SGIAN DUBH

the Quaich is constructed from extruded polystyrene foam with 290t glass cloth and West System epoxy. All awkward contours, leading edge D's etc. were hot wired. To further highlight some of the questions/remarks made in previous posts I hope the following will answer a few queries Utilising the same type of construction as in the Iolaire and Sgian Dubh the Quaich is a well tried and popular layout. The aircraft is designed to be easy to handle in the air as well as on the ground. The use of a tail wheel (via the rudder pedals, operating the standard ‘push right go right’ system) combined with fairly large diameter main wheels ensures good performance into and out of short grass strips. If the take off weight is around 290kg and with a best glide ratio in the region of 12:1 then the Vto (take off velocity) will be 38.4mph and Vs (stall velocity) will be 33.2mph. These are calculated figures based on the above moderate assumptions and will improve if take off weight is lower. The high aspect ratio wing is braced at the aerodynamic centre on the 25% chord line by a single strut to the mainspar, which is straight. The full span ailerons are differentialed 1:1.5 and have a rearward pivot point giving a Frise effect when deployed upwards. These devices help to alleviate adverse yaw. The tips of all flying surfaces have been fitted with anti vortex leading edges and tip plates to improve drag at these points. Good all-round visibility is achieved by the low cowling and the sloping fuselage sides. Access is via the lowered port side lifting door/window. The contoured seat forms part of the structure of the main fuselage former. The type of construction employed requires no specialist skills or machinery and could be carried out by the average handyman. The rigid flying surface obtained by all composite methods ensures a better aerodynamic package and therefore better all round performance. The wings are detachable for easy transportation. Assembly and disassembly time will be around 10 minutes.

The Photos are all from the Quaich Construction Folder ( as seen in Quaich Gallery ) so I am assuming they are all Quaich related. Hugh seems to have used the same construction method in both the Sgian Dubh & Quaich, I have every faith in his construction techniques ( just as well seeing as I will be putting Human 'Guinea Pigs' into them for Flight Testing ) I am certainly going to do some 'Taxying Tests' that may include a 20m hop ( if I can shoehorn myself into a 23in wide seat, it should be possible albeit snug ), the actual flight testing will be undertaken by a sub 86kg Pilot. The Wing Taper can be seen in the attachment in the previous post, the engine in the Quaich is a Rotax 447 which I am guessing is of Unknown provenance, so I will be having it closely scrutinized before any Air gets under the wheels. The Sgian Dubh is now being fitted with a Rotax 503 of Known provenance. I would like to see The Quaich & Sgian Dubh flying together as that is something that is assured of putting a huge smile on Hughies face ;-) The Quaich & Sgian Dubh are getting incredible support from the UK CAA as they now seem to be very pro-active, sadly the BMAA are being very negative towards these projects, luckily the CAA are the decision makers & they are 100% happy with the concept of both these projects. Understandably the CAA are not so pro-active in accepting the Iolaire onto the SSDR Category, they are prepared to accept it if I can categorically declare it is below 204kg empty but they would prefer me to be able to tell them it is 184kg empty ( which I think is a Tall order ). I am thinking about putting the Iolaire through 'E' Conditions as it has already flown but was never granted a UK Permit to Fly under the BMAA/CAA process.

Yes the Wing is Tapered. Yes, there is quite a lot of wing area outwith the Strut attachment. Hopefully the full span ailerons will give a balanced roll rate without stressing the wing. The engine is set to be on a precise thrustline. The Ground clearance is ample before the prop tip would get near the ground ( the tail would be very high in a propstrike scenario ). The Exhaust is going to be inside the cowling as per attached picture ;-) The Cockpit is very narrow @ 23in (58.5cm) Lets just say " it is SNUG for me " ;-) I am more than happy to read constructive comments or questions, so feel free to post anything on the subject.... I am not capricious in any way ( some may disagree on that ) & I would rather 'bat' back answers than get to a point after the event where someone says " I thought that was wrong, but didn't want to say as it might offend " I have a ' Can Do ' attitude to most things in life, it is sometimes good to have outside intervention to rein me in a little.

Here are the Construction Pics so far ;-)

Regulations limit the MTOW to 300kg on the basis that it is an UNCERTIFIED build that has never previously been registered as a Single Seat Aircraft in the UK. INTRODUCTION In 2007, the CAA responded to industry requests to reduce the regulatory burden on very light aircraft. This resulted in single-seat microlights of low weight and wing loading being ‘deregulated’ from an airworthiness point of view: a group of aircraft known as ‘sub-115’. In 2013, the CAA proposed to increase the scope of this category to include all single-seat microlights. In May 2014, CAA issued an exemption allowing any single-seat microlight to be ‘deregulated’, if the owner applied to do so, with the intention of incorporating this change into the Air Navigation Order (ANO) in 2015 at which point all single seat microlights will become deregulated by default. A single seat microlight (SSDR) is defined as an aircraft which: a) Is designed to carry one person; b) Has a maximum take-off mass of no more than: i. 300 kg for a single seat landplane (or 390 kg for a single seat landplane of which 51% was built by an amateur, or non-profit making association of amateurs, for their own purposes and without any commercial objective, in respect of which a Permit to Fly issued by the CAA was in force prior to 1 January 2003*); or ii. 315 kg for a single seat landplane equipped with an airframe mounted total recovering parachute system; or iii. 330 kg for a single seat amphibian or floatplane; and c) Has a stall speed or minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration not exceeding 35 knots calibrated airspeed. * The intent is that if this clause is used to allow a microlight of between 300/315/330 kg and 390 kg max gross weight to be an SSDR, the Permit to Fly that was in force prior to 1.1.03 must have been for the aircraft as a single seat microlight not as a two seat microlight or as an SEP Aeroplane, i.e. to ‘grandfather’ pre-existing ‘heavy’ single seat microlights into the SSDR category. SUB-115 Since 30th April 2007 it has been legal to fly a lightweight ‘sub-115 kg’ single-seat microlight aeroplane without a permit to fly or any of the associated official design investigation, formal flight testing, maintenance schedules, annual inspections or permit paperwork. The ANO definition of this group of aircraft is: A microlight aeroplane which: i. Is designed to carry one person only; ii. Has a maximum weight without its pilot and fuel of 115 kg; iii. Has a maximum wing loading without its pilot and fuel of 10 kg per square meter; and iv. Is flying on a private flight. These aircraft are no longer eligible to hold a Permit to Fly and Certificates of Validity (“Permit renewals”) may not be issued. HEAVIER AIRCRAFT The May 2014 exemption and other information are set out in CAA Information Notice IN- 2014/101. Owners of single-seat microlights that don’t fall into the ‘sub-115’ category may apply to the CAA to take advantage of the exemption by completing the form attached to the Information Notice and sending to the CAA. The exemption only applies to private flights and therefore does not include commercial flights or ‘aerial work’. Again, this only exempts aircraft from the requirement to hold a Permit to Fly (and associated design and manufacture approval, permit revalidations, formal annual inspections, etc). TL 2.17 Operating Deregulated Microlights Page 1 of 7 OPERATING DEREGULATED MICROLIGHTS TL 2.17 ISSUE 4 JULY 2014 The definition of single-seat microlight that aircraft must comply with is as listed in the introduction section above. At the current time, owners of aircraft that meet this definition may apply for the exemption, which is optional. From 2015, the CAA currently intends to incorporate this into law, at which point it will no longer be optional and all aircraft meeting the definition will be deregulated. If you object to this position, we recommend that you write to the CAA’s General Aviation Unit with your objection (we would also appreciate a copy of your correspondence at the LAA). If an aircraft is presently cleared as an SEP ‘Group A’ aircraft then it is probably not eligible to be a microlight and hence not eligible to be deregulated, even if the gross weight falls within the limits above. Airspeed indicators frequently under-read by several knots at low speeds, giving the impression that the stall speed is lower than it actually is. Transferring an existing ‘group A’ LAA aircraft to the microlight category in order to become classified as a deregulated aircraft will involve first getting a change in classification agreed by LAA Engineering, which is put in train by submitting a category change mod application (form MOD10). For the guidance of members who own single-seat ‘Group A’ aircraft, from the LAA’s knowledge, the following aircraft are unlikely to be eligible for deregulation because they exceed the 35 knot calibrated stall speed and/or the weight requirement: • Tipsy Nipper • Clutton Fred • Brugger Colibri MB2 • Druine Turbulent • Luton Minor • Jodel D9/D92 • Taylor Monoplane • QAC Quickie • Colomban MC-15 Cri-Cri • Corby Starlet • Monnett Moni • Wolf WII Boredom Fighter • Whittaker MW7 • Star-Lite SL-1 • Rans S9 • Staaken Flitzer • Chiltern DW.1/1A For the guidance of members thinking of designing their own SSDR, or looking to buy or build an existing design to operate in this category, the table below provides guidance on the minimum wing area likely to be needed to meet the 35 knot calibrated stall speed requirement, for different max gross weights and wing/flap configurations. The table is based on the results of many true stall speed tests carried out over the years on microlights. Naturally the stall speed is affected by many things as well as the wing loading, configuration, elevator authority, cg position, wing section, aspect ratio and twist to name but a few, but the table below is intended to show a reasonable typical value of minimum wingarea needed to stall at 35 knots true airspeed or less, as a starting point for design or aguideline in assessing whether an existing design might fit the category.TL 2.17 Operating Deregulated Microlights Page 2 of 7 DEFINITIONS‘ Aeroplane’ means an aircraft supported in flight by fixed wings (as opposed to rotating wings)and therefore includes conventional rigid wings, flex wings and powered parachutes, withwheels or foot-launched, and controlled by any method including control surfaces or weightshift or a mixture of the two. It does not include gyroplanes or helicopters. It can be poweredby any form of motor including reciprocating, rotary, jet, rocket, electric, steam, etc, althoughit would need to comply with the noise regulations for microlights (see above).‘Empty weight’ is the weight of the aircraft without pilot or fuel, and need not include itemscarried at the discretion of the pilot on a flight-by-flight basis e.g. hand-held radios, extra seatcushions, etc. ‘Maximum gross weight’ is the maximum weight of the aircraft including fuel, pilot and allother items carried.‘Empty wing loading’ is the empty weight in kilograms (see above) divided by the wing area insquare metres. For a conventional aircraft, the lifting area is taken as the area of the wings,including wing flaps (if fitted) and ailerons. Where the wing panels attach to the fuselage sides,it is normal to include the ‘virtual’ portion of wing buried in the fuselage. So with a typicalparallel-chord wing with square tips, the wing area becomes simply the wing span multipliedby wing chord. If the wing is tapered, multiply the wing span by the mean chord to get thewing area. The mean chord is the chord measured at one quarter of the wing span outboardfrom the aircraft centreline. In the case of a canard aeroplane it is acceptable to include thecanard area with the wing area. With a biplane, add the areas of the upper and lower wings,upper wing centre section and the ‘virtual’ centre section linking the two lower wings.‘Registered with the CAA’ means you must apply to the CAA Registrations Department for aunique G-???? registration, using a form CA1 which you can download from the CAA’s website.There is a registration fee to be paid, but this is a one-off fee.‘Display of G-???? registration letters’ means that the registration must be clearly displayedunder the port wing, on both sides of the fuselage sides or fin, and indelibly marked on anengraved fireproof metal plate attached to the fuselage. The details of the required sizes of theletters, letter style, colouring, and orientation of the lettering on the surfaces are provided inthe CAA booklet CAP 523 which can be downloaded from the CAA website. You will be sentone of these automatically when your G-???? registration letters are allocated.‘Single seater’ means the aircraft may only carry one person. This is not as obvious as itsounds, as some microlights do not have seats as such – the pilot of a foot-launched flex-wingfor example commonly flies in the prone position supported by a bag.‘Stall speed’ is the minimum flying speed in the landing configuration, as marked by a ‘classic’nose drop or by the pitch control reaching its backstop. The stall is approached at adeceleration of approximately 1 knot/second. For the purposes of establishing whether anaircraft is a microlight, the calibrated stall speed must be no more than 35 knots. A tool isavailable on the website to help establish calibrated ASI data (Aircraft & Technical – Flighttesting aircraft). A FEW WORDS OF WARNING Just because there are very few formal requirements surrounding this new breed ofderegulated microlight, it does not mean they are toys. Like any aircraft, they will kill or injureyou given half a chance, especially so as most will offer very little by way of pilot protection ina crash. The deregulated microlight has been freed from the burden of airworthiness regulationnot because they are inherently safe for the pilot, but only because they have been judged tocause a negligible risk to third parties. As with any other deregulated hazardous sport such asmountaineering and ocean racing, the responsibility for your safety will lie entirely in your ownhands. There is nothing in the new rules to stop you making your wing spars from knotty pine,just as there’s nothing to stop you making a rowing boat from blotting-paper – and each willhave a similar chance of success. The fact that there is no legal requirement for designevaluation, maintenance or flight testing does not mean that none of these are required: itmeans that it is entirely up to the owner to decide on his or her own approach to theseactivities. Based on what happens in other countries where there are similar deregulated forms of aviation, the best safety net is for the owners to be part of a group of like-minded people with the benefit of one or two experienced souls able to act as mentors, giving guidance to those who may be moving unwittingly into particularly dangerous territory. If youare thinking of building your own deregulated microlight then joining your local LAA Strut would be a good first step, and the local LAA inspectors will be able to give advice although for deregulated aircraft, for liability reasons, they will always have to qualify their advice with astatement that their advice is their own opinion only, and that it is entirely up to theowner/pilot to research the situation and form his own opinion before deciding what to do.The LAA inspector has no formal responsibility towards a deregulated microlight owner but willnevertheless probably be only too happy to give you the benefit of his advice and experience. WHAT’S THAT OLD THING HANGING UP IN THE BACK OF THE HANGAR? A word of caution about resurrecting old single-seat microlights from the early 1980s era whichmight fall into the SSDR category, many of which can be found hung up in the roof of hangers,festooned in cobwebs, or even ‘slung out back’ in a heap of aluminium tubing and flappingDacron, having been long-grounded after the introduction of the dreaded ‘Section S’ in 1984.Before thinking of getting one of these prehistoric microlights airborne again, look verycarefully. Was the design a safe one? Much has been learnt about microlight safety since thosedays, and things like elevator control cables made of nylon cord have long ago passed fromfavour – many people died in the early days of microlighting proving that some of the featuresof these old designs were unsatisfactory. And has the aircraft been properly looked afterduring its life? Probably not, as its value will have sunk to nothing for many years and it willmost likely have been left to corrode away in peace, out of sight and out of mind. The fabric isalmost certainly ruined by exposure to ultra-violet light, and will rip to shreds in your handswith way below the original strength. Airframe tubing might look serviceable – but how do youknow if it is the original bit? In the early days, when tubing got bent in mishaps it was notuncommon to substitute material from other crashed machines, or whatever was lying around– like electrical conduit for example, even though its strength might be way down on what isneeded for the job. To fly any aircraft with suspect materials in the primary structure is likeplaying Russian Roulette. DESIGNING YOUR OWN? If you are thinking of coming up with your own design in the deregulated category, as long asyou are a LAA member we will be happy to give general advice and guidance from LAA HQ, butas with our inspectors, will caution you that this is our opinion only and that it is entirely up toyou to research matters and make your own decision. We can point you in the direction of themany aircraft design books available from LAA bookshop, such as Hiscocks ‘Design of LightAircraft’, and standard works of reference like Stinton’s ‘Design of the Aeroplane’. The LAAwebsite is also a ready source of help and in particular, see Technical Leaflet TL 1.15 ‘examplemicrolight aircraft loading calculations’ which leads you step by step through how to work outthe loads on the aircraft prior to stress analysis when sizing the structural components, orsand bag testing your completed airframe.We would recommend you design the airframe to cope with all the main load cases of BCARSection S even though this is not mandatory in this deregulated class. Appendix A and B ofCS-VLA also provide a very helpful simplified approach to working out aircraft loads, which isespecially useful for the deregulated microlight designer without too much previous aircraftdesign experience. MODIFYING AN EXISTING DESIGN Several designs of single-seat microlight in the USA appear to fall within the SSDR category.Be careful on three counts – firstly, are they really as light as claimed, and secondly, do theyhave enough wing area, and thirdly, are they safe? You may find that you have to pare everybit of extra weight out of the aircraft to get it to squeak into the 115 kg limit - one LAA’errecently found he had to fit a lighter, much less powerful engine for example – there seems tobe very little checking of such things in other countries, so don’t take any weight figures frommanufacturers as gospel truth – weigh it yourself and see! If you find that the design is shortof wing area at the finalised empty weight, be particularly wary of suggestions that the wing "> area can easily be increased by adding a little extra wing span or chord, or a little of both.This would fall into the category of a serious change needing proper engineering investigation.An extra foot or two of span on each wing can drastically increase the stresses in the wingspars, struts and carry-through structures, not to mention increasing tail loads and fuselageloads - and so it goes on. Increasing the wing chord may similarly alter the distribution of loadbetween the spars or cause serious stability problems. Carrying out such changes on an ad hocbasis will be fraught with danger. CONCLUSION Not since the early 1980s has there been the freedom to design and build simple microlights inthe UK without needing a permit to fly. Back then, a number of fatal accidents causedquestions to be asked in Parliament and legislation to be hurried into place to close theloophole. Now, thirty years later, the microlight industry has matured, microlight pilot trainingand licensing are closely controlled and so there is a reasonable chance that history will notrepeat itself and this time we can be left to get on the building and flying these very simple,lightweight aircraft without the need for official interference. It is up to all those participatingto observe the highest safety standards, avoid an upsurge in the accident rate and so preserveand nurture this new found freedom to build and fly.The LAA continues to support members who own single seat microlights, whether deregulatedor remaining on a Permit. Our Engineering team has wealth of knowledge on these aircraft,generically and on each specific type, and advice is there for the asking. We are stillconsidering how we might offer more practical services and how they might be funded, but wewant the aircraft which our members fly to be safe, whether deregulated or not, and considerthat the LAA’s well-proven safety culture, advice and information-sharing service are the bestmeans to promote this. DATA copied from LAA Guidance notes.

I always take what others say or suggest as Good Sound Advice offered with the best intentions, the problem in the UK is " Everyone is an Aircraft Engineer until the engine starts " Thus why I look further afield for advice and analyse whether the person is a Waffler or an informed font of knowledge, I am sure you are the latter " I take your points & will bank them for future recall during testing......you may well be right in what you foresee, I hope you are wrong but you are certainly putting reasoned doubt into my mind. The Stall will be fully explored, I won't be settling for Mushing... I want to see a FULL STALL ( It will be done at Altitude for safety ) My Aerodynamicist will be doing the calcs ( to see how they differ from the designers scribbles ) He is currently wrapped up in the Sgian Dubh & I don't fill his pockets with enough dollars to have him looking at more than 1 project at the same time. ( He would look at figures if I asked him, so when I have both the aeroplane & all the spreadsheets in front of me I will be in a better place to ask him questions ) The Vto is supposed to be 37.4mph ( 32.52kts) So I am hoping that a Touchdown at 30kts is feasible....... The Cruise is supposed to be 70mph (61kias) to 105mph (91kias ) with a VNE of 110mph The builder/designer has reams of calcs on file that I will pay full attention to when I need to commence testing. We are both singing from the same hymnsheet on the 2 STROKE Operations, I am not a 'back off a little' in the climb pilot......... I am going to have a Rotax specialist look at the 447 BEFORE I even start it up. I will be wary of what you have said because I am used to 200-300hp Engined Tailwaggers so I always have had bags of power on tap to lift the tail & aerobatic surfaces that are substantial. Thank you for your input ;-)

H.I.T.C, Do you have credentials that back up your opinions or are they just ' well-meaning ' findings? I only ask because I seem to be getting different opinions from here to there ;-) Until it gets test-flown ( in the air ) it will be an unknown stall speed though I am almost certain it will be in the 30kt area ( I certainly hope so because it needs to be to comply with SSDR ) I am assured the Elevator has more than enough authority to ensure a controlled landing. I am assured the Elevator has more than enough authority to ensure a controlled tail lift in the take off run. I have very little confidence in 2 strokes but as a 447 /503 is the only realistic option for this aircraft I am stuck with that as a powerplant....... I have ample hours on Taildraggers so I don't envisage that I will have any problem getting the tail up ( I doubt my Test Pilot will have any problems either ). I am intrigued by the mainwheels reference.... I have flown many Tailwaggers with mainwheels ahead of the Leading Edge & they are more tricky but not dangerously tricky. I will be looking closely at the CofG & if it can be moved toward the front of the range it will be adjusted. Again the Crosswind capability will be explored closely before we set a figure that we are happy with..... One of the beauties of our UK SSDR Category is that " it is a licence to explore the parameters of your aircraft " The UK CAA have even said " SSDR allows Aerobatics if your Design is capable of withstanding the G forces associated with Aeros " I won't personally do Aeros in any SSDR that I currently operate, might be tempted in a Phantom Ultralight if we manage to acquire one ;-) Currently having a bit of grief getting a Kolb Twinstar through SSDR because it is ex LAA/PFA & it looks like the LAA are reluctant now to have too many LAA aircraft moving onto the SSDR category.

Just getting ready to commence the Quaich Flight Testing ( Collection of the Microlight is imminent, once our Trailer is emptied of the Building Supplies for the Holiday Home projects ). The Quaich has a Rotax 447 engine & has an empty weight of 184.2kg & will be cleared to 300kg under the UK SSDR acceptance. We are limiting the Pilot weight to 86kg to allow for 30litres of fuel to be carried ( the tank will be replaced by a 40ltr Tank as calcs will allow 40ltrs with a 86kg Pilot )

Phil Perry.......Knowing the Aircraft ( having rejected buying it for reasons that I can't disclose at this time because of the accident investigation ) I too think it would be prudent to await the AAIB report & see whether what your straight talking instructor says tally's up with what I believe caused the accident. The Accident Picture also points towards my theory.

The Sgian Dubh will be getting fitted with a Mid-Life Rotax 503 very soon ( just having the engine checked for serviceability ). The Sgian Dubh is going to Newquay St Mawgan for hangaring. The Quaich is ready for test flying, just waiting for a UK registration to be assigned & then it will commence the flight testing.

I am always open to another opinion....... I am putting a lot of faith in Hugh's build quality & being face to face with him, everything he says seems plausible ( it is a bit like Rocket Science to me ) I have some very knowledgeable engineers around me who understand the flying wing concept , so I am letting them move this forward from a flight testing aspect.... I do have to consider that I will be putting a flying friend into the HOT SEAT & it could be a load on my shoulders if anything goes wrong. I think the messages in my previous post are not seen in full context as I was also discussing it by phone at the same time so that in reality is only 60% of the story ;-) The Quaich which I will be playing a more active role in the Flight Testing seems like a conventional 3 axis microlight so I am fairly chilled out by this project. I am looking at every single detail of the Quaich documents etc so that it is engraved in my brain what everything is on this SSDR microlight. I am keen for Hugh to see his Sgian Dubh design & his Quaich design take to the air...... Thankfully the Iolaire has already flown so I don't have the pressure of getting that into the air ( Our CAA are not keen to allow that into SSDR as it is a big microlight that I doubt we can lighten down to 178kg safely )

Today seemed to be a Lucky Day for me. I was a little bit concerned by the remark "There are some very questionable design features in these drawings. For example, drawing L2-W4 shows a very unconventional wing root joint in which the spar caps are effectively discontinuous, and the load is transferred purely through the ‘tenon’. The stress calculation at the end of the document raises more questions than it answers, and leaves me unconvinced that this design feature is in anyway satisfactory. " so I had a Trusted Aircraft Builder/Restorer look over the Wing Loading Calculations & this was their informed response : (PJK)Hiya, do you understand wing loading calcs? Try me. (PJK) Your friend BEN SYSON has queried the wing integrity of the Sgian Dubh......he says he is concerned by the calcs Give me the chord,the length of the wings,the all up weight of the aircraft with fuel,the aerofoil section and the deepest part of the aerofoil ie the centre of pressure. Let me study it later. (PJK) http://www.hughlorimer.co.uk/sd_drg.pdf www.hughlorimer.co.uk hughlorimer.co.uk I would very much doubt if the wing loading is too high. (PJK) that is the PDF for Sgian Dubh calcs ( everything is there in B&W ) Is that the idiot who does not know the difference between a rib co-ordinate and a GPS ? (PJK) yes wink emoticon Sounds like someone is playing a blinder,mind you they are all blind there ? Canards have higher wing loadings anyway. (PJK) I am only looking for an opinion......I won't hold you to what you say.....just a man is going to fly the SD & I don't want him to fold a wing wink emoticon Thats ok I will give you an honest opinion. (PJK) The Sgian Dubh is not a Canard..... it is a Flying Wing. Same but different,lots of wing area. They are just trying to place obstacles in front of you. Look at the flying bricks like Dykes Delta. I cannot open that strange file Peter ? It says file association unknown,drat. (PJK) open the pdf page 21 &22 OK got it. Never mind the pdf will do,let me take a quick glance now. (PJK) thanks wink emoticon Its built like a tank,basically 137 square feet total + 41= 178 = 1.37 lbs sq feet at 300lbs all up weight at a 1g loading,its stressed at 1.68 /ton inch for 6 g,whats the problem ? And that is just the spars,with the torsion box construction its well in. (PJK) OK Thanks wink emoticon I am very impressed with his drafting and designing skills,he has stressed at a level well below what is actually needed for safety,given the deep wing section and slow flying characteristics even in a severe buffet its a safe machine,I really think they are trying to hoodwink you Peter. They said the Quickie was a high wing loading in the early days and look at the thickness of that wing by comparison. yes I know I would get back to him and query why he thinks the wing loading is high ? especially given the data supplied and that the designer has stressed at 6 g in his calculations. (PJK) I know........over-engineered into the build Yep. I would be happy operating a delta with those specs. (PJK) me too That is going to leap into the air. (PJK) yes And you know what to do if the worst comes to the worst ? (PJK) what? Place the machine in flying position,load the wing up with sandbags at strategic points across the span and chord and do a static test,just like they did in the early days of flying,that way you can prove they are very wrong. (PJK) We are going to do the inverted wing loading Good idea,if they break they break,but I doubt if they will. (PJK) I DOUBT IT AS WELL Invite his lordship to be the observer when you do it,they have the facts well recorded what more do they want ? So now I am more than happy that the Sgian Dubh Wings are substantial enough for the safety of the aircraft ;-) Then the day got even better when I also received this reply to an email I sent to another Aircraft Collector : Yahoo! Mail 17:02 (3 hours ago) to me Peter, I have a 503 that you would be more than welcome to borrow for your testing. It has been sitting in my workshop for some time and would probably need checking over. I,m not too sure if I have a 447 to loan I would have to check, it could be a 377. I may be able to arrange something with regard to St Austell, it is a pity as I delivered a Tiger Cub to my friends son at St Blazey last week. I spend 4 days each week at St Mawgan which may be a better pick-up point if convenient for you. Let me know what suits. Regards, Ian All in all, everything is coming together...... I have also been given clearance to start on the Quaich Project now...... That will be flying within a Month.

Having asked the BMAA ( BRITISH MICROLIGHT AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION ) if they still have access to the submissions for the Iolaire I received the following response from them ( Not sure why the Sgian Dubh came into the content as it wasn't a concern before getting their email : Ben Syson via gmail.com 10 May to PJK Dear Peter, Iolaire We have an historic file on the Iolaire. It has not been opened since I have been at the BMAA (2006), and I am unaware of its contents. An ‘experimental’ 2-seat Microlight can now be test flown on E Conditions. Details are on the CAA website: http://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/Experimental-aircraft/ Although an ‘experimental’ single-seat Microlight can be legally flown without any airworthiness ‘approval’, it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a good idea. It is legal solely because the risk to third parties is very low; it is not a judgement in any way on the risks posed to the pilot by this activity. I would strongly recommend using an E Conditions Competent Person - and with careful consideration of the E Conditions guidance - even if the aircraft is SSDR. Sgian Dubh I have noticed that you have also become the registered owner of the Sgian Dubh G-CJPK. Some sample drawings of this type are available on the internet: http://www.hughlorimer.co.uk/sd_drg.pdf There are some very questionable design features in these drawings. For example, drawing L2-W4 shows a very unconventional wing root joint in which the spar caps are effectively discontinuous, and the load is transferred purely through the ‘tenon’. The stress calculation at the end of the document raises more questions than it answers, and leaves me unconvinced that this design feature is in anyway satisfactory. Again, I would strongly recommend using an E Conditions Competent Person and the E Conditions guidance, even though this aircraft is SSDR. Regards, Ben Ben Syson Chief Technical Officer British Microlight Aircraft Association 01869 336 006 [email protected] I am now looking for opinions on the Wing Loading Calculations on Page 21&22 of the PDF. Obviously under our SSDR Category I/we can just go ahead & do our own flight testing, however I am now considering the E Conditions Test Pilot process if I get enough plausible reasons to follow that mindset.

Whilst I am open to your opinion on which one you think would be most benign I am going to stick to what my Aerodynamicist has implied..... As he is regarded as the best aircraft engineer currently in the UK. I am glad that I am not the Test Pilot for the Sgian Dubh, it needs either a better pilot than I am or a more adventurous pilot than I am ;-) I have every faith in my choice of pilot & am pleased that he is also involved in the final checking before flight...... his enthusiasm for Flying Wings is second to none ;-) [ATTACH]42900[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]42901[/ATTACH] Hugh Lorimer has done so many calculations on the Sgian Dubh that it has the CofG marked on the side of the fuselage & also the aerodynamic CofG marked for reference ( weight & balance calcs show an inbuilt stability ) If we succeed in getting the Iolaire into the SSDR ( single seat de-regulated ) category access to the rear will be disregarded ( it will be a baggage locker ) My Aerodynamicist is probably better qualified to answer my queries than someone who studied fluid dynamics for McLaren F1 ;-) I think McLaren F1 need to go back to the drawing board with regards to their streamlining & fluid dynamics theorum ( or steal the Mercedes blueprints ) The concern with regards the Iolaire is the Canard is an all moving Canard..... My aerodynamicist 'thinks' we should make the Canard a 75% solid structure with some positive incidence and have a 25% movable elevator integrated into it. The Iolaire is the only one of Hugh's designs that has previously flown, having watched the video & got a miniscule bit of feedback on it I am inclined to think that the canard needs to be structurally secured with an elevator section I too have flown a Falcon XP as well as the Vari Viggen & Varieze..... I had a quick flight of a Rutan Defiant as well so used to Canard types. I think I will just set my goals on me doing the Quaich Flight Testing & leave the Sgian Dubh to my assigned team & then build another team to fettle the Iolaire when Project 3 comes along. I have no control over the way we get the projects..... Hugh wants the Sgian Dubh to take to the air before we start flight testing the Quaich, then as the SWANSONG the Iolaire will be restored to flying capability and tested fully.

Yes it has flown....... I have watched the video & spoken with Hugh on the subject...... I think it needs a bit of redesigning according to my Aerodynamicists. The BMAA should have copies still on file of any structural reports that Hugh submitted - I honestly can't remember if it complied or not to Section S. Clearly I also need to find a competent test pilot prepared to take on a flight test evaluation and iron out any handling bugs - and I think it's likely some will exist. In particular I have been very strongly recommended that I test a wind tunnel or radio control model with the same all flying canard geometry to evaluate stall and stall recovery related handling characteristics before any attempt to fly the aeroplane. Specifically my Aerodynamicist was very concerned that the canard could adopt a lower incidence than the mainplane, so there was potential to achieve a condition where the canard was unstalled and the mainplane stalled, leading to a tailslide from which it was not possible to show by analysis that it would recover. However, it's clearly flown at least once without killing anybody, which is a start. Nonetheless, I'd personally treat flying the Iolaire initially as a high risk flight test programme, with all that implies, as a matter of basic survival. Vaughan Askew's book "Flight testing homebuilt aircraft" and the FAA's flight test guide AC90-89 are useful guides to those processes, but ultimately you need it test flown by somebody who is a trained test pilot backed up by some robust preparation and planning - I don't want to make it up as I go along or I probably will die.

Altair, It is only right that we invite Hugh to the Flight testing of the Sgian Dubh........ I think the Sgian Dubh is the most interesting of the LORIMER PROJECTS ( and probably the harder of the 2 I am interested in to fly ) The Quaich will be a very easy to fly aircraft, not that concerned by that at all........The Iolaire is the one that the verdict is out on !!! Some Aerodynamicists think it will be as stable as a dart & other Aerodynamicists think it will be a bucking bronco........time will tell on that one ;-) Sgian Dubh ( PROJECT ONE ) likely to be a Handful. Quaich ( PROJECT TWO ) Easy to Fly in my opinion Iolaire ( PROJECT THREE ) This one is going to be a REAL CHALLENGE as it has already been subject to close scrutiny by the BMAA & I doubt will fit into the SSDR category without a lot of fuss.

Hugh was certainly extremely HAPPY to see his Sgian Dubh going away to Cornwall for final checks & then commence Flight Testing ( when we locate a working 447 or 503 engine ). We have agreed that Hugh will be invited down to witness one of the Test Flights. Hugh was impressed by the guy who will be doing the final checks & flight testing....... The Trailer has definitely seen better days, we flipped a coin as to whether to just go and buy a trailer or whether to repair the trailer ( The trailer had 'makeshift' repairs to enable it to get to Cornwall done by my Engineer ) I won't go into too much detail but it involved Welding & structural work to make it only mildly dangerous as opposed to suicidal to use. Pictures of it at Cornwall :

Pictures from the Transportation to Cornwall from Mauchline ( Pt1)

The timestamp of 4th April should have said 4th May ( my mistake) Yes I am based in Edinburgh, I am also based in London, I am also based on the IOW. The aircraft is fully built ( excluding the engine ) but for reasons of it actually having been built in 1999 we are going over everything to ensure it is all still good & airworthy still. The Team overseeing all this work are a specialised team of Aviation Geeks from Cornwall who get uber excited about Flying Wings & have a wealth of knowledge on Flying Wings ( Me, I am just the numpty who wants for Hugh to see the Sgian Dubh take to the skies ) The Sgian Dubh briefly flew today on the transportation from Mauchline to Abington...... the winds were 50-60mph & it left the ground in a gust whilst we were enroute down the M74 so we had a 50mph forward speed & a 50mph crosswind briefly ( it made that sector of the trip very interesting. )

Sgian Dubh is being prepped for transportation to the Rebuild Centre today, it will be roaded to Cornwall on 4th April 2016 & then Reassembly commences ;-) Will post pictures on my return from this epic trip. To confuse all Aircraft Spotters who will be gawping at it on the journey down we are leaving the G-MEXP registration on the side etc. G-MEXP was a Ficticious registration placed on it for the Microlight Shows ( M for Microlight / EXP for Experimental. )

Having seen the HypeR at Popham. It looked quite crap to me, it does have some neat bits though......especially the adjustable seats! Very clever how they've got the pilot's seat adjustable fore and aft just like a car, and the rear one can be adjusted up and down. Bill Brooks said the pedals are also adjustable, so that one size plane fits all possible pilot shapes. Neat! I wasn't too impressed with the open bit at the back near the radiator. That bit looked clunky to me, and the method of adjusting the amount of cooling by moving a large flat plate up and down in front of the radiator also seemed less than properly thought out. Bob Hood suggested they should box it in like they have with the PulsR and have vents on the side or underneath that could be opened and closed as needed. ( pics by various photographers )

Today it hasn't grown any prettier ( you know how a baby looks even more gorgeous the day after birth ) Well this is still fugging ugly ;-) I am not quite sure why.......but the radiator is on a cable pulley system so it can be pulled towards the white uprights? I am curious why there is a scoop just behind the wheel? I hope that isn't the intake for the airbox ;-)

They haven't disclosed a price yet........... I suspect they are too scared to tell anyone yet, I just hope this isn't the Product that P&M are thinking is going to pull them out of the financial abyss they are sitting in. What I see is a Quasar revamp with the rear section of a PulsR morphed onto it.

I have a Polaris FIB582 G-CIXI that is operated by a Wildlife Conservation Supporter in Weymouth & an acquaintance is operating a Polaris FIB582 in Crete. Both these are operated in Open Waters & neither are classed as open area shoreline large lakes. These are very capable FIB's

Today P&M Aviation unveiled the P&M Aviation HypeR @ Popham Airfield (30/04/2016) during the opening of the Annual Microlight Trade Fair. I am not someone who gets that excited about Flexwings, so the unveiling wasn't the highlight of the Event for me. I will let those of you who are interested in Flexwings see the Microlight & I am interested in your opinions to see if they match mine?