Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by Little Scrapper, Mar 10, 2018.
Go to the TEAM MiniMAX website and download the 1100 plans. They're a free download. Between your computer zooming in to read dimensions, and printing a copy, even 8.5" X 11", you should be able to understand the construction of the fuselage you desire. I downloaded plans to do my build, but sent the file to a blueprint shop who printed them out full size. The "full" size is listed under "properties" on the file. I hope this helps because that's about as techy as I can get on the computer side of things.
BTW....the only downside I'd point out on the fuselage design you want to build is that the engine is back a bit farther than it is on the 1030 plans and that can produce the negative side effect of a tail heavy plane. I would really suggest building the 1030 "light" tail to avoid that as much as possible. Also, the light tail is about a 4# or more weight savings compared to the "normal" tail that's on the 1100 plans. What model plans are image 3 and 4 from?
My plane (1100 but with 1030 wing construction) was borderline tail heavy on W&B. I put a piece of 1" foam (pink insulating type) on the backrest of the seat to move the pilot's weight forward. One other thing that contributed to my plane's tail heaviness is that I built a fuel tank from .040" aluminum. It's about a 4 or 4.5# weight savings (good), compared to the plastic tank that's normally used, but it's weight off the nose of the plane (bad).
I think there also might be a bit of question on how to position the seat on many of the plans. The 1700 HiMAX plans have a better drawing that according to one multiple MiniMAX builder's opinion is the way it should be positioned. My seat is positioned per the 1100 plans and other than needing to use a control stick with a slight "S" bend to get it more reachable it seems to have worked out OK.
Fire away with other questions that might pop up. Did you ever register on the East Tennessee Lonesome Buzzard (MiniMAX) website? Tons of good info there......not to detract you from posting your progress and questions here.
I hope this helps.
Thank you Lynn. I'll download the 1100 and check it out. Or maybe just buy a Hirth and use the existing plan supplement?
I didn't join the ETLB forum but I do visit and read some things. I didn't join because I need to keep my life simple and just use one forum. Maybe that's not smart but it helps.me keep my sanity in a very busy life.
Anyhow, I need to make a engine choice of Rotax or Hirth because I plan on knocking out this fuselage in a couple of weeks and the engine determines the fuselage design.
The cowl inverts the engine so it is "streamlined" and looks like a "big plane". Just make yours an upright engine no matter, and adjust the fuselage to the needed mount to give you what you want, with the engine you choose. The model airplane people have a saying out there, inverted engines always cause you trouble and upright seem to give no trouble. I have plenty of inverted engine models, and they always have more moments than the simple upright ones.
I don't think there is any difference in how the Rotax and Hirth mount. Both bolt to a plywood plate as I recall.
I downloaded the 1100 plans. They say it's 280 lbs and recommend the Rotax 477. So I'm not sure what that original 1984 airplane cover sheet came from because it clearly shows the 277 single cylinder.
If the primary goal is affordability I'm thinking the Rotax 277 is probably the ideal engine and on that original 1984 airframe.
I agree, go with a 277, zillions were made, parts are available, and you might find a service center overhauled one for 1200 to 1500 bucks. It also puts out 20 or so more pounds of thrust than the Hirth F-33...
Scrapper....Take a look on page 19 of the 1100plans. There, you will find engine mounting plate dimensions for the 277 as well as the 377 or 447 Rotax engines. As you're building the 1100 fuselage also notice on page 2 that the "shelf" structure for engine mounting has two options. The structure inside the shelf will have different structure made from RS-13 (3/4" X 2 1/2") that reinforces the area where the 277 vs the 337/447 engine mount plate bolts into the fuselage. On my MiniMAX I only installed the 277 mounting structure, but it might not be a bad idea to build in the option of mounting a larger 2 cylinder Rotax should you choose to do so in the future. It certainly would be difficult to retrofit.
As far as the 277 Rotax choice, the gentleman who flew my MiniMAX was pleasantly surprised how well the plane performed with such a "small" engine. For reference his weight is about 175#.
Real world observed weights for the Rotax 277, with carb, exhaust, re-drive (2.58/1), fuel pump, and 60/28 tennessee prop.......69 pounds.
What's the best approach to buying a really nice 277? A fella at WagAero gave me a number of a guy in Arizona I think, claims many people go to him.
JBird is in Wisconsin about an hour from my but I think he's sort of a Kawasaki guy.
Of course, staying true to form and keeping with the "affordability" theme maybe buying a used one that needs a rebuild is the way to go.
I'm not a well experienced 2 stroke guy but I've been told over the years by some pretty experienced people that long term it's cheaper to buy it new and ready to go.
It seems you were typing while I was as well. You probably know this, but any new 277 will have to be a left-over since the 277 was discontinued by Rotax many years ago. Even if there's a "new" one out there, It should probably be pulled down for crankshaft seals and gaskets.
I can't say a "best" approach, but I took my time with the search process. I did a bunch of calling around and I think probably talked with the two places you mentioned, along with other possible sources. I ended up buying a very nice 277 with gearbox from a classified somewhere, maybe here, but when I got ready to use it I realized it had a "up" gearbox and I needed a "down" gearbox. Well many say that it just needs to be flipped, but there's a different crankshaft gear needed, and it seems something else (spacer/adapter perhaps?) but those parts seemed to be unobtainable. Then, on another classified forum someone had a lot of 3 or 4 277's, some fairly complete, some missing parts. I ended up freshening/rebuilding and putting together a 277 with new seals, gaskets and rings and put on a belt drive instead of a gearbox. It has worked out great so far.
Considering where you are right now in the process, I'd certainly start looking around, but not go into "gotta have it now" mode. E-bay, craigslist, classifieds on forums, word of mouth, they're all potential sources. Heck, you now have hundreds or thousands of people on this forum keeping an ear out for a 277 for you! Age has taught me patience..... OK....... age is working on teaching me patience.
I should clarify the "new" statement.
There's ba few guys with completely rebuilt 277's ready to go and I found there's actually a few people with brand new never used 277's. I think Rotax stopped all 2 stroke production on every 2 stroke model.
I'm curious if it's cheaper and smart to rebuild one myself or just buy one done.
2-Stroke: Rotax still manufactures the 582 UL, but definitely not for this aircraft!
I'm almost ashamed of myself for making so many comments.
As far as the rebuild cost, I don't think I spent over $150 on the parts, the most expensive part being the rings, but that's just going from memory. Gaskets and seals I got from Winderosa, and I found an envelope from "Halls Inc." in Medford WI and I believe that's where I got the rings. I do recall it being a Ski Doo parts place. I think I got the source tip from Wanttaja here on the HBA forum.
Don't be ashamed! Comment like crazy, it's been very educational for me.
Well, I made the decision to build the 1100 fuselage front but 1030 everything else and use the 277. Kinda nice to finalize that.
Now I need to build the cheapest smallest most basic bench possible to get the fuselage built. Although they aren't real pretty I have a stack of used 2x4's maybe 20 of them.
My mission this week is to plane the fuselage wood and build a bench. Following week is assembly.
Where can you get the minimax plans from? I tried the website form a week ago, but nothing yet.
I think if you can find a nice engine ready to run, do it. One less thing you need to contend with. You will have plenty of time to crack it open later.
Ok - back to mixing epoxy, then!
I've tried various methods, and the one that worked best for me in building my Max was to mix by weight. Syringes & the pumps sold are fine for large amounts of glue, such as is used in boatbuilding, & they're good for this purpose.
But in building a small light little plane like yours, you'll be using tiny amounts of epoxy for say, each rib. If you mix up even 10cc (two teaspoons) that can be too much for a rib to use at a time: it's very fiddly! Mix up more, & it's going viscous before you're finished. Also, when mixing very small amounts using syringes, you finish up trying to estimate fractions of a cc. This isn't easy, & it isn't accurate. Remember, epoxy is not like polyester resins, where the 'hardener' is a catalyst, so precise ratios aren't so critical. With epoxy, parts A & B cross-link to produce a separate polymer. So if you don't use exactly the right amount of hardener, there will be uncured resin encapsulated in the mix.
So I use small scales, & weigh the two resins. You can buy small drug dealer scales very cheaply on ebay, just a few dollars. I use plastic drinking cups to mix, again, very cheap. I cut these down to about 1/3 height, to allow easier mixing with wooden popsicle sticks, which I then use to spread the mix over the workpiece. Lastly, you also need a cheap calculator with a plastic sheet over it to keep the keys from getting glued. . .
I realise this might sound complicated, but it really, really isn't. What I do is put the cut down plastic cup on the scales, & turn them on. Pour in the quantity of resin you think you'll need, & note the weight. Multiply this by 0.83 (in the case of T88, other epoxies vary), and add this figure to the original one. Then trickle in hardener until you reach that total. Trust me, this takes longer to explain than it does to do it, once you've been at it a few times.
The advantage is that you get very precise mix ratios; you can use this method for any amount of mix, right down to fractions of an ounce; you don't waste your expensive epoxy in gone-off glue, & you don't have to either clean or throw away & buy more syringes. It's great when you get to the end of a couple of containers of epoxy & both empty at exactly the same time.
Sorry for the long post, but I had to put this into the mix
Separate names with a comma.