Head in the clouds Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 The problem with the STOL planes is you need a tonne of power to go places fast, which rules out cheap. You have to live with compromises. You can put a T1 on a trailer, just need a longish one to fit it on. The wing is 20' and the fuselage 19'3". Takes two people but that's reason to be a club. T1 is still a 150-300 hours of work which is 1/2 the time for a Sonex or a Zodiac. Hey FT, I think we might be batting on opposing teams here. The whole thing about the old way of ultralight flying was the journey, not the destination. We were never trying to "go places fast", we were happy going anywhere, and going anywhere slowly gave time to appreciate the scenery. It's a bit like travelling by walking rather than driving. There was less stress, if your engine failed, oh well it failed, we'll land down there... and the others did so too, new spark plug and off we go again. If you fly a low performance plane you can land most anywhere, the higher the performance the higher you must fly to be safe. Compare outlanding a parachute or a Learjet to follow what I mean... We flew like the birds, literally, planning into wind outbound, and with the following wind on the way back, beware the sea-breeze and all that. On a good day you could take the last of the land-breeze to the coast and race home surfing the sea-breeze. Going inland plan it all a bit later out, and earlier back. It taught you much more about flying and the micro-met weather than GA or this more recent RAA toy-GA ever will. I didn't realise the T1 was such small span but what I propose is that 20ft (19ft actually, as a biplane) span for the 2 seater, and it wouldn't matter how much power you gave it, it wouldn't go fast, but with a big prop and low horses it'll still STOL and climb well. Ever seen a boat with too much horsepower? The extra engine weight destroys the design concept, there's not enough buoyancy. All they do is dig a big hole in the water at the stern and sit bows to the sky, make heaps of noise and spray and it really feels like you're flying along but the GPS says otherwise and the fuel gauge sends you broke. You simply cannot make a fast and strong 2 seat plane cheaply. So this thread is about a slow and cheap 2 seater that STOLs and climbs well and also folds easily in 2 minutes into a small package. That's the design criteria but I'm always willing to add to it if anyone can show me how. As a PS, the only way to make a plane go both fast and slow with low horsepower would be by hugely variable wing geometry (massive 3 stage flaps and slats probably) and that wouldn't be cheap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 You can put a Jab 2200 in T1 and they get off the ground very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit12 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Actually I am thinking about two versions, but not significantly different concepts. The single seater being the other - it is a lot simpler, lighter, smaller and much cheaper still. In general single seaters are very difficult to make commercially viable but it depends on the level of interest/volume of sales. Perhaps a single seater with a small jump seat/baggage area behind with just enough room to take a slim chick for a thrill? It would have to be small - a kiddie seat really, and mean that you'd have to register it as a two seater in 95:55 with reduced MTOW, not 95:10. Comments? I'll weigh in here - I've followed many of your comments for quite some time HITC, both here and at HBA. I'm more of a reader than a talker though, as I prefer to let those who know what they talk about do most of the talking! Regarding a second seat....I liken it to motorcycles. Have a look at any late model 1000cc sportsbike. They all have ridiculous and impractical pillion seats. The handling of the bike is usually much worse with a passenger, and the majority of the time they are ridden one up. That said, how often do you see a single seat litre bike for sale? The market dictates that it must be there, even if it isn't well utilised. I think you may be on to something about 1 and a 1/2 seater. Or if possible make it buildable without the pillion seat for 95.10 if preferred, to cover all bases. Shane 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylon500 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Looks like we lost the Tread Drift smilie...? Anyway, reading through all this talk about a 1 ½ seater, plus I was trolling google for something similar and realised it basically described the plane I designed an built back around '95. As a 95:10, it had plenty of space in the back for luggage, a 503 up front and folding wings. With a bigger motor (582), it became a '19' class and got a seat in the back. Build history here; https://picasaweb.google.com/113292981019876413104/BuildingAndFlyingTheStollite# As for Simple 95:10 single seaters, I think many would be interested in the Macro.... How simple was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 You can put a Jab 2200 in T1 and they get off the ground very quickly. No argument with that but you still won't be joining the others having fun landing on soft beaches and rough paddocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 Looks like we lost the Tread Drift smilie...?Anyway, reading through all this talk about a 1 ½ seater, plus I was trolling google for something similar and realised it basically described the plane I designed an built back around '95. [ATTACH=full]20667[/ATTACH] As a 95:10, it had plenty of space in the back for luggage, a 503 up front and folding wings. With a bigger motor (582), it became a '19' class and got a seat in the back. Build history here; https://picasaweb.google.com/113292981019876413104/BuildingAndFlyingTheStollite# As for Simple 95:10 single seaters, I think many would be interested in the Macro.... How simple was it? Nice plane P500! Careful with that word 'trolling'... Macro was very simple to build, basically just an aly box fuselage, I beam wing, all sheeting was bonded for quick assembly, riveting after was optional. I built them in about 2 months each and cut all the sheet with hand snips, with a guillotine and folder it'd be much quicker still. But these days the better option would be the Onex, better quality of finish and easier being all pre-punched and self jigging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 No argument with that but you still won't be joining the others having fun landing on soft beaches and rough paddocks. Sounds like what you have invented is an Aerochute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Sounds like what you have invented is an Aerochute? FT..Read Post 35..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planet47 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Hey fly_tornado I have a question Which came first the tornado or the thundergull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 The Tornado was copied from the Thundergull, both use the D cell, alloy over polystyrene construction method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted February 9, 2013 Author Share Posted February 9, 2013 I can't find the post now but someone at some stage said they didn't like the looks of the high tractor engine configuration and I commented that it's necessary for this design to get it short enough to trailer, and it also has benefits for STOL and soft ground ops. I also mentioned that I'd see one with an engine cowl that made it look pretty good. I finally found it, it's a Russian plane called an Elitar Sigma And here's one for you FT, should be fast enough I think Still working on the AirToy but mostly going backwards rather than forwards getting simpler construction sorted out, don't give up hope! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Want!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGL Fox Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 If the Sigma is the little one on floats, how cute is that...I will have one of those 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 'Cheap', and 'aircraft engine' will never fit comfortably within the same sentence but there is getting to be a lot more competition so if Rotax's prices have been inflated due to a monopoly then their prices will come down a bit over time. In the 100hp region Rotecs are a good alternative at 70% of the Rotax price and there are others coming onto the market regularly now. So for this plane which is cleaner and lighter than the Cert Drifters/Thrusters we only need 50hp but we're better off aiming for 60hp and there are several engines available in that power range between about $7K and $10K max. And plenty of opportunities to buy 'better than new' re-manufactured ones from the US if you plan ahead, for about $6K landed. Have you seen these? http://www.suziauto.com/index.php?q=content/home-aviataion Hope I'm not breaking their rules by posting the link. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted February 9, 2013 Author Share Posted February 9, 2013 Have you seen these? http://www.suziauto.com/index.php?q=content/home-aviataion Hope I'm not breaking their rules by posting the link. Ian doesn't have any problems with posting a link unless it's to a rival aviation blog... And a very good link it is too. In no real fan of auto conversions for aviation use but then it also depends on the application. If you put one in a plane that has low performance and that you fly in an 'engine-could-stop-at-any-minute' manner then they can be a low cost solution. I've a lot of experience with Suzuki car engines and they are pretty damn good. The major difference when used in an aviation application is that they will spend 90% of their running time at about 75% power, whereas in a car they spend 90% of time at about 20-25% power, so you need to accept that they will have a short life. I didn't say TBO because it's generally not worth overhauling them, just buy another, they're cheap enough. They seem to be indicating around $1500 for a re-con engine... plus $3K for the gearbox and you're flying for under $5K. I'll give them a call on Monday and get them to weigh a G10. By the way folks I'm developing a collection of links to suitable engines for this Cheap 2 Seater, so if anyone knows of any please post them here. For those who thought there weren't any options I have about 30-40 so far and still searching some out from previous threads, so I'll publish the lot for discussion shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 I'll give them a call on Monday and get them to weigh a G10. . Personally I'd go for the G13, I put a bare long motor on the scales at 42kg, and they're bulletproof, you can flog them all day in the sand (4wd), which I'm thinking is a lot like flying them. All alloy block too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Mick those are the same gearboxes I have for my R1150s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Mick those are the same gearboxes I have for my R1150s. What does your R1150 weigh? I cant remember if I asked that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 about 80kgs ready to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planet47 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 By the way folks I'm developing a collection of links to suitable engines for this Cheap 2 Seater, so if anyone knows of any please post them here. For those who thought there weren't any options I have about 30-40 so far and still searching some out from previous threads, so I'll publish the lot for discussion shortly. Looking forward to seeing the results HITC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot Pete Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 As for Simple 95:10 single seaters, I think many would be interested in the Macro.... How simple was it? What does one of these look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted February 10, 2013 Author Share Posted February 10, 2013 As for Simple 95:10 single seaters, I think many would be interested in the Macro....How simple was it? What does one of these look like? This was the Macro 1, built in '84 in 3 months, it used a Robin 244cc 18hp direct drive, 32" prop. Then I built 6 Macro 2 they were much the same but a bit larger, the later ones used R277 engines with gear redrive. They took a couple of months each to build. Following them I built one Macro twin which was the same construction method (bonded aly) with 2 seats side by side and twin wing mounted Robin engines and tri-gear. The new regulations didn't come out in the expected form so that 2 seater was never legal and so no more of them were built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 One of the good things about my tornado. I needed to replace the scratched and cracked screens. 2mm x 2400mm x 1200mm polycarbonate delivered for $120. A couple of hours work cutting the new screens using the old screens as a template and I can rivet them back on. That' a fraction of the cost of a blown Perspex canopy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 not a lot of space to photograph the plastic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot Pete Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Hey HITC, when you say bonded aluminium do you mean on to foam as in the wings or is the skin glued to aluminium ribs and fuse formers? Do you still have plans for the Macro as Ive tried to google it with little success so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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