... look at Piper :see no evil:using the Cherokee 140 fuselage for the Warriors, and stretching it for the PA28-150, -151, -180, and -235... overlapping with the Cherokee 6, Seneca... Certainly, the lighter the aeroplane, the easier to have several sets of wings without excess weight.

The Drifter / Thruster were partly triggered by the availability of low cost extruded 6061 large bore tubing; which isn't low cost anymore. The labour content hasn't gone down, so the margins have disappeared / cost of finished aeroplane skyrocketted. If you get around the labour via kit building, then yes, a Frankenlight is possible... I do not know any type that provides a big enough source of wings as to be worth the considerable effort of designing around though... Skyfoxes perhaps?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Zenith aircraft have taken that idea on board, new Cruzer is a CH750 with go fast wings and simplified tail plane.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't like the idea of trailering them unless the job is done properly Bumps and wind forces when a semi goes the other way damage things. any cable moving around in transit wears something away. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

The single aisle Boeings are like that common centre section lengthened at times and engines moved about. A stretched plane is designed by an accountant and the original was designed by people who know about aeroplanes... The Piper Commanche is a classy design probably too well made that had a lot of variants, but far better than the later Seneca/ Cherokee etc that were prone to corrosion , certainly the earlier ones..Nev

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

The single aisle Boeings are like that common centre section lengthened at times and engines moved about. A stretched plane is designed by an accountant and the original was designed by people who know about aeroplanes... The Piper Commanche is a classy design probably too well made that had a lot of variants, but far better than the later Seneca/ Cherokee etc that were prone to corrosion , certainly the earlier ones..Nev

John Thorpe specified 6061-T65tiddlypom spar extrusions for the PA28-140; Piper reverted to 2024-T3511 once the batch of 6061 caps ran out. The early caps don't rot, making wing root rot far less of a drama than the later caps. But Piper saved a few bucks per aircraft on 2024, so let them rot...

Yes and amen. The story of Taylor and his accountant should be a warning to us all...

 

The Commanche has its roots in the WW2 research into 23012 and fighters; it would be seriously challenged to meet the current handling standards! (esp. the -400) The Cherokee /Sneekers etc used semi-laminar airfoils, which handle like soggy marshmallow, perform like soggy marshmallows, and were just like the jet fighters used (i.e. cutting edge).

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes the laminar flow wing and the full flying tail get my attention. The early Pipers were exceptionally well built and there are many with well over 15,000 hours and still good airframes. Their corrosion proofing plays a big part in that. The factory was flooded out and destroyed and the newer designs were forthcoming then. They are no doubt more economical to produce and service and certainly much easier to fly.. The Commanche series is a good enthusiasts plane for private ownership, rather than one to let out to a flying school these days where they have to fly themselves, (and have magic in flight refuelling) to survive. Nev

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Yes the laminar flow wing and the full flying tail get my attention. The early Pipers were exceptionally well built and there are many with well over 15,000 hours and still good airframes. Their corrosion proofing plays a big part in that. The factory was flooded out and destroyed and the newer designs were forthcoming then. They are no doubt more economical to produce and service and certainly much easier to fly.. The Commanche series is a good enthusiasts plane for private ownership, rather than one to let out to a flying school these days where they have to fly themselves, (and have magic in flight refuelling) to survive. Nev

I'd like an RAAus-registered Twin Commanche ...

The history of the NACA laminar-flow faction makes for interesting, if tedious, research - it wasn't until Prof.Ing Hoerner did his global tunnel turbulence tests that the full iniquity of the Variable Density tunnel came to light; and by then Abbot & von Doenhoff had popularised the misleading data.

 

Briefly, the base natural turbulence of the VD tunnel is about 3 times that of free air (below ~10,000ft); which means that the Clmaxes of the 6-series airfoils as published are significantly higher than can be achieved outside that tunnel! This means that lighties like the Cherokee need so much acreage of wing, that the ~15% achieved laminar flow drag reduction, is obliterated by the sheer area. The Commanche has less parasitic drag in cruise, simply from the higher wing loading achievable (the Bonanza, also with 23012, likewise...).

 

If you get up above ~10,000 ft, into the non-turbulant air (on a micro scale), the cruise drag comes down for laminar sections; and if you use quintuple slotted flaps and a redundant engine for takeoff/landing, the area does not get too big. Similarly, for gliders - mostly wing - laminar airfoils make a small profit. For your avergae lighty, no.

 

Interestingly, the PA28-140 airfoil puts an 18% thick (so deep & light) spar behind the rear seat passenger's knees, which 23012 does not on both counts; as the original Cherokee, with Weick in charge of the design team, was overweight (and had too many parts), one can reasonably surmise that Thorpe chose the airfoil for other than aerodynamic reasons.

 

 

[facthunter]

Maybe a case for vortex generators. You sure don't hang them up in the air on landing. Fly it straight on. Nev

 

 

[PA.]

A plane with wing options to give you choices?

 

The Pipstrel Sinus Flex does that.

 

 

 

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The virus has to have those tips to fit into a hangar though.

 

 

[PA.]

You can fit either wing tips to the same wing. You can also remove them to help hanger the plane.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Maybe a case for vortex generators. You sure don't hang them up in the air on landing. Fly it straight on. Nev

We owned RSV for a while; I think VGs would have been a big help!

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Fast!!

 

Hence my Lightning Bug

 

 

And my under construction Komet jet

 

 

The sad thing is that I've not yet got to fly either of them. Since we bought the Bug, it's been having some mods done including the fitment of a Rotax 912ULS and the jet is still a little ways off flying.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Fast!!Hence my Lightning Bug

 

[ATTACH=full]27270[/ATTACH]

 

And my under construction Komet jet

 

[ATTACH=full]27271[/ATTACH]

 

The sad thing is that I've not yet got to fly either of them. Since we bought the Bug, it's been having some mods done including the fitment of a Rotax 912ULS and the jet is still a little ways off flying.

Does the Lightning Bug NEED a 912????

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Hi Bob,

 

The original Bug kit was sold way back in 1991 with the AMW808 engine of 90hp which was then subsequently upgraded to 100hp. AMW (Cuyuna) no longer produce this engine and in any case, it has not proven at all reliable in use on the Bugs that have flown.

 

I, along with fellow Bug builder in Adelaide, Milton King, own the rights, molds, tooling, spare parts inventory etc. for the Bug and we intend to release an improved kit version later this year. For the aircraft to be successful, commercially as well as for our own personal aircraft, it needs to be easily built, FAST and reliable.

 

While it performed quite well with the original 90hp (indeed, I own the wreck of the prototype Bug which was written off in a forced landing when it suffered an engine failure in the Sun100 air race during Sun'n'fun 1992 I think. It was doing 225 knots during that race), we wanted at least 100hp in the commercial venture, while keeping the weight down and giving it reliability and the Rotax912ULS is our preferred option.

 

Our aircraft in the photo above is about to fly with the 912 installed. We are just waiting on a custom prop. We found that we only need to add very small cowl cheeks to fit the 912 so we can keep the lines close to the original, so we expect very little performance degradation due to the 912's opposed configuration.

 

Here's a pic of the 912 being installed:

 

 

So to answer your question succinctly, no it does not need the 912ULS or 100hp.

 

However, we believe this engine to be the optimum choice for the Bug at this time.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Looks very neat. Experimental I presume... I look fowards to hearing more!

 

Hi Bob,The original Bug kit was sold way back in 1991 with the AMW808 engine of 90hp which was then subsequently upgraded to 100hp. AMW (Cuyuna) no longer produce this engine and in any case, it has not proven at all reliable in use on the Bugs that have flown.

 

I, along with fellow Bug builder in Adelaide, Milton King, own the rights, molds, tooling, spare parts inventory etc. for the Bug and we intend to release an improved kit version later this year. For the aircraft to be successful, commercially as well as for our own personal aircraft, it needs to be easily built, FAST and reliable.

 

While it performed quite well with the original 90hp (indeed, I own the wreck of the prototype Bug which was written off in a forced landing when it suffered an engine failure in the Sun100 air race during Sun'n'fun 1992 I think. It was doing 225 knots during that race), we wanted at least 100hp in the commercial venture, while keeping the weight down and giving it reliability and the Rotax912ULS is our preferred option.

 

Our aircraft in the photo above is about to fly with the 912 installed. We are just waiting on a custom prop. We found that we only need to add very small cowl cheeks to fit the 912 so we can keep the lines close to the original, so we expect very little performance degradation due to the 912's opposed configuration.

 

Here's a pic of the 912 being installed:

 

[ATTACH=full]27272[/ATTACH]

 

So to answer your question succinctly, no it does not need the 912ULS or 100hp.

 

However, we believe this engine to be the optimum choice for the Bug at this time.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[flyvulcan]

Yes, definitely experimental. The stall speed is a tad high...

 

Hopefully the new Bug can tempt a few folks to diversify to the alternative side of recreational aviation, as a supplement to their "ultralight" endeavours.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Hi Bob,The original Bug kit was sold way back in 1991 with the AMW808 engine of 90hp which was then subsequently upgraded to 100hp. AMW (Cuyuna) no longer produce this engine and in any case, it has not proven at all reliable in use on the Bugs that have flown.

 

I, along with fellow Bug builder in Adelaide, Milton King, own the rights, molds, tooling, spare parts inventory etc. for the Bug and we intend to release an improved kit version later this year. For the aircraft to be successful, commercially as well as for our own personal aircraft, it needs to be easily built, FAST and reliable.

 

While it performed quite well with the original 90hp (indeed, I own the wreck of the prototype Bug which was written off in a forced landing when it suffered an engine failure in the Sun100 air race during Sun'n'fun 1992 I think. It was doing 225 knots during that race), we wanted at least 100hp in the commercial venture, while keeping the weight down and giving it reliability and the Rotax912ULS is our preferred option.

 

Our aircraft in the photo above is about to fly with the 912 installed. We are just waiting on a custom prop. We found that we only need to add very small cowl cheeks to fit the 912 so we can keep the lines close to the original, so we expect very little performance degradation due to the 912's opposed configuration.

 

Here's a pic of the 912 being installed:

 

[ATTACH=full]27272[/ATTACH]

 

So to answer your question succinctly, no it does not need the 912ULS or 100hp.

 

However, we believe this engine to be the optimum choice for the Bug at this time.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

What's it doing sitting next to this... is your plane in the USA at the moment, or is the Velocity Air Turbine Legend parked in Adelaide?