# Cantilever parasol wings?

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by cluttonfred, Mar 11, 2019.

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

1. Apr 24, 2019

### erkki67

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Feb 18, 2010
Messages:
1,473
151
Location:
Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
A riveted aluminium fuselage like the birds of Graham Lee, and the Fokker starts to be interesting!

2. Apr 24, 2019

### Victor Bravo

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jul 30, 2014
Messages:
5,861
4,694
Location:
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
This is getting a little further away from antique style parasols, but I think it is still a little relevant. And before anyone gets annoyed, remember that Junkers built antique airplanes with metal wings

I've never been a big fan of the Titan Tornado ultralight series, nor the EarthStar Gull series that Titan basically copied. Most of that is because of the silly pointy nose of the Tornado, and that the flat no-dihedral wing looks really silly to me (even if it doesn't need the dihedral). The Pietenpol doesn't have any dihedral either.

But
the Gull / Titan designs do have pretty gosh-dang simple aluminum cantilever wings. The aircraft perform very well. I'm not aware of any reputation for these wings being unsafe, or weak, or accident-prone. I looked at the rib drawing from Titan and they use a simple one-piece stamped rib that could just as easily have been a Piper or Cessna factory part.

So would there be any love from this esteemed (or perhaps steamed) group for a stand-off scale V.40-ish parasol, using the Graham Lee / Baslee style fuselage, and a Titan-ish aluminum wing? It would be fairly simple, durable, inspect-able, and able to be analyzed and engineered easily.

litespeed and erkki67 like this.
3. Apr 24, 2019

### cluttonfred

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Feb 13, 2010
Messages:
6,350
2,220
Location:
World traveler
Personally, I am less interested in modern underneath and antique on the surface, probably one of the reasons that the Murphy Maverick biplanes never really did it for me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for using linen fabric and casein glue, just that aluminum construction doesn't stir my imagination the same way.

Still, this could be a good approach for a simple little parasol sport plane, perhaps convertible between open cockpit and bubbly canopy. Oooh, I know, how about taking some inspiration from the Braunschweig LF-1 Zaunkönig, but with the wing mounted lower V.40 style and overall less gangling and more racy?

Or like a parasol version of the Pazmany PL-4?

4. Apr 24, 2019

### Dillpickle

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
May 3, 2014
Messages:
57
21
Location:
Piny Woods, Tx
What kind of spar(s) do they use?

5. Apr 24, 2019

### BJC

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 7, 2013
Messages:
9,289
6,060
Location:
97FL, Florida, USA
Victor Bravo likes this.
6. Apr 25, 2019

### Riggerrob

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Sep 9, 2014
Messages:
1,141
315
Location:
In the interests of less noise and smell, I prefer an aluminum structure covered with Oratex. ..... similar to the lighter Murphys. Ideally most of the rivets are pulled.
I am cool with Baslee-style fuselages and tail feathers.
Perhaps we should review how Baslee builds wings on Fokker D8 replicas.
Welded structures should be limited to the engine mount, landing gear and wing struts. Some keener could design complex sockets that wing struts merely slide into and are secured by bolts or pip-pins.

7. Apr 25, 2019

### Dillpickle

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
May 3, 2014
Messages:
57
21
Location:
Piny Woods, Tx
Thank you. I assume the stack of angle lets off as the wing progresses outward.

8. Apr 25, 2019

### erkki67

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Feb 18, 2010
Messages:
1,473
151
Location:
Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
VB When do we start, right after the Ranger.

9. Apr 25, 2019

### Victor Bravo

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jul 30, 2014
Messages:
5,861
4,694
Location:
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
At this stage it is nothing more than a thought exercise. What is being done on the Ranger is something real, and there are actual drawings and parts being cut.

This idea being discussed here is certainly worth pursuing, but I also have one or two other "thought exercise" projects that are equally valid to me. To be honest with myself, I have no idea if any of those projects will become "real" within a month or a year, because I do not have the time or money at this moment to truly dedicate to such a project. My wife says I have to have a job first

The fact that people are actually putting time, real money, physical materials, etc. into the Ranger puts that project at a far far higher level of importance to everyone on this forum.

So this cantilever parasol, and my little Debreyer Pelican derivative, and the VP-21, and the flying motorcycle all are interesting to discuss and many of us enjoy it very much, but the Ranger has transformed up to a higher level than a thought exercise..

10. Apr 25, 2019

### Tiger Tim

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 26, 2013
Messages:
2,842
1,582
Location:
Thunder Bay
Yeah, and almost makes it foolish to produce any competition for the Ranger for the time being.

Victor Bravo likes this.
11. Apr 25, 2019

### Victor Bravo

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jul 30, 2014
Messages:
5,861
4,694
Location:
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Yes exactly

12. Apr 27, 2019

### Aesquire

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jul 29, 2014
Messages:
2,295
912
Location:
Rochester, NY, USA
The Fokker DVIII is at the top of my list, it's my phone wallpaper.

but the best version, which is actually available, really wants a 100 hp Rotec engine to make it look right. And that's a budget buster. And it isn't a cantilever wing, it's strutted. ( on the kit )

The V.40, with a Verner 3 cylinder, hits the look perfectly, and the limitations of only 42 ponies? That demands light & simple. The Hershey bar wing vs. The tapered fighter wing promises a little easier construction & gentle stall.

Like owning a WW2 Trainer vs. Fighter, there's a balance between romance and practicality. And the public honestly never heard of the DVIII, and the vast majority couldn't tell a SPAD from a SE5A, Snoopy is the most influential WW1 information source for most.

So imho the Tornado wing might be the perfect solution to a V.40 replica, and makes me wonder if I can squeeze pt103 weight out of a tube & gusset fuselage, Verner 3 radial, and cantilever wing?

That's vs. a stacked tube spar Baslee fabric covered wing with struts. ( or wood & fabric or wood and plywood, or carbon fiber and etc. )
I have personal preferences, but in the end, light enough is the primary demand. ( and budget )

What wing is lightest? Easiest to build? Cheapest? Strongest?
In more or less that order??????

I'm assuming reasonable quick wing removal and trailer transport/storage as requirements.

I'm not at all interested in this competing with the Ranger design.

If I can get pt 103 weight, that saves some money, but is also a good idea from the power available, ( 42 hp ) Engine weight is a major driving force in aircraft design, ( yeah, obvious ) but availability is a real issue as well. Verner used to make a boxer engine for ultralights, and it's now gone. Rotax makes nothing smaller than the 582m which is too heavy for ultralights. ( opinion, don't care to argue.... pounds are pounds ) I'm concerned that a multi-year build will end up with no appropriate engine. That's worth a thread of it's own, so I'll just say I like the 3 cylinder radial for it's quirky nature alone, and we could easily do a thread on designs around the engine.

But the V.40 { or DVIII ) is what I want to fly around in.... so please keep talking!

Last edited: Apr 27, 2019
Battler Britton likes this.
13. Apr 27, 2019

### TFF

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 28, 2010
Messages:
11,411
3,161
Location:
Memphis, TN
It’s not cantilevered but if you can’t make a Legal Eagle look like a D8 you have no imagination. Gear , easy. Tail shape, easy. Paint wing green, easy. Build fuselage to look like a Fokker, easy. Cover said fuselage and paint in Lozenge, easy. Easy is defined as you are already making it, might as well make it look the way you want. It probably would not be be 103 because reshaping the fuselage would probably add 25-50 lbs. Adding one more longeron and a curved rear deck and adding a round cowl adds up. 103 is as much as a physics exercise of weight that style has to be squinting. it would be close enough that I would just go with it. the rest is done all the time. It would work well.

Battler Britton likes this.
14. Apr 28, 2019

### Battler Britton

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 14, 2015
Messages:
490
319
Location:
Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)
hi
like said Scott,scalebirdscott......shoot!
I follow this thread from the begining along a few other..and I've been around dreaming of a parasol for long time..Morane, Dewoitine D26...even PZL gull wings..fond of dR1, D VII ,and D VIII..
so..I enter in this thing
I know for so long time this small V40, but I did'nt realise until this week , that I got quite all the parts in my shop to initiate something like that!
kind of Flitzer projet for poor/lazy people!
I already got , from older projet:

a very suitable wood box spar, built and flown
on a +/- 10 G small 300kilos plane

almost 24 good wood ribs plus enough smaler ribs to go quite eliptic

a wonderfull 500 GT Arrow engine, light and powerfull (less than 40 kgs and 65 hp)

a very wonderfull Silent prop

a tiny fuselage that could be the start of something!
it is a steel tube one, and the idea woold be rebuilt the rear section in aluminium,( 7/8 nieuport style) to minimise weight and try to keep a short nose.

and many other small items that could fit....partial landing gear, etc..

so, I don't know yet, if I have to thank you, Matthew, but nights are going shorter ...

have to finish organize the new shop, finish the motorcycle I began last summer(!)....restart the work on my diesel racer, some painting on the Tempète before solding it..

and voilà!

a V 40 look alike!

Last edited: Apr 28, 2019
cluttonfred likes this.
15. Apr 28, 2019

### Battler Britton

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 14, 2015
Messages:
490
319
Location:
Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)
due to the flat twin configuration of the engine, big exhaust, (two stroke) I would considere an in line front fairing, like a D VII
maybe with prop axle on the lower end

ribs are 1,2 meter chord, so with 6 meter span and round tip, area could still be around 6,5 square meter.
a gross weight well below 300 kilos is realistic

speed range could be 60 / 180 km/h which is good for 60/ 70 mph cruising

design difficulties: cabane struts, Fokker style landing gear, rear rudder size, weight and balance, due to a small plane with a quite light engine

go for a look...Fokker V 23 and V 25...interresting.

Last edited: Apr 28, 2019
cluttonfred likes this.
16. May 1, 2019

### litespeed

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
May 21, 2008
Messages:
1,390
246
Location:
Sydney
I have always admired the DVIII and the Baslee Replicas.
Would happily build any but the option of a 3 cylinder radial makes a lighter version sound great.

Unless we go full replica, any change to make it easier to build or fly are fair game. As long as it looks about right as a retro aircraft cum WW1 machine. The original were quite a big aircraft height wise compared to some and certainly to most modern aircraft. So a scale is more to my liking. Getting the weight for a 42hp is the issue to me.

We go for 300kg limit here in Aus. so that is the class I would be after. It can be lighter but too light is not needed if I have the grunt.

Battler Britton likes this.
17. May 1, 2019

### Battler Britton

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 14, 2015
Messages:
490
319
Location:
Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)
I will think about a few change...
first, a D VII nose, to hide the flat 2 stroke engine and exaust.

cabane, also, with V struts like Mignet HM 14, so I could rotate the wing for road/storage.

maybe a little bigger rudder ..

After that, same look, and a paint scheme "a la" Richthofen circus!

I go rigth now see how are the steel and the alu fuselage I got somewhere around.... from my (so..abandoned..now...) pou pou project

The pou had to be around 150 kilos, with 2 lighter wings, but all the same parts and engine.
so the V 40 bis could be very near, heavier wing, but only one...longer fuselage ,thought

with a gross around 250 k , 65 hp and the variable pitch prop....could be a fighter !

Last edited: May 1, 2019
18. May 3, 2019

### Battler Britton

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 14, 2015
Messages:
490
319
Location:
Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)
OK,
all the parts I got seems they could go for this project

something between a V40 and a D VIII, with a D VII nose

I am quite exited!!
I just order downloadable book from Achim Engels, who is a well known builder of VERY acruate Fokker fighter.. including D VIII

http://www.collectors-edition.de/QAU/InDetail/FokD8/FokkerD8InDetailteil1leseprobe28es.pdf

http://www.collectors-edition.de/f-t-s_buchbestellung_english.htm

cluttonfred likes this.
19. May 3, 2019

### Battler Britton

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 14, 2015
Messages:
490
319
Location:
Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)

which is , in fact a V 29

20. May 7, 2019

### larr

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 25, 2012
Messages:
157
44
Location:
Generally, I agree with Clutonfred. It should be 'traditional' in both looks and construction. Even so, there is a lot of wiggle room. Mossie's 3D models are quite nice, but as he stated they are what he imagines they should be. There is no way of knowing the exact construction details.
At the time, this is all flight had to say:

Flight also did a nice summary of the then state of the art Fokker welded steel fuselage:

I think it would be possible to keep it 'period' and still have a simpler fuselage:

This is the 1931 Georgias Special which I think is close in size. I estimate about 20 lbs. and $1000 worth of 4130. In 6061-T6 a little lighter and$500 less.
In comparison, the Airdrome Airplanes D.VIII fuselage seems too fiddly.

For the wing, probably a scaled down chocolate bar style wing. Plywood covered. The Cabane/Strut structure of the V.40 is almost perfect, providing very little restriction of the forward view.

There have been some comments about dihedral, but if the Cg is below the wing it isn't needed. In fact, the shoulder wing heavy lift Antonovs have anhedral.

Battler Britton likes this.