Air Cam / CH-750 love child ....

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

rbarnes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
98
Location
Texas
Dreaming of a plane I think I might be able to someday pursue depending on yalls feedback.
1. Love the Air Cam - perfect slow flight twin ... but not thrilled with the flying canoe cockpit
2. Love the CH 750- simple, all metal, ugly but dang if it doesnt just flat out work.

The Dream. Take the wing kit for a CH 750 Super Duty (nothing but the original CH801 wing) and 750SD horizontal tail and remake the rudder same shape but bigger. Have a custom chromoly fuselage made that scoots the front seats out in front of the leading edge of the wing (for w&B) and mount twin turbo Rotaxs facing backwards up on the wing.

The CH 750SD wing is designed for same 1,900-2,000 lbs gross as the Air Cam and has the same empty weight of 1,100 lbs as the CH 750SD with it's heavier O375 power plant.

Advantages over the Air Cam: Enclosed cockpit, faster cruise (not by much), more of a true STOL wing with leading edge slats

Am I nuts ? Are the engineering hurtles for piecing together wings of another plane onto a custom fuselage and power plant arrangement something that take 5-10 years to work out ?

What am I missing ? Everything ?
Of course I would bring on engineers and welders to design and fabricate, but hoping to reutilize much of the CH750 layout, controls, and kit components to save time.

VERY crude sketchup model



Original CH750 line drawing with some work in photoshop
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,383
Location
World traveler
It's a neat idea, but unless you have a set of CH 750 SD/original CH 801 wings and tail sitting around (or the kits), I wonder if you'd be better off with a completely original design? Your engine position will likely require significant modification to the CH wing, at which point you might as well have a new wing. There are certainly other ways to accomplish a high-wing, STOL, enclosed pusher twin (Air Cam with enclosed cockpits, for starters) but I don't want to derail your thread.
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,251
Location
CT, USA
Why not just widen and enclose the Aircam forward fuselage?
 

ToddK

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
310
Location
The Real Texas
Twin does not seem necessary. As the auto and sled market is providing us with some fairly affordable light weight and hi power engines that are nearly all in line 4 cylinders, it seems to me like there is a shortage of designs that allow for a simple strait forwared installation. A side by side, enclosed pusher would be perfect.
 

rbarnes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
98
Location
Texas
It's a neat idea, but unless you have a set of CH 750 SD/original CH 801 wings and tail sitting around (or the kits), I wonder if you'd be better off with a completely original design? Your engine position will likely require significant modification to the CH wing, at which point you might as well have a new wing. There are certainly other ways to accomplish a high-wing, STOL, enclosed pusher twin (Air Cam with enclosed cockpits, for starters) but I don't want to derail your thread.
Thats just it, a set of wings and tail sub-kits could be ordered easy and relatively cheap from Zenith. Why go through all the headaches of custom fabing ribs and spars when Zenith has already done it. With simple pop-rivet construction and matched drilled holes to boot. If the whole thing doesn't work you're still left with a set of wings and tail you can mount to a standard CH 750 fuselage instead of throwing it all in the dumpster.

I figured the engines would mount to the chromoly fuselage frame and not the wing. Only mod required to the wing would be to cutout holes where the engine mounts/supports pass through them.

Reuse all the CH 750 control system layout and design by lengthening the run up to the seats that have been moved forward with the lengthened fuselage.
Construct a new tail boom that puts the tail surfaces in the same location they were in on the CH 750.

Then figure out if you can make the weight and balance shift work....
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,013
Location
Memphis, TN
People have built Breezys with enclosed cockpits. All you need to do is add another engine. Personally being out in the open in an Aircam is the only reason I get in them.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,383
Location
World traveler
It's certainly possible and I admire your ambition, but personally I can't see the appeal of the twin, which we've discussed before in other threads. I agree with ToddK on the small auto engine conversions like the Suzuki-based units from Aeromomentum, Air Trikes, etc. What about modifying a Kolb Mark III or building a cockpit enclosure on Breezy?
 

rbarnes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
98
Location
Texas
but personally I can't see the appeal of the twin,
The older I get the less inclined I am to flying around at 50-100' over trees and boulders on 1 engine....

The breezy with a cabin is close to what I'm dreaming of, but not the STOL wing I want. Dreaming of something that can haul 2 full sized guys, sitting side by side, plus 100-200 lbs of camping gear, and take off and land in 200' or less = CH 750SD - but I REALLY like the idea of having a back up engine these days.... not to mention the STOL performance capable from the thrust of two propellers pushing at the same time.
 

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
1,964
Location
Savannah, Georgia
That's exactly what I was thinking of. I have no use for it but it looks like it would be a hell of a ride.
 

rbarnes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
98
Location
Texas
I would be all over the DoubleEnder for this want, but unfortunately it seems to have stalled at the prototype stage.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,383
Location
World traveler
Very cool! Let's see, the most I have seen on a Woody Pusher was a C-85, so maybe two V-twins with Ace redrives would make a light twin for rbarnes?
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,224
Location
Port Townsend WA
Side by side pusher has CG issues. (see thread "Decalage Angle")
With tandem, the far forward front pilot and passenger near CG is easier to balance without ballast.
 

rbarnes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
98
Location
Texas
Side by side pusher has CG issues. (see thread "Decalage Angle")
With tandem, the far forward front pilot and passenger near CG is easier to balance without ballast.
This is what I was mainly worried about. I figured there was a reason both the Air Cam and Breezy had the pilot sitting 4+' out in front of the wing... but at the same time there are plenty of amphib pushers with side by side seating too. Icon, SeaRey, et al.... how do they make it work ?
I'll look into your referenced thread. Thanks!
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,224
Location
Port Townsend WA
And a twin needs a huge vertical tail also.... needs the Aircam vertical not the CH750 tail for engine out.
So step back and look at the CG situation of a twin pusher. The vertical is larger (extra tail weight), the horizontal tail is larger (extra tail weight) and two engines behind the CG! And the wing is heavy and behind the CG also.
What is ahead of the CG?
 
Top