# Duncan's got a Flea

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### nestofdragons

##### Well-Known Member
Rotax618, a Arup!! Now you have my full attention. I really looooooveee low aspect ratio. Arup, V-173, Facetmobile. They are treasures of possibilities to me. Would love to fly as passenger in one.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Interesting factoid - according to Wikipedia, two of the flying examples of the Croses Para-Cargo were 3 axis.

Who knew?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croses_Para-Cargo

That's the first time I've heard that, I visited Emilien Croses in Macon twice and never heard any mention of a three-axis version. I am not saying it's not true, just that it's hard to judge without a source. The EC-9 did have differential Cosandey flaps and some people may have mistaken them for ailerons.

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
Wiki page had been edited by the time I saw it.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Wiki page had been edited by the time I saw it.
Not by me! I offered the comment about the Cosandey flaps as my opinion, I have no source to prove or disprove the notion of any three-axis EC-9.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Per the web site of Yves Croses, Emilien's son....

Le poste de pilotage biplace est indépendant de la cabine. Le pilotage est du type Mignet à deux commandes; sur l'aile arrière se trouvent deux volets qui permettent de cabrer d'avantage aux faibles vitesses et d'incliner l'appareil pour les approches par très fort vent de travers. Les gouvernes peuvent être facilement agencées pour avoir un système classique à trois commandes et raffinement suprême, on peut disposer sur le même appareil d'une place pilote "Mignet" et d'une autre "classique" !

The two-seat cockpit is independent from the cabin. Piloting is Mignet-style with two controls; on the rear wing are two flaps which allow bringing the nose up higher at low speeds and to angle the aircraft for the landing approach in a strong crosswind. The controls can easily be arranged to have conventional three-axis controls and great refinement, you can even have on the same aircraft one set of "Mignet" controls and the other set "conventional!" [Translation by yours truly.]

Source: http://www.croses.fr/articles.php?lng=fr&pg=132
The two-axis controls seem to be confirmed by this cockpit photo that shows a bare floor without pedals. Note the two roof-mounted levers that look like throttles for a twin-engine type, those are the controls for the Cosandey flaps.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
Money and time saved by building an airplane with Cosandey flaps instead of ailerons: 8 hours and $20 in material. Amount of additional money spent during flight training to learn 3 axis control instead of 2 axis control:$0.00

Additional money spent during flight training to learn stalls, spins, and slips: \$500.00

Having more control over the aircraft and over your personal safety every time you fly: Priceless.

(apologies to our HBA participants outside of America who don't have the same TV commercials we do here, some of you won't get the humor)

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Ah, but a Mignet disciple would say....

Satisfaction of proving the naysayers wrong and the confidence from knowing you can avoid stalls and spins, which could save your entire investment of time and money and might just save your life...priceless!

;-p

Again, I will say that Duncan and others should build whatever aircraft they want, but don't try to "fix" the Mignet formula and still call it a Pou-du-Ciel, just call it your own take on a tandem-wing design and have at it.

#### rtfm

##### Well-Known Member
Hi,
For me, what makes a Pou a Pou are the following (and in this order):
1. Pivoting main wing
2. Lifting rear wing
3. 2-axis control

By far the more distinctive feature of all Poux is their free pivoting main wing and the rear wing which is a lifting surface. Whether or not you choose to fly 2-axis or not is of relatively minor importance.

In other words, 2-axis flying is not definitive of a Flea. There are tons of 2-axis planes. But without the pivoting main wing and a lifting rear wing, it simply can't be a Pou.

Duncan

#### Aesquire

##### Well-Known Member
Blasphemer! May the Pous of a thousand camels......

Perhaps a "3 Axis Flea? Improvement, or Heresy?" Thread?

Actually at this point, pedantic fun aside, a 3 axis Flea with ailerons on the rear wing is rather intriguing.

Philosophically, there seem to be two main "missions" for the Flea as designed. ( and redesigned to fix the pitch issue ) In no order.

1. A two axis plane for a pilot who did not like the 3 axis control schemes of the day, and wanted something simple he could deal with. Technology over competence. ( and we've had many such threads, usually involving spins ) With a hint of solving a problem not everyone has.

B. A cheap simple plane that can be built in limited space, with short wings and fuselage.

If you focus on B, your resulting "not a real Pou" could be a practical wee sport plane. ( as long as you don't go ego-stupid and chase "world's smallest" etc. )

There have to be other insects in the annoying to humans category to name it if the Flea Folk get all huffy, Bed Bug? Nah. Roach? Unkillable. Thunder Roach?

#### rtfm

##### Well-Known Member
Interesting. Trying to fly on 5hp?

Duncan

#### rotax618

##### Well-Known Member
I recon it's a great example of the safety of the flea, it didn't nose over when it stopped flying and parachuted to the ground.

#### rtfm

##### Well-Known Member
What surprises me is the ruggedness of the landing gear. Basically a straight tube with bungees (?)

Last edited:

#### Thunderchook

##### Well-Known Member
Blasphemer! May the Pous of a thousand camels......

Perhaps a "3 Axis Flea? Improvement, or Heresy?" Thread?
Actually, that discussion has been more-or-less done to death, earlier on in this thread.
Ultimately, it became a religious debate.
Devotion to the Mignet design vs. Three Axis lovers.

Actually at this point, pedantic fun aside, a 3 axis Flea with ailerons on the rear wing is rather intriguing.

Philosophically, there seem to be two main "missions" for the Flea as designed. ( and redesigned to fix the pitch issue ) In no order.

1. A two axis plane for a pilot who did not like the 3 axis control schemes of the day, and wanted something simple he could deal with. Technology over competence. ( and we've had many such threads, usually involving spins ) With a hint of solving a problem not everyone has.

B. A cheap simple plane that can be built in limited space, with short wings and fuselage.
I think that this is part of the decision-making process that Duncan has incorporated into his design.
His Flea (the "Rangi-Pou") will have ailerons.

If you focus on B, your resulting "not a real Pou" could be a practical wee sport plane. ( as long as you don't go ego-stupid and chase "world's smallest" etc. )

There have to be other insects in the annoying to humans category to name it if the Flea Folk get all huffy, Bed Bug? Nah. Roach? Unkillable. Thunder Roach?
Yes, well Duncan has named his the Rangi-Pou.

#### rtfm

##### Well-Known Member
Hi,
I'm not really concerned with the religious debate. Essentially I'm in my workshop building my plane - and what it turns out to be will be mine. Call it what you will. It is based very solidly on the HM-293, so I have no problem calling it a Pou. But names are immaterial, I think. What matters is how nicely it flies. And time will be the arbiter on that one...

Duncan

#### MikePousson

##### Well-Known Member

Purists vs experimenters ???

We’d all be flying one form or another of Wright Flyer today if it weren’t for different ideas.

#### Thunderchook

##### Well-Known Member

Purists vs experimenters ???

We’d all be flying one form or another of Wright Flyer today if it weren’t for different ideas.
Agreed.
The whole spirit of this section of HBA is for those who like the idea of changing the plans.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
I have to take exception to one minor point, if you will forgive me. the whole spirit of HBA is also for discussion and advice about when to not screw with what works, even within the framework of an experimental or one-off design. IMHO rverything in aviation (and life for that matter) is about balance, and weighing factors that influence decisions. So when someone is considering something that really doesn't make sense, or that is creating a risk that they might ought to think twice about... then the HBA "peanut gallery" is pretty good at helping steer that decision back in a safe direction. Even within the framework of an experimental airplane.

And in the next breath we (collectively) take great joy in discussing methane powered distributed thrust recombent flying submarines for the self-driving air taxi market

Staff member
Log Member
Well said, VB.