Do we go back to the paddock

Drawings at present are a cub type ,high wing, all alloy tube riveted. A very simple control system, and quick to make. A 18hp to 40hp V twin suppiled with a prop wheels and ASI .covering and dope. $8,500 kit . 18 days to build 150hrs
complete as new, second hand ( test flown) 15 k
I think most of us now want something that looks like a plane and not a rag bag.
Talking about cheap flying I did 5 hrs in my motor glider Saturday for $2.50 that's 50 cents an hr. I can afford this.

 

I think your on the right track Garry, for a simple low cost single seater, that as you say looks like an aeroplane. Riveted tube construction sounds relatively simple.
A cub type strutted high wing should be able to provide a measure of crash protection for the pilot. Can also be made to look quite good with the right paint scheme and some polished bits.

 

what like the aerodrome ww1 replicas?

 

We can not do this on the forum. You need to ring me 0418253466 or mornings 02 65539920 or E mail me gkmorgan@ihug.com.au

 

WW1 aircraft didn't handle X winds very well, so a cub type will be better for most of us.

 

Do you mean as in construction method? Hard to understand what you are trying to say at times FT.

 

there is no shortage of aircraft, every niche seems to have multiple producers. the biggest problem for manufacturers is the vast numbers of used aircraft.

 

This sounds remarkable Gary. I can't imagine how you could get it so inexpensive - or so quick to build!

I've had a long try at designing up something similar built from gusset/riveted commercial grade square aly tube and if the clusters are to be properly resolved the number and complexity of the gussets killed it for me. It became apparent that much of the assembly has to be done during the building of the kit unless the kit was just to be a set of plans and a box of tubing cut to length. I had considered supplying the fuselage sides assembled with at least the gussets to hold their members together and a couple of rivets in each gusset, the rest of the rivets to be added by the builder and then the builder to add all the members between the two sides.

Unfortunately I found that wouldn't work as the gussets that would later hold the transverse and bracing members had to be added while assembling the sides otherwise you couldn't get a riveter in most places to add them later. I felt that having to do so much of the assembly as part of the kit production would blow the kit cost out too much.

In the end I found it was lighter, very much quicker and also cheaper (if kit construction time was taken into consideration) to just build it out of welded chromoly.

A couple of CAD images here to show what I mean about the access for the riveter -

 

Based on Gary's years of experience if Gary says he can, then I believe he can.
Alan.

 

Well yes using square tubes is making your life hell on brackets - plus the tubes are probably way heavier than they need be for the loads adding weight.

One way of cutting both the weight and the brackets on a truss frame in rivited ali was/is done on the texas parasol - free downloadable plans and construction manual here:

http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/cavelamb@earthlink.net.02.11.2006/

I do not like their wing structures but the fuse frame is light and easy to build from scratch and bloody rigid once put together. I added different bungee undercarraige to my fuselage for the pou I built using this type of fuselage and its still flying.

 

Ah, yes, I wasn't saying he couldn't, I just said that I couldn't.

I'll be very interested in how it's done. As you can see from the CAD model images I posted, the bracketry becomes very involved if you want to properly resolve the clusters. You can always just bracket one side of each tube of course, if you want to build a new airframe every couple of years ...

No, I chose the square tubes for the design I was working on because they were more closely suited for the loads they would carry, than available round tubes would have been. The bracketry was made easier rather than harder, and the flat faces offered the benefit of two rows of rivets rather than one, so the gussets could be smaller and lighter than otherwise. I built a Heath Bullet years ago (early 1980s) using gussets and round tube and it worked OK but the square tube was a much better option this time.

Yes, but the Parasol is made from angle rather than tube and personally I wouldn't fabric cover an angle airframe. My Macro series in 1983-4 was built using light commercial grade trim angle and covered in 0.016" & 0.025" alclad sheet rather than fabric. They were a very light airframe (empty weight incl engine was around 80kg, well under the 115kg we were allowed back then, but they didn't have enough wing area to be quite legal...) and flew with 18hp direct drive at 75kts. Quick to build too, I built 7 of them in about 3 months each.

I've often imagined that Gary might build kits something like them, the method is fairly similar to his other kits.

Macro -

 

Gussets to an alloy frame would be much the same as the cheetah,not hard .Thinking of cutting all the tubes to length. and no. them to a drawing. the control system is so simple and easy to make, keeps cost down. no push pull cables. The marco looks good , i would look at the diamond but a cantilever wing adds cost and work .
Im looking at buildingthe wing from the kit in a day, less ailerons which would be another day, the gusset fuse 3 days to build.

 

if you can build it for that price the world will beat a path to your door

 

I'm a bit confused still, what is it exactly you are offering please?

Lets say I have $8,500, what will I actually get in my hand when the delivery truck arrives?

What further will I have to supply?

Thanks.

 

The wing still has to be removable! or foldable.........................Is it possible to go the way of modern F.A.I. a/2 gliders ? That is, the centre section (fuel tank ala Tiger Moth? ) Has a "pin" sticking out each side about 2" dia. probably a foot long . The wing has a receptacle through each of the root ribs as part of the spar . The wing slips onto the "pins" ...As the load is a compression /shear load the sizes can be minimal,, ( Dont forget it's a strut supported wing) Works under the very severe loads of launching (20g-30g) ..That Gee as in gravity not gram as in avoirdupois, although that's ounces............ Oh well never mind.......................................AHHHH , landing , negative Gee, it wont work sorry.....

 

QD wings will always add weight unless it has a high wing (strutted) where I can't see there would be any extra. Nev

 

I would still like to see it more like the ISON Airbike, But not in a hangar, it defeats the whole purpose.... BTW....I looked it up, plans and kits are available , Jordan Lake Aero...


Gary, Go thou and do likewise.....

 

I researched the Parasol derivatives years ago. Very simple load paths should be light and strong. Getting in and out has to be worked on. Have a look at the Comper Swift. Nev

 

I agree, no point having a budget aircraft if it costs you $3000 a year to hangar it. Needs to be able to be stored on a trailer or in a shipping container.

 

When we took the Condor to the Aquip show in '79, it was fitted with the Fuji Robin EC440 twin. Late in the week a bunch of Japanese Fuji reps came to our stand, they where really impressed with the little aeroplane with their engine on it. After much chatter they offered to build a purpose built ultralight engine dual ignition and gearbox. Whoopie we said, problems solved. Catch was we had to buy several thousand, pay upfront and delivery would be 10 months time. I often wonder how that would have worked out if it happened.