Quantcast

Flying Flea Mignet HM360/380 plans are online ...for free!

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,310
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Very well... so three of the more experienced Pou du Cielistes on this forum were not aware of any catastrophic flaw in the Bifly. That is what I suspected, but was not sure of.

So I must say that the Bifly appears to be an ideal candidate for a modern light / ultralight-ish Pou derivative for the following reasons:

It has cleaner, more attractive lines than many of the other Pou designs.
The engine was enclosed in a cowling, and not directly in the pilot's line of sight.
It appears to retain the "classic" advantages and primary characteristics of the Pou philosophy.
Few or no compound curves.
Wings can be built using one wing rib form/tool/jig.
Can be easily built with conventional or tricycle landing gear.
Can be built in a variety of materials (wood, sheet aluminum, riveted angle, riveted tube, welded steel tube, molded foam and glass, moldless foama nd glass).
Reasonable fuselage side area behind the CG.
Forward wing "cabane" strut structure is more simple than other Pou's, without cable bracing.
Can be bui lt in two or more sizes for ultralight and light sport weight requirements or engine displacements.

Based on these ideas (please correct me if I'm wrong), it seems that this basic design/layout has the potential to bring the Pou forward into a new generation of enthusiasts. Not to disparage any of the other Pou variants, just to create a Pou that appeals to a different type of builder or pilot,a nd has a different appeal than those previously exisating versions.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,457
Location
Rocky Mountains
Based on these ideas (please correct me if I'm wrong), it seems that this basic design/layout has the potential
Which Flea design are you thinking about? There are so many variations and branches of the Pou family tree one almost needs a full taxonomic type flow chart to determine the lineage.

The Lascaud Bifly?
Bifly_F001_Popham_199_2.jpg

or the Butterfly?
Butterfly_OO-639.jpg

Or a version of this one?
elec flea.JPG
 

TahoeTim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
109
Location
South Lake Tahoe. Ca.
The HM 1000 Balerit brings the design to 1986. It appears to have constant cord wings and a pusher design. I like the low engine mount combined with a belt drive system mounted to the fuselage. This offers an uncomplicated way to try a variety of engines IMHO.

phil_28-11-2014_08-53-31_194069.jpg
 
Last edited:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,310
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Altough (like others) I have mentioned several different Flying Flea derivatives in several of the HBA discussion threads, I was referring to the Lascaud Bifly specifically in this recent go-round. The Butterfly, Pouchel, and other Fleas on the lighter side all have some aspect or feature that does not appeal to me for the specific type of use or "breakthrough" that I had been thinking about.

Based on all of these Flea discussions previously, I had been sketching what I thought would be a "new" idea for a 21st Century Flying Flea (uh oh...now I've done it). Then just when I thought that the sketchpad was bearing some pretty good fruit, I learned about the Lascaud Bifly, and it was obvious that this was in fact pretty much that same airplane I thought that I had been "inventing".

Also, the Moto-Pou by Yves Millien captures some of the features that I thought would be of interest in this particular design exercise.
 
Last edited:

Battler Britton

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Messages
519
Location
Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)
Very well... so three of the more experienced Pou du Cielistes on this forum were not aware of any catastrophic flaw in the Bifly. That is what I suspected, but was not sure of.

So I must say that the Bifly appears to be an ideal candidate for a modern light / ultralight-ish Pou derivative for the following reasons:

It has cleaner, more attractive lines than many of the other Pou designs.
The engine was enclosed in a cowling, and not directly in the pilot's line of sight.
It appears to retain the "classic" advantages and primary characteristics of the Pou philosophy.
Few or no compound curves.
Wings can be built using one wing rib form/tool/jig.
Can be easily built with conventional or tricycle landing gear.
Can be built in a variety of materials (wood, sheet aluminum, riveted angle, riveted tube, welded steel tube, molded foam and glass, moldless foama nd glass).
Reasonable fuselage side area behind the CG.
Forward wing "cabane" strut structure is more simple than other Pou's, without cable bracing.
Can be bui lt in two or more sizes for ultralight and light sport weight requirements or engine displacements.

Based on these ideas (please correct me if I'm wrong), it seems that this basic design/layout has the potential to bring the Pou forward into a new generation of enthusiasts. Not to disparage any of the other Pou variants, just to create a Pou that appeals to a different type of builder or pilot,a nd has a different appeal than those previously exisating versions.
Based on all of these Flea discussions previously, I had been sketching what I thought would be a "new" idea for a 21st Century Flying Flea (uh oh...now I've done it). Then just when I thought that the sketchpad was bearing some pretty good fruit, I learned about the Lascaud Bifly, and it was obvious that this was in fact pretty much that same airplane I thought that I had been "inventing".

Also, the Moto-Pou by Yves Millien captures some of the features that I thought would be of interest in this particular design exercise.
Well... hi, mr VB,

OK, for the 21 century flea..:) flying fleas.. ie: pous du ciel will be centenaire in only 20 years!

could be the good moment to prepare for that!... joking!

what you write is not bad, but.. need to work again on the idea.
the Bifly is safe ( with a safe pilot!!), but cannot be built easily trigear, the front frame around the engine is ..light!
wings need 4 different rib jig..( same plan form as HM 290)
it need some cable bracing

and, yes... I still have the (quite) untouched kit of the Bifly sport, minus ribs and few plastic parts, so, if you need informations, mesurement, pictures... ask and wait I go back home next automn

OK the good now!

yes, we could imagine very esily steel ,wood, alu or compositeHM293_Claude_ADAM_ (2).jpg ( harder, for me) with this formula , based on the Bifly/290/pouchel and friends, dimensions,

basicaly, a HM 14 révisé 36, could be a base, too,

and like said, TahoeTim, the balerit engine instalation could be a great idea. I don't like so much the balerit look , but ideas are there around


981-2525-thickbox.jpg981-2526-thickbox.jpgVol bleu.jpg

Bébé pictures, just for the cutness, of the beast, it is a model ,and forbiden as a real one...but...

But a modified bifly/293 would look like quite that, I 'll show you my plane( parts/ drauwing/pictures) next time I be in Fontainebleau
 
Last edited:

TahoeTim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
109
Location
South Lake Tahoe. Ca.
Vb, it's your dream to pursue any way you choose but it seems that you are stuck on the Bifly even though it does not hit many of your targets that you lined out above. I may have read into your criteria more than you intended. The Balerit hits most of your goals; engine out of pilot's view, trigear, constant cord, a welded frame that a novice builder could buy. It also offers a unique method of bolting a variety of engines down in the belly and belt driving a prop. I see infinite drive ratios available to suit the torque curve of a variety of engines. The belt drive naturally dampens the pulses so many engines would work.

I would encourage you to take another look at it.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,310
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Why yes... yes, it can!

Some of the larger and more exotic R/C model helicopters now have turbine engines, with a "turboshaft" output, which is driving a 3 to 4 foot diameter composite rotor. The rotor hubs have full swash plates and pitch controls, so you could indeed build the world's first turbine Flying Flea with constant speed propeller and thrust vectoring.

While I haven't built the aircraft, I can immediately come up with the correct name: Mignet's Revenge :)
 

nestofdragons

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
390
Location
Near Antwerp, Belgium
Based on these ideas (please correct me if I'm wrong), it seems that this basic design/layout has the potential to bring the Pou forward into a new generation of enthusiasts. Not to disparage any of the other Pou variants, just to create a Pou that appeals to a different type of builder or pilot,a nd has a different appeal than those previously exisating versions.
Victor, we learned from the past that each pilot has his own taste and ...that makes the Flying FLea so great. There is one for each taste. I always try to propose the Pouchel to those who really want to go low budget, low building time. Some like it, others hate it. I myself am very fond of the HM14. It is soo basic and i like the retro style. I hope to some day see my own DragonCub fly for real. I might have found a guy in France that can make that happen for real. Yihaaaaa!
 

nestofdragons

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
390
Location
Near Antwerp, Belgium
The HM 1000 Balerit brings the design to 1986. It appears to have constant cord wings and a pusher design. I like the low engine mount combined with a belt drive system mounted to the fuselage. This offers an uncomplicated way to try a variety of engines IMHO.
A 4 stroke Briggs and Stratton would fit in fiiiine. I like the Balerit too. I was really amazed to once see it being pulled by a car. It had no trailer. It used it own wheels. Nose wheel was replaced by some devise to hook up to the car. Was super easy together witht he folding wings.
 

nestofdragons

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
390
Location
Near Antwerp, Belgium
Just to show another less know Flying Flea. The Airplume by Croses. It has a composite fuselage. Pilots sit like in old trainer. If flying solo, you are in rear seat. If flying duo, both tandem seats are filled. I really really loved the looks on this one. Sleek. Still very retro.
AIRPLUME.jpg
 

johnincali

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Messages
2
Location
west Sacramento
Hello all, My name is John, I'm new here.. I've been interested in the flying flea type aircraft because of it's small storage size and also it's interesting flight characteristics. . I stumbled onto this article and thought it might be of interest here. https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/homebuilt-aircraft/2014-05-12-is-the-flying-flea-better I've watched most of Koen's? / nestofdragons videos. I'm curious if anyone has considered the relationship between the flea and Rutan's Q200? While it is a much different looking aircraft it seems to have a similar control concept. As for engines I wonder if anyone has considered a BMW GS 1200 CC boxer for aircraft use? All the best!
 
Last edited:

nestofdragons

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
390
Location
Near Antwerp, Belgium
Johnincali, do not make the common USA mistake. Take a good design and put a huuuuge engine on it. It always sounds cool, but ...might become too heavy or not stable for those speeds. Try to keep designs within the proven engine range.
 
Top