Discussion in 'Classics' started by ironnerd, Nov 28, 2016.
Metal spinning is great, but not everyone is setup to do it. Fiberglass
Just simple formed wedges of tapered sheet metal might work. The rivets would give a character look.
Or just Dacron fabric glued on. It will shrink with heat and make a nice shape.
Fabric covering would be the easiest and probably lightest answer, and likely the most common one too.
Just the LM-100 moving closer and closer to the first flight.
We are pushing to get more F-35's out the door. The faster we build them, the lower the cost.
Not much else I can really talk about.
Well... I was just kind of wondering how well the thing flew. I found out - not as well as an RV-3 or Pitts. Not exactly a lightbulb moment, but whatever. I also found out that no one knows much about it, other than a few experts expressing a supreme distaste for the plane - because they have flown it and know all about it (I guess).
The POINT of the thread is to chat about a cool old plane. To figure out how to build something that LOOKS like but FLIES better (probably). A bit like the Flybabies that were built to look a bit like an old Junkers (complete with mock gunner), or the Not-Mustangs designed to look a lot like a P-51 (or A-36), the innumerable planes that have the look of a WWI fighter, or even the occasional ultralight that looks a little like a Ryan STA. I rocketry we call it "Stand-off Scale". The point is that I like the LOOK of the Flivver, but not necessarily its flying qualities (but I don't know what they are - no one in the forum does, except that it NOT like an RV-3 or Pitts. Maybe more like an Extra or Sukhoi). A plane, however it may actually be constructed, that has the look of a 1920's/1930's sport plane.
I thought we were trying to come up with a modern mass produced Ford Flivver that should take an hour to build but doesn't have to while retaining the exact design of the original except in those places where it doesn't. Am I close?
This goal actually fits nicely into a thread elsewhere on the forum about interwar classics in more modern materials and techniques. I have my doubts that you could shoehorn a Flivver into 103UL but I imagine if you watched the weight you could probably get it to fly okay on one of those new Verner 3VWs. There's something infinitely approachable about tube and gusset construction and I'm sure if you designed one it could find a niche similar to how the Flitzer did.
Yes, you only left out that mass producing will bring the cost down to $17k, per unit, ready to fly.
No harm, he's just thinking out loud. I'll stand down and once again wait for the dream to come down the pipe. Like I've done for my 50 yrs in aviation (and still waiting on that first dream to materialize. Reality has to be faced sooner or later).
No you got it wrong, ironnerd and his employer are gearing up to mass produce L-100's and F-35's for $17,000 per unit RTF :roll:
Well, I guess a careful look at the features that you want replicated need to be listed.
22 feet span and 36hp two-cylinder half VW engine is almost a Hummel Ultracruiser ultralight.
The fuselage could be aluminum tube.
The wing would require some effort to replicate.
I like full cantilever. That's why I asked about how the cantilever wing was built. With fabric cover, it would need some internal bracing or D -tube and a heavy spar.
Why do I keep thinking that this thread is morphing into another "21st Century VP" thread?
Neither do I.
You are not saying there are better alternatives? That will get you in trouble!
Not even close; it's a "21st Century Flivver" thread.
(Besides, you can't put a Volkswagen engine in a Ford. It throws the whole universe out of balance.)
How do you know the universe is balanced?
(Don't answer that :gig
Unfortunately, and LM-100 is still out of reach of most of us. :ermm: and we're not allowed to sell F-35's to civilians...
I have looked into an LSA built in a corner of the C-130/F-35/P-3 production building. No one is really willing to take it seriously. The building is owned by the USAF and no one thinks they would be willing to allow such an activity. The best I can hope for is a low cost "drone" that fits the LSA parameters...
I've looked at several planes to see which could be built at our facility and still be affordable, the problem is that it's HUGE (we used to build C-5's in it), so it's great for HUGE projects... but really bad for tiny projects.
Back to the Flivveroid.
A VW engine on a Ford? That's akin to blasphemy. But seriously. VW engines make power at 3,000+ rpm which means a small prop, which means less-than-stunning climb. Something like the 3VW radial, a converted Generac, or the Hirth 2702 I have lying around would work better. If you look at the pics you'll see it had a pretty big prop.
A fully cantilevered wing might actually be a good idea. Struts on top create turbulence which might cause some unpleasantness near or during stalls.
For a "Joe Blow" build-it-in-the-garage plane, I think wood would actually be fine. It's a small enough fuselage that wood would not be expansive or heavy, and it would still be simple (i.e. Minimax).
I was in that building back when I was in school in Atlanta. The first C-5 had just flown. Big building.
I still have some of the swag that Lockheed gave to the employees when the C5 flew.
That is way cool and I have wondered for a while how that was done. Unfortunatelly, I am not set up for that and would need to farm it out. I do have an English wheel and shrinker/stretchers in my shop.
Did the original manufacturers of such items spin the aluminum or was it some other process?
The problem with pounding a sheet into a dish and smoothing it out with planishing and/or rolling is it will be impossible to get it to run true on the wheel. The wobble will cause more problems than just going with a naked wire wheel. The cool thing with spinning is you could put steps, beads and other shapes in the wheel cover.
I would say the spun covers showed up in the late 20's. Prior to that they just sealed up the wheels with fabric and dope.
Separate names with a comma.