Jump to content
Garry Morgan

Do we go back to the paddock

Recommended Posts

I thought the 1/2 VW was a good idea. VERY cheap, lots of good bits available. All "do it yourself"....They look great and perform well on the "Legal Eagle"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could build an engine from scratch almost as easily, then you might have something decent. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Based on" is where it goes wrong. Most people who do that wish they had dome what I suggest. Compromised by the faults from the original engines design.. is where it ends up.. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not worth the effort to cut the VW c'case. It works just fine with covering plates over the 2 extra holes...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is often left as you say. They tried a Jabiru twin and it vibrated too much because of the amount of cylinder offset. You need to reduce that as much as feasibly possible. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1/2 VW is a bit heavy for the low power it puts out. I'd look at a v twin with reduction drive with a large slow turning prop. Maybe a future project after the current 3 projects. Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the V twin will have less driveline problems even though the firing pulses are not as even.. 45 HP is only for single seat unless its a pretty high aspect ratio jigger. Look up DH 53.. They flew with 26 HP. as a Blackburn Vee twin power unit. Blackburn are also called Cirrus in aviation products. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They tried a Jabiru twin and it vibrated too much because of the amount of cylinder offset. You need to reduce that as much as feasibly possible. Nev

 

Exactly and the issue (rocking) with doing a modular engine such as in the second half of this video ..

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzEp3dokx4k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 18hp v twin flyies a quicky at 90kts and a single seat goes very well like a 40hp rotax.

I expect a 40hp v twin will fly a two seater, or a three seater ground effect machine. A two seat cub type aircraft, all alloy tube rivited together, and fabric covered could be a very cheap aircraft. You could put in a VW also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are possibilities but all heavier than the 447and 503 etc .No one's talking about the smaller rotaries. Why not? Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... A two seat cub type aircraft, all alloy tube rivited together, and fabric covered could be a very cheap aircraft. You could put in a VW also

 

Something similar in appearance to the Savage Bobber? Yes please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary, can you design it so that the builder can choose between fabric or aluminium covering? Folding wings and easy to trailer would be advantageous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fournier RF-4 apparently flew well with 40hp - motor glider with long wings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider that the plane has to fit with a lifestyle of the owner.

 

Portability is a key feature if you can't get access to a hangar. Storing a glider if you can't get a hangar is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, wing fold (somehow) and trailerability are 'must have' options as much as I don't like it. A 28 foot airplane weighing 100kgs costs the same in a hangar as a Cessna 172...And , these days that is $100 plus per week....Neither am I altogether in favour of Alu. covering. The handling will cause lots of "hangar rash" which will spoil it quickly.......Is a fabric covered alu. wing possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not electric, surely we have the technology, the motor has to be cheaper, even if the batteries and controllers are expensive, with the savings in fuel and maintenance, and the added reliability they have to be worth consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Fournier RF-4 apparently flew well with 40hp - motor glider with long wings

Correct! The RF-4 flew well, even though it didn't break any ROC events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All our aircraft will go into a trailor, a hangar is a big cost and this is where we are trying to get away from. Motors yes all the v twins are heavy but it is cost. I just got a hirth f33 28hp it has all the options and $6500.00 landed. Fabric V alloy its your choice, but a slightly longer nose for the weight.

How simple or how much work does one want to put into a small aircraft. The more work put in the nicer the aircraft, and higher the performance. From a thruster / to a cub/ or like the RF4 motor glider. or all. I have just done a plan for a daimond for a guy with a longer fuse and a 11-13m wing as a motor glider he will put in a VW. It is like a RF4 but simple and a metal wing. As a mater of interest the super daimond wing spar is ok up to 13m, that makes the daimond about a 15G aircraft, and in the sierra at 600kg its 8G.

Simple is not always light, but it can be cheaper to get into the air. Interested to here if you would build or like to fly away, and at what cost, also would you register it or just go and fly as we did in the 70-80s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical sort of thread; Guy offers possible cheap basic, simple plane so clients all start listing the options/capabilities they want included. :no way:

 

As Henry Ford said: "If I listened to what the clients wanted, we would be still riding around on horses".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never can please everone, but feed back is interesting to see trends. Yesterday I did 5 hrs for a cost of $2.50 for a 2,500'launch now thats cheap flying and fun every one wants. well i do any way . when i retire i wont have the money to fly a 172.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary, I don't think you can produce an aircraft any more cheaply than you are already, the technology involved is fairly mature, unless you can introduce mass produced parts you aren't going to achieve any significant cost savings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ft, That's a bit liking telling Grandma, how to suck eggs. Gary is good at innovation. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true, if I was going to consider a kit plane I would lean to a CX5 conventional but well executed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×