Homebuilt Aerobatic Aircraft

[Topaz]

...It "might" be useable as a tow plane but I thought experimental planes were prohibited....

Experimentals are only prohibited from towing if the pilot is being paid for the tow. It's the 'no flights for compensation or hire' thing again. Other than that, if the experimental airplane is suitable for towing, you can use it to tow. A number of clubs use experimentals for towing, especially in Europe. Retired ag planes are much more common in the USA.

The biggest criteria for 'suitability' are sufficient power and a speed for maximum climb (with a glider in tow) of about 60mph.

[wally]

Thanks for the info about towing with an experimental.

I guess a Pitts isn't going to work for towing - at least mine - it falls out of the sky at about 60 mph.
Wally

PS: There are some interesting Pitts planes and a couple projects for sale on barnstormers.com right now.

[Mac790]

Sorry guys but I think it's a little bit funny, towing a glider with an aerobatic plane, it's like towing a big caravan (sorry for this comparison) with a convertible sports car (it's like profanation). There are other planes for that.

Seb

[vortilon]

One option might be a modified Taylorcraft with a larger engine sporting inverted fuel and oil. It will fly slow enough to be a tug yet have the inverted capability to do what you need. With a O-360 and full length wings it would be exactly what your after. I flew airshows in a 1939 BC-65 and loved the way it flew. I would suggest going with the next size up for the longeron tubing for towing.

Taylorcraft/Cole BF-50

[bmcj]

A Stinson L-1 or Convair L-13 would work well. Big planes with big wings, big engines, and slow speed capable.

[Careca]

Hi everybody

Thanks for your inputs, they are all very helpful.
Just to get things straight, the glider tug ability is NOT an obligation but just another way to capitalize the aircraft.

I’m more inclined towards something like a Laser Z2300 or DR-109 because:
-Monoplanes (still flexible on this item)
-Two seats
-Tandem (makes precision aerobatics easier)
-Taildraggers
-Proven designs with plenty of suppliers
-They look really good!

Right now I’m trying to gather all the information I can get my hands in to. So if you have any articles or pilot reports feel free to send me.

PS: For djschwartz:
Check this link ( One Design Airfoil Analysis ) about the DR-107 One Design wing profile. I think you will find it quite revealing.

Thanks again
Best regards

[Mac790]

Careca

I'm afraid that you still have too many requirements, special this one "Proven designs with plenty of suppliers", at the moment I think that the Dr-109 is a better choice than Laser Z2300, for a few reasons:

-it can be build with a 0-360 engine (means cheaper to build and maintenance)
-it will be easier to sell (a few months ago there was one Dr-109 at barnstormers, it was sold for 120.000$ in a short time)
-the Laser Z2300 with a wooden wing have not flown yet (I'm not 100% sure about it), original Raven 2300 with a carbon wing wasn't a very successful airplane, mostly due to the troubles with the carbon wing, so it's hard to judge.

btw I know that you have seen it already, but just in case there is a really nice manual for Dr-109 http://www.ashcraftaeroworks.com/DR1...lemanuals.html for 300$. It's probably a good idea to get one before purchasing plans.

Seb

[djschwartz]

PS: For djschwartz:
Check this link ( One Design Airfoil Analysis ) about the DR-107 One Design wing profile. I think you will find it quite revealing.

Thanks again
Best regards

Obrigado Careca. I already have a copy of this but I appreciate you thinking of me. If you ever come across any accurate technical data on the airfoils of the Extra or Sukhoi let me know. I've done extensive web searching and have found the airfoil designation for the Extra but cannot find any details about its exact shape.

Dave

[Careca]

Hi Dave (djschwartz)

Aerobatic wing profiles depend on what you intend to do with your aircraft, although they all must comply with the following characteristics:
-Sharp, predictable and well defined stall
-Quick airflow reattachment
-Low Moment coefficient CM (low or zero camber)
-Good inverted capabilities (symmetrical or semi-symmetrical)

There are a lot of wing profiles that comply with these characteristics, so now it’s time to check your objectives:
-Cross country with occasional aerobatics >> semi-symmetrical, ex. NACA 230XX family
-intermediate level aerobatics >> symmetrical or semi-symmetrical, ex. NACA 210XX family or NACA 00XX family
-Some serious aerobatics >> custom built wing profiles with 15% to 18% root thickness “Ice-cream” shaped

For some comparisons and profile data see the following links:
http://agert.homelinux.org/~fredrik/flyg/aircraft.html
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html

Just remember that changing your Stephens wing will change the aerodynamic balance and you will probably need to readjust the tail feathers… it’s no job for the weak minded nor the ham handed! Good luck and let me know if you need something.

Vitor

[vortilon]

I still vote for the T Craft. Duane Cole won the US National Aerobatics Championship in it. How much better does it need to be? And it will tow a glider to boot. A Chipmunk will do the same thing.

[bmcj]

I still vote for the T Craft. Duane Cole won the US National Aerobatics Championship in it. How much better does it need to be? And it will tow a glider to boot. A Chipmunk will do the same thing.

I got to fly Margaret Richie's clipped wing T-craft for about 10 or 12 hours (a lifetime ago). It was the one she won the national championship with before Clay Stephens designed the Stephens Akro for her. The T-craft was fun to fly and would do lots of "stuff", but I think the competition and judging of today is looking for something different than the old-school planes like this.

[vortilon]

I got to fly Margaret Richie's clipped wing T-craft for about 10 or 12 hours (a lifetime ago). It was the one she won the national championship with before Clay Stephens designed the Stephens Akro for her. The T-craft was fun to fly and would do lots of "stuff", but I think the competition and judging of today is looking for something different than the old-school planes like this.

Ya it's all about roll rate and head banging into the canopy stuff. I miss the graceful stuff a la Scholl and Cole. The old stuff required rudder and lots of it. I guess I'm just a fuddy duddy Kinda like Rap music they can keep it.

[joesr]

i have a myers eaa biplane single seat 150 hp lyc 164.3 smoh 177tt on airframe inverted fuel and oil fully aerobatic built to perfection by danny myers its a 10 in and out shines like a new penny,wing span 20`length 17`selling for 22,000 call if interested 610-721-0732

[djschwartz]

I got to fly Margaret Richie's clipped wing T-craft for about 10 or 12 hours (a lifetime ago). It was the one she won the national championship with before Clay Stephens designed the Stephens Akro for her. The T-craft was fun to fly and would do lots of "stuff", but I think the competition and judging of today is looking for something different than the old-school planes like this.

Good point.

Vitor, you might want to clarify for the forum if your interest in "intermediate level" aerobatics is just for fun or if you're interested in IAC Intermediate Level competition. There are lots of older aerobatic aircraft and homebuilts that can safely do the intermediate level maneuvers. But competition is about doing them with extreme precision, not just getting through it safely. That requires an aircraft with considerably more capability. The ones you've listed at the beginning of this thread are all good candidates for competition.

[vortilon]

I am not sure about the airfoil of the Sukio but the Extra is a bit of an anomaly for me. Now I am not looking at one this instant but as I recall you can take a straight edge from the spar to the TE and it is flat, almost a board the horizontal has a nice symmetrical airfoil. This is from memory.