Biplanes are cool but but there are more wings to build, struts, wires, etc. compared to even a strut-braced monoplane.
Here’s an early attempt to do simplify things, the 1928 Parnall Imp, which essentially used a reinforced cantilever bottom wing to support itself and the upper wing via a large strut on each side. It was remarkably clean for its day, especially in terms of easy access to both cockpits without gymnastics.
Here’s another much more recent example, the Fisher FP-404 biplane, which used V-struts to replace flying wires and make rigging easier.
It occurred to me that a compromise between these two approaches could make a simplified biplane structure for a basic sport plane. Make both the upper and lower wings torsionally stiff by using diagonal wing ribs like an Ercoupe and/or a D-tube leading edge, then use a single strut (possibly an I-strut) between the wings on each side and a single lift strut (like a Cessna) to each upper wing.
Thoughts on this approach? Other ideas for simplified biplanes?
Cheers,
Matthew
Here’s an early attempt to do simplify things, the 1928 Parnall Imp, which essentially used a reinforced cantilever bottom wing to support itself and the upper wing via a large strut on each side. It was remarkably clean for its day, especially in terms of easy access to both cockpits without gymnastics.
Here’s another much more recent example, the Fisher FP-404 biplane, which used V-struts to replace flying wires and make rigging easier.
It occurred to me that a compromise between these two approaches could make a simplified biplane structure for a basic sport plane. Make both the upper and lower wings torsionally stiff by using diagonal wing ribs like an Ercoupe and/or a D-tube leading edge, then use a single strut (possibly an I-strut) between the wings on each side and a single lift strut (like a Cessna) to each upper wing.
Thoughts on this approach? Other ideas for simplified biplanes?
Cheers,
Matthew