+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By cluttonfred

Thread: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2

    Question affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    http://www.affordaplane.com/

    http://www.ragwing.net/fleet/RW16Aerial.html

    both designs seem to have similar weights, speeds, etc.. only difference is actual structure, so my question is anybody ever heard of any good or bad things reguading these designs/manufactures ? also any thoughts on structural layout?


    Thanks,
    John

  2. #2
    Registered User Firstscout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    33

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    I haven't had any dealings with Ragwing.net but I have with Affordaplane. Affordaplane has a pretty good builder group on yahoo groups but if you are looking for designer support there is basicly none from the affordaplane camp. I received my plans via online in a couple of days only after I sent an email, and I've hear if you request them in paper form it takes months. I'm no designer but the Ragwing looks more like an airplane to me..

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cheapaircraft/
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cheapaircraft2/

    My two cents..

    Tony
    Last edited by Firstscout; October 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 PM.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Camden, AR
    Posts
    8

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    I am building a Ragwing RW6. The plans leave alot to be desired; however, when you start actually building it becomes clearer. There is very little support from Roger Mann and there are few support groups. I do believe the RW6 is a sound design I cannot speake to the Aerial. Finally, I agree, his designs do appear to look more like "real" aircraft. The following is a link to RW16 builders; you may want to give on of them a call - that's what I did on the RW6 before buying.

    http://hammer.prohosting.com/~ragwin...edir.html#rw16

    Keith

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Coos Bay, Oregon
    Posts
    2

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    I sent away for Aerial plans, and my envelope came back with; Moved. No forwarding address. (8-09) I down loaded the Affordaplane plans for $10.95, which also came with two other ultralight building manuals. I have built endless model airplanes from kits and scratch, as well as full-sized steam engines and boats. Therefore, I am fairly confident that I can build an Affordaplane from the plans.
    As to the Affordaplane vs. Aerial debate: Both designers have an incredibly poor history of builder support. Affordaplane has an excellent user group and you can find lots of pictures of Affordaplane details. The Aerial has an all wood wing, which is going to be heavier and more labor intensive than the Affordaplane's wing. It will cost substantially more, as well. Roger Mann's build time of 150 hours is a cruel joke. I have seen an actual Affordaplane fly. It had a Rotax 503 and I doubt it was UL compliant, weight wise. I am 6'4" and the Affordaplane certainly appears to be easier to get in and out of. I think the Aerial looks a bit better, while the Affordaplane does look a bit dorky.
    My conclusion: If I can't get plans for the Aerial, I guess I am not going to build one. The AP should be easier to build, and from what the AP user group posts tell me, it should be lighter, allowing me to put more HP on it. Unless you don't mind running your engine wide open all the time, both planes should have at least 40HP. The AP's design makes the attachment of a BRS very easy.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Agssiz BC
    Posts
    114

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    Wow I have no idea where you get your information but I will tell you what I have learned.*

    1....The affordaplane can NOT be built to part 103 weight. The owner/moderator of cheapairplanes says if you work really hard at weight reduction you might get it to come out as little as ONE HUNDRED POUNDS overweight! The only other estimate I have seen said ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY POUNDS overweight.*

    The RW-9 and RW-16 can BOTH be made to part 103.*

    Roger Mann will answer any questions you have about his designs. He has written several answers to my inquiries and I have NOT PURCHASED any plans yet! He seems to enjoy telling people about his designs and mentions all the safety issues.*

    Now let's talk about build time. The advertised build time is 150 hours and while most noobies would never make that figure it is highly innapropriate to call the estimate a "cruel joke" as you did. Roger built the fusealage and tail in ONE 8 hour build session and estimates you can do it in 25 hours. Sounds reasonable to me. That means if you can build the wing in 125 hours you should be able to make the estimated build time.*

    Personally I believe my skillset will allow me to finish in about 200 hours while a total noobie with a good shop,tools and EAA assistance should have no trouble doing it in about 300.*

    If I were to build a second RW I am quite sure I could BEAT the 150 hour build time. 10 hours for fuse and tail and perhaps 100 hours for wings.*

    These estimates never include FWF.*

    The RW's have been properly prototyped and flight tested. There is reason to believe that the Affordaplane was never properly tested and flight parameters never determined.

    Gary*

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Agssiz BC
    Posts
    114

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    Quote Originally Posted by kbisswanger View Post
    I am building a Ragwing RW6.

    Keith
    did you ever finish the RW-16? The free hosting service that you supplied a link to is dead. Can you help me contact that same person in another way?

    I want to build the Rw-9 which is almost exactly the same bird. I am sure I Can do it with just the plans and my friends at he RAA (Canadian version of the EAA) but pictures of finished components and advice from "the man who has one" is priceless.

    Gary in BC flying 103 in WA

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Rosanky, Texas/USA
    Posts
    3

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    I am looking into the affordaplane more than the RW series I think it will be easier for me to build, my only issues are the with saftey, I plan to make something a little more safe for the cockpit nothing fully enclosing becasue I do not want that. I only really want or need a windscreen, and a seat belt would be good, or mybe a 5 point racing harness. I really am not concerned if its over weight as soon as I get my certification whatever rules that will keep me from flying it will be going right out the window or lack thereof on the affordaplane.
    Last edited by leadfootflyer; February 2nd, 2011 at 11:09 AM. Reason: bad spelling

  8. #8
    Registered User Monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR / USA
    Posts
    916

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    Leadfoot,

    Just wanted to say......go find an airport. Wash some planes. Help out. You'll find more friends than you might think. They will help you. Even take your for rides and perhaps teach you to fly...I'm serious.....I've seen it happen.

    Be humble and listen.

    Karma.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lake City, Fla
    Posts
    3

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    I am not sure how the Rag can be part 103 and the AP cannot, the wings alone in the AP are alot lighter, and using a Kawasaki 440 which again is lighter than the rotax 503 or even the 447.

  10. #10
    Registered User cluttonfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Nairobi, Kenya
    Posts
    1,478

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    Not the same thing, I know, but you can still get a Mini-Max 1100F kit from JDT Mini-Max for less that $5,000 and you can be sure it will fit Part 103 limits if that's your goal.
    Antman likes this.
    *******
    Matthew Long, Editor
    cluttonfred.info
    A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED

    Voici ce que j'ai fait...vous pouvez en faire autant!
    "This is what I have done...you can do the same!"
    --Henri Mignet (1893-1965)

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ft. Worth TX
    Posts
    59

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    affordaplane really looks dangerous and I'm a stress guy. Search a little for a pic of one that had the landing gear jammed way into the cockpit -- terrible, and I mean terrible load paths.

  12. #12
    Registered User PTAirco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Corona CA
    Posts
    2,689

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    Quote Originally Posted by kennyrayandersen View Post
    affordaplane really looks dangerous and I'm a stress guy. Search a little for a pic of one that had the landing gear jammed way into the cockpit -- terrible, and I mean terrible load paths.
    Are you sure yuo're not referring to the "Backyard Flyer" ? That had that landing gear issue that was talked about in this forum.
    "Aeronautical engineering is highly educated guessing, worked out to five decimal places. Fred Lindsley, Airspeed."

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ft. Worth TX
    Posts
    59

    Re: affordaplane vs. RagWing Aerial???

    Quote Originally Posted by PTAirco View Post
    Are you sure yuo're not referring to the "Backyard Flyer" ? That had that landing gear issue that was talked about in this forum.
    Well, I can't let Affordaplane off the hook entirely, but the backyard flyer is the one I was reffering to -- thanks for the catch... simply Horrible. The Affordaplane, interestingly enough seems a mixed bag when I do a search for pics. Some of them apparently have the landing gear attached so that there is a place for the load to go, and some do not (OK, technically the load does go somewhere... bad i.e. lower beam and the pilot's body!), attaching the aft strut onto the lower beam rather than angling it back to catch the intersection with the vertical member (am I making sense?). I haven't seen the plans, and it's possible there is an update to the affordaplane? Regardless, having the landing gear put a bunch-load in the lower beam (which results in beam bending is a colossally bad move. I saw several configurations of the affordaplane, so not sure what's up with that?

    Look at the second picture down on this link. There won't be any tube bending when he lands!

    http://www.flysquirrel.net/Longster/longsterUL.html

    Now look at the afordaplane in the link below. The main part of the gear is normal to the bottom of the aircraft, so, sort-of OK, but if it were to hit an obstruction (should be a condition) that aft strut is going to be jacking the lower beam just aft of the pilot. OK, it's not as bad as the backyard flyer, it does kind of meat with that aft cockpit gusset but it's still just a bit hokey (don't pass the sniff test). I's think you would want ti to actually go to the aft joint.

    http://planetagadget.com/2008/04/30/...nos-de-u-7000/


    The backyard flyer should be banned and I'm not kidding NO crash worthiness whatsoever -- scary!

    Last edited by kennyrayandersen; June 29th, 2011 at 11:00 AM. Reason: add link

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts