# 21st century Volksplane?

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### erkki67

##### Well-Known Member

this one with a low wing layout

#### Twodeaddogs

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Yes, Definitley stick with a modern engine producing about the same power as an early VW conversion ... say 40 horsepower.
dare I say Rotax 582 as a baseline engine? reliable, relatively cheap, plentiful supply of parts and skills to fix them and a VP-1 on a 582 with a modern prop is a sparkling performer.

#### robertl

##### Well-Known Member
Re-reading Pazmany's "Light Airplane Design", I was thinking about his comparison of the different common building materials, and how much lighter aluminum is than wood, or even tube and fabric. It's the more common material in the designs of various manufacturers, and it's something you can learn to work with common tools in pretty short order. Plus, you'll find people willing to pull or pound a rivet easier than you can gluing wood or doping fabric, much less welding. It seems to me that for a 21st century VP, we ought to go with aluminum. The Thatcher designs allow us to have a single seater, tandem two seater, or side by side two seater, with VW power, scratch built for as they say "under 20 grand engine included". I don't know that you can do much better than that these days, since wood has gone crazy price wise. You could probably cut it some with scrounging up a used engine and such. Maybe find an orphan project to complete. I think those designs are well thought out, and seem to be well received by the press and public. I don't own any Thatcher plans or have a stake in their success!
Bigshu, I'm with you on the aluminum, I found it to be pretty straight forward and I became quite comfortable working with it. If I ever get the urge to build again, that's what I'm going with.
Bob

#### blane.c

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Just rambling thoughts.

I am comfortable with fur. Fur is a renewable resource "if" responsible people are involved. Fur is not politically correct but neither am I. So I am comfortable with wood. Wood was used in the spars and most of the rest of the wings of my first airplane, one of the true joy's of my life. Wood is good. Wood is a renewable resource "if" responsible people are involved. I like the idea of a "mostly" wood airplane. I rose through the ******** and supervised many multi-million dollar government construction jobs, a man I respect greatly said to me once, "I was a jack of all trades" I am proud of that. I know a bit about wood.

Wood must be married with steel. It is carpentry 101. OK sure NOAH's Arc was all wood pinned, so go build an arc then. The thing is reality will ring true and you need steel, or if you want in a more modern age titanium or certain aluminum alloys or even fiberglass/carbon fiber done correctly.

Where do you draw the line, wood - steel (or equivalent)?

A truly composite airplane will have the construction materials it needs and it is hard to find an aircraft that isn't composite by some degree or another. Certainly "wood" aircraft are composite perhaps even more so than so called "composite aircraft" because "wood" aircraft are often built with more different types of materials than any other construction process that cumulates in an aircraft. A "mostly" wood built aircraft will likely entail more different disciplines than any other process.

I still like it the best.

Many of the parts that require other disciplines that are tricky or difficult can be farmed out for modest cost. The idea that some things will not be, for most or at least some people farmed out is folly. Or they must be supplied with a kit.

Pine does not have the elasticity of Spruce. You can whack Spruce harder than Pine before it "POPS". Period.

Pine would be fine as a direct substitute in most shorter sections (not all) and you can make up for it's lack of elasticity with thicker pieces for longer sections than the thicknesses you would use of Spruce to make up for the difference numerically. It can be substituted for Spruce but the greater thicknesses needed will cause (even though pine is lighter by cubic foot) to be that a Pine built aircraft will weigh more than a Spruce built. This should be common sense.

Recently I purchased the plans to a Spencer Amphibious Air Car it has an interesting feature, a car carrier, a tube steel structure. The fuselage attaches to the car carrier, also the wings attach to the car carrier, and the engine mount attaches to the car carrier.

A tube steel structure enclosed in the wood fuselage that the fuselage is attached to, the wings are attached to, and the landing gear is attached to may not be a bad idea if you want to depart from struts. Without struts something significant needs to carry the loads and a tube structure may be lighter than other means in the end.

#### Pops

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Like you , I like wood. Enjoy building with wood. Love the smell. I have built a KR-2, a Falconar F-12 and my SSSC, all from wood. I also like flying a wood airplane. Smooth and quiet, no oil canning and soaks up the vibrations. Also warmer due to the insulation factor of wood.

#### Geraldc

##### Well-Known Member
Just to throw something else in here.All these materials can be delivered to my door in a courier van.

#### patrickrio

##### Well-Known Member
Just to throw something else in here.All these materials can be delivered to my door in a courier van.
The process pictured just seems so fast compared to cutting/drilling/forming metal and riveting. Maybe even faster/more accurate with CNC foam?

#### Bigshu

##### Well-Known Member
Well, when I go pick up aluminum for my H5 project, I get four foot rolls (various length) and load them in my Ford Escape. So, I don't even require a van!

#### TFF

##### Well-Known Member
I think the speed is a misnomer. There was a crew who knew what was going on. All the stuff off camera is the whole story. One is not better than another. One only achieves something different.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
On the performance goals for the VP-2-21 or any other low-powered, two-seat homebuilt, I think this is a useful reference (numbers from Jane's via Wikipedia). Note the long span and massive wing area for a gross weight of just 970 lb (440 kg) using such a small engine. Those are 36 strong, low-compression ponies swinging a big prop, still a modest 65 hp VW conversion ought to do substantially better. Useful load of 460 lb is right in the ballpark we've discussed. The fuel tank is small, but at a cruising speed of just 70 mph the range of 225 miles gives 2.5 hours endurance with a comfortable reserve.

Taylor E-2 Cub
Crew: one
Capacity: one passenger
Length: 22 ft 6 in (6.86 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 2 in (10.72 m)
Height: 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m)
Wing area: 184 sq ft (17.1 m2)
Empty weight: 510 lb (231 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 970 lb (440 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Continental A40-2 4-cylinder air-cooled horizontally-opposed piston engine, 35 hp (26 kW)
Propellers: 2-bladed fixed-pitch propeller
Maximum speed: 80 mph (130 km/h, 70 kn)
Cruise speed: 70 mph (110 km/h, 61 kn)
Range: 225 mi (362 km, 196 nmi)
Service ceiling: 12,000 ft (3,700 m)
Rate of climb: 400 ft/min (2.0 m/s)
Wing loading: 6 lb/sq ft (29 kg/m2)
Power/mass: 0.04 hp/lb (0.066 kW/kg)

Last edited:

#### Tiger Tim

##### Well-Known Member
I’d like to meet the person who can get an E-2 up to 70. Best I’ve seen is 55-ish.

Having said that, there was some discussion over burgers several years ago at the airport about how feasible it would be to put the E-2 back in production but with a VW. Seemed like it wouldn’t be rocket science to rework the design for modern production techniques and we optimistically hoped they could be churned out for $50k each, ready to fly at the time. But who would actually buy one? #### TFF ##### Well-Known Member The E2 is my favorite configuration of Cub. At 50K you would sell lots. Unluckily at 50k you only have the lawyers fee paid; no money for actual airplane. Props. A-65 72x42. A-40 69x 28. Revmaster 2300 62x29. It’s the prop that matters how it translates the horsepower. #### Geraldc ##### Well-Known Member Seemed like it wouldn’t be rocket science to rework the design for modern production techniques and we optimistically hoped they could be churned out for$50k each, ready to fly at the time. But who would actually buy one?
looks like a wee bit of modification to a J3 kitten or one of its clones and you would have something.

#### howardyin

##### Well-Known Member
The process pictured just seems so fast compared to cutting/drilling/forming metal and riveting. Maybe even faster/more accurate with CNC foam?
no,no, metal and riveting more speedy than composite..painful and endless sanding is always with compite.Laser cut metal sheet and riveting will be light and speedy. After the real working than thinking , now my understanding is that tube fuselage , pvc foam rib and plywood skin wing seems will be a quick way and easy to buy material way.The reason why I chose the composite way is that the qualifid composite materials are easy to buy camparing the orthers

Last edited:

#### Riggerrob

##### Well-Known Member
no,no, metal and riveting more speedy than composite..painful and endless sanding is always with compite.Laser cut metal sheet and riveting will be light and speedy. After the real working than thinking , now my understanding is that tube fuselage , pvc foam rib and plywood skin wing seems will be a quick way and easy to buy material way.The reason why I chose the composite way is that the qualifid composite materials are easy to buy camparing the orthers
View attachment 115450
Composites are only quick if the skins come pre-molded. Then you get into hassles with shipping fragile, incomplete composite components, etc.

In comparison, pre-cut metal sheets are far easier to ship and a flat-pack is less likely to be damaged in transit. In the long run, we hope that kit-suppliers will be willing to e-mail CNC cut files to your local CNC shop, so that you only have to ship a roll of MIL SPEC aluminum.

Chesapeake Light Craft already sell hundreds of pre-cut, plywood boat kits per year. CLC have looked into e-mailing CNC files to customers, but worry about software pirates copying their files (against copyright) and people drowning in poor copies of CLC designs.

#### Bf 109

##### Banned
Amazing projects, I'm overwhelmed by the impressive initiative and capacity, this whole idea was impulsed by the German Ministry of Aviation by the Technisches Amt in the late 1930s.
Here are few examples if they have not being posted already.

Fieseler Fi 253

Bücker Bü 182 Kornett

and Bücker Bü 180 Student

Ahead of their time!!!!

#### pwood66889

##### Well-Known Member
"Ahead of their time!!!! "
Not exactly, BF. The winners of the "unpleasantness" of 1914-1918 imposed strict limits on what Germany could do in aviation.
Jes' saying.
Would not mind having any of them in my hangar, though.
Percy in NW FL, USA

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Not exactly, Percy. Yes, the post-WWI limits on German aviation did encourage a focus on sailplanes, but by the time the designs cited by Bf 109 were built Germany was completely ignoring those limits.

MODERATORS: May I ask what Bf 109 did to be banned?