pylon500

Hey there, don't want to derail this thread, so go over to;

Just Bragging and I'll try to get back into more regular posting there.

OK folks, just reviving this old thread for chatting purposes...

Just a quick little history of my 'Stollite';

Using the wings of a previously upgraded ultralight, myself and a then apprentice with me at Bankstown, threw together (over three years) an airframe using very standardised all metal structural concepts ie; Cherrokee styled wing tanks, Cessna styled cabin with all controls under floor, Beaver styled aft fuselage and tail group, and unfortunately a Jabiru/Vampire styled control system (you live and learn).

Originally powered by a Rotax 503 as a 95:10, until it failed with the aircraft being lightly damaged.

It was then rebuilt as a 19 class, and powered by a Rotax 582, until I blew that up, (long story for later), but fortunately this time the aircraft was unscathed.

I happen to have an 80hp Rotax 912 laying around for another project, so I 'borrowed' it and continued flying.

The irony here is that, while using the 912, I was always on the lookout for something more akin to the 582, which it flew well with, to replace the 912 so it could go into the other project.

Enter the BMW R100 conversion that was sitting in a hangar with no paperwork or exhaust, but a reasonable price.

BMW details;

This is (to the best that I can determine) about a 1985, 1000cc bike engine that has had a full aero conversion kit, I think it is an English kit?

The engine has an adaptor plate on the gearbox end (which is now the front) and has a Rotax 'C' box with a spragg slipping clutch (the prop free wheels).

Because the engine is now technically installed backwards, both pots have been swapped across, putting the exhausts on the forward end of the engine, and therefore the carbi's at the back.

The heads have been modified to have two plugs, a mod done on the bikes as well, and a dual electronic ignition system fitted.

Things I had to do;

The inlet ports face upwards, about 20º from horizontal, so I needed to get some angled manifold rubbers to fit the 54mm Bing carbs (x2).

Make a catch can for the crankcase breather.

Modify the oil filter to adapt to an oil cooler.

Fit an oil pressure sender.

Get an exhaust system made.

Operation;

I fitted a larger Stewart Warner tach to the aircraft, and I think I have the switches at the back sorted?

When it works, the motor runs out to near 6000rpm and flies the Stollite about the same as the 582 did, using the same prop.

The problem I'm having is something fuel related, where when I first ran it, it started easily and idled pretty well. I had been told they don't like to idle too slow, but sits fairly smoothly around 1800~2000rpm (bit like a 912). Problem was when I first opened it up, it got to around 4000rpm and started to run rough and miss until it would stop.

This turned out to be fuel starvation.

Checked the fuel system, which seemed OK, so added an electric pump.

Start the engine, run up to 4000 where it would start to miss, turn on the pump and it would come good, and continue on up to around 5800 with good hearty sound.

Throttle back towards 3000 with the pump on, and it would go rough again, and if the pump wasn't turned off, it would flood out and stop.

This is not highly conducive to relaxed flying (don't ask), so when I find time to go back and fiddle with it (like now while we're not flying much), I'm playing around with different pumps and float settings.

The flight photos are around 2000ft over the airport (always within gliding distance), back in around 2017(!) and I've probably done a total of about an hour in it!

Other projects had since crowded the Stollite to the back of the hangar until last month, when I figured out how to adapt a 912 mechanical fuel pump to the 'C' box.

Unfortunately it hasn't totally cured the problem and the 4 year old, non maintained battery, is almost stuffed, and now the other projects and some sideline work are pushing for attention.

I'll get there eventually.

I saw a Flying Flea derivative many years ago at The Oaks. I don't know where it came from, maybe Wedderburn, but it seemed to do all that was asked of it.

That was around the time Pylon 500 had his little Stolite parked there.

 

OMG! just Googled it. That would have been 20 or 21 yrs ago Arthur. Is it still flying?

Are you talking about the blue/silver 503 powered Flying Flea at the Oaks, or my Stollite, seen here flying (with it's latest motor, a BMW R100 conversion), over Taree...

Oh yes, I finally repainted it.

Just a quick step outside the thread;

Looking into the 'Flea' came across something that had never occurred to me... a Flea GLIDER!

Enjoy;

http://claudel.dopp.free.fr/Les_planeurs/Descriptions_planeurs/Cosandey%20Pou%20Planeur/Cosandey_Pou-Planeur.htm

Just a few observations...

Rudder horn 'above' the fuselage?

Apart from being a bit unsightly, there is now a hole on an upper surface, but should you (or another builder) desire a tail-dragger, much re-designing will be required.

Just a thought.

you can make a lot of odd shapes fly that would be a disaster full size.

The Flying Flea.

Now I'm not sure if I countered the comment, or agreed with it?

It is pretty much a 'if it looks right' kind of thing.

The two primary things that generally relate to wingspan are; wing chord, which will give you aspect ratio, and; moment arm ratio, which boils down to the leverage that the tail has on the wing to control pitching moment and overall elevator authority.

Oddly, the 1.5:1 span/length ratio is probably pretty close with most gliders as well, but because the wing is narrow chord, the moment arm ratio is much higher, which then allows the use of much smaller (read less drag) tailplanes.

Shorter the moment arm ratio, the larger the tail to wing percentage needs to be...

Welcome to the site, we have a building blog/discussion page further down;

https://www.recreationalflying.com/forums/aircraft-building-and-design-discussion.55/

(off to have a look...)

...

And I'm back.

Hmm, the fish eye lens photo of the motor makes it look HUGE.

You should be able to transfer the build from 10 class to 19 class with little effort, save for the RAAus fees, which are a rort, but hey, welcome to the 'making a profit' recreational aviation company, and continue building 19-1103.

I can see some currency problems looming after the virus problem ebbs.

Let's hope the gestapo authorities don't get too knee jerk about solo flying, and that plenty of instructors are carrying out 'self proficiency' flying in the interim (in their personal aircraft hopefully).

I see no reason to extend the clauses of 'Single seat BFR' checks

OK, just realised I've gone and Ozzie Englished that and technically said the opposite to what I meant.

That should have been;

I see no reason to NOT extend the clauses of 'Single seat BFR checks to owner pilots, or in other words yes, allow owner pilots of 2 seaters to do a BFR solo while observed and listened to by an instructor on the ground.

I spend a lot of time getting students to appreciate that 'flying' an aeroplane is only half of what it takes to 'pilot' an aircraft.

It's trained into muscle memory leaving more concentration time for navigating, communicating and fitting in with other users of the skies.

Pop questions about how aircraft fly, what are the air rules, how do you create a flight plan, can all be asked on the ground (from at least 2 metres away) instead of while burning dollars in the sky.

That said, thanks to kasper and Blueadventures for understanding what I was trying to say, that is if you did agree to what I meant to say...

Too many schools and authorities have taken the BFR as another form of income generator, instead of the flying capability assessment that it really is.

I see no reason to extend the clauses of 'Single seat BFR' checks to anyone that at least owns their own aircraft (1 or 2 seat) or is a regular flyer of the club or school aircraft that would normally be used for the test.

I always do BFR's for owner pilots in their own aircraft because 1) they are used to that aircraft and are less stressed when just taking a 'passenger' (the checking instructor) and. 2) I get to fly in a variety of aircraft (I have around 92 types in my log book).

That said, I do fly for fun and don't rely on it as an income stream.

Remember, to make a small fortune in aviation, start with a large one!

Is the strut all you need?

I cant attach images also

G'Day Richard, haven't been in the forums for a while and missed your response.

From what I can see, the only thing I can't fabricate is the strut.

What do you have?

Difficult (but not impossible) to spin a Cessna with full flap..

No prop damage so dead engine, services appear to be parked on well tended lawns (golf course?), possibly over/undershot a forced landing?

Good all survived.

Sad news inbound from Foxbat Australia...

https://www.facebook.com/foxbataustralia/

Yeah, managed to rebuild one of the Foxbats in my hangar, will take a little longer to rebuild the second.

Was looking at a white write-off up in Queensland for bits (need a R/H strut), but someone beat me to it.

Have a lot of projects running at the moment, so the second 'Bat is a bit of 'back-burner'.

OK, for some reason I can't attach images?

how glossy it is depends on you ipad condition

 

Stares at 'non reflective' iPad screen, "bugger!"

I do wonder though, with out limited member numbers, do we really need a Playboy quality glossy mag, which in real terms is only supposed to fulfil the role of a newsletter?

The other half objects to me taking my computer into the bog. What am I to do if nothing is printed anymore?

 

I feel you do my trick as in, when things get a little 'blocked' down there, I only need to read some of the 'latest directions' columns, and things are moving again.

Jokes aside, I've been getting the hard copy since the eighties, and opted to still get it so my students can have a look.

But now that it's basically mandatory to have a computer (and probably a little better than the 15 year old G3 iMac currently there), in my briefing room, so you can check on students endorsement and membership status, as this is no longer on their cards, plus the fact you need a computer to submit online said endorsements, BFR's, etc (oh but you also need a printer/scanner for these forms because you can't sign them on line, meaning you have to print the filled form, scrawl on the signatures, re-scan the forms and then submit them as emails), so I may as well just get the digital copy of the magazine.

My library shelves are pretty full anyway.

I don't suppose the membership fees will go down, there'll be something else to spend the money I'm sure...

A Panther with an 0-320!

Well I guess there's no substitute for horsepower

As for building, with the way RAA is heading, you're probably better building it VH experimental.

No annual membership fees

No annual rego fees

The test flying hoops are about the same

SAAA is orientated towards builders

You can do your own maintenance (yes I know, same either way)

You can do your own mods (to the best of my knowledge)

You could probably fly it on an RPL?

I hear a lot of smaller AD's are fitting cameras and doing their own collecting as Avdata take a pretty big lump of the money they collect.

I hear rumours in the 70% range !

I have heard stories that the Liberty's are known to 'bite', and looking at the thin, almost laminar wing, I would tend to agree.

That said, I've never flown one so who knows, could well be a pussycat.

Not going to get very good height with the tow hook in the wrong place for a winch.

G'Day All,

Had a little drama last week, effin great storm came through Taree (you may have heard of the local rowing club losing it's roof), which also hit the airport.

Wind got to around 64kts, which was just too much for my hangar doors, and bits of the roof and gutter.

Had two Foxbats in the hangar, one complete, one getting some maintenance.

Both insured,but need to look around to see what parts I can get hold of, basically anything

Wings,

Ailerons,

Tails,

Elevators,

Struts,

Rudder,

Fuselage shell.

So, just putting the feelers out there...

Yeah, the old adage, 'If it looks right, it should fly right...'

This thing looks like a flying death trap!

Two big engines and barely enough of anything else to aim them in the right direction.

I didn't follow the build, so I can assume those that did, possibly saw a lot of high tech effort go into the construction and therefore think the same effort went into the aerodynamic design...?

I'm not saying this is incapable of flight, far from it, but as Marty said, I think the cockpit needs to be bigger fit the required 'stones' need to fly this.

Basic upfront design problems at first sight....

Totally useless rudder, will barely keep plane straight with both engines perfectly matched.

Will also have very limited effectiveness where needed (at low speed) because of the sweep angle, it'll basically be an elevator by then.

Short span, short couple, and both engines turn the same way!?

And why are they spaced so far out along the wing?

This was supposed to be for racing, racing engines fail, single engine opps in this thing will be;

Critical engine and fatal engine.

Sorry if sounds down on someone who appears to have been well involved, but this just looks like one of those, 'Nope!' type aircraft.

You want two engine, one pilot, go fast?, look at the Pond Racer, It ticked all the boxes, then read what Dick Rutan said about flying it.

Admittedly, he said it was better than the Voyager.

Gee, not here for ages, then come here and rants!

Sorry folks.