HERO ULTRALIGHT

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

philr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Messages
200
Scott from irondesigniowa.com (scottiniowa user name on HBA) has offered to help with the design work for the HERO project. Scott uses Solid Works for CAD and this offers a lot of advantages over Sketchup which I use. We are nearly finished the tube design for the fuselage! Thank you Scott.
 

challenger_II

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,095
Location
Fisher County, Tx. USA
Observation: As regards the cabin brace tubes, running from the seat to the rear spar region, it would behoove you to pad those. And, if the pilot is wearing a helmet, he may get his head rattled.
 

Mig29fuk

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
15
Phil Hi from UK.
Having looked at your Hero I recognise a similar configuration to a Ultralight I have here.
I attach photos of my aircraft, a Letov Sluka 2M operationing on a type of Part 103 but called Single Seat De-Regulated (SSDR) here in UK.
Roughly speaking its AUW must not exceed about 300kgs. The 'about' is purely because the Regulations are confusing at best!
Thought you might get confidence from knowing other aircraft out there are using your 'form factor'.

My Sluka has been modified quite a bit as regulation is not a concern. The main changes are creating Dihedral, about 1.5 degrees, upgrading to Rotax 503 DCDI from Rotax 447 and recently adding an e-Prop replacing 3 Blade IvoProp. The Prop change has a significant wieght saving of 3 kgs and is a new profiled 3 blade.

One observation I would make is to consider a little storage space. The Sluka storage availibility is dire. Space is at a premium.
For fun I have added a Cargo Pod, al a Cessna 208......but smaller! I'm allowing it to have an all up weight when loaded of 15kg and that will be situated right under C of G. Can carry overnight bag, few light tools and spares and if required, 10L of Fuel. Might be an idea although with your Fuel Tank being limited range is smaller.

Anyway. Following your idea and best of luck and a short time to flying it.

Regards
Gerry
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2413.JPG
    IMG_2413.JPG
    119.8 KB · Views: 29
  • IMG_2499.JPG
    IMG_2499.JPG
    131.4 KB · Views: 30
Last edited:

philr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Messages
200
Phil Hi from UK.
Having looked at your Hero I recognise a similar configuration to a Ultralight I have here.
I attach photos of my aircraft, a Letov Sluka 2M operationing on a type of Part 103 but called Single Seat De-Regulated (SSDR) here in UK.
Roughly speaking its AUW must not exceed about 300kgs. The 'about' is purely because the Regulations are confusing at best!
Thought you might get confidence from knowing other aircraft out there are using your 'form factor'.

My Sluka has been modified quite a bit as regulation is not a concern. The main changes are creating Dihedral, about 1.5 degrees, upgrading to Rotax 503 DCDI from Rotax 447 and recently adding an e-Prop replacing 3 Blade IvoProp. The Prop change has a significant wieght saving of 3 kgs and is a new profiled 3 blade.

One observation I would make is to consider a little storage space. The Sluka storage availibility is dire. Space is at a premium.
For fun I have added a Cargo Pod, al a Cessna 208......but smaller! I'm allowing it to have an all up weight when loaded of 15kg and that will be situated right under C of G. Can carry overnight bag, few light tools and spares and if required, 10L of Fuel. Might be an idea although with your Fuel Tank being limited range is smaller.

Anyway. Following your idea and best of luck and a short time to flying it.

Regards
Gerry
Thank you for sharing pictures and info about your plane. Since part 103 here in the U.S. means the dry weight has to be at or under 254lbs there are lots of things I want to include that weight wont allow. For baggage I was thinking of a kind of detachable backpack behind the seat. There should also be some room for some small things just behind the firewall between there and the fuel tank.
 

philr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Messages
200
Observation: As regards the cabin brace tubes, running from the seat to the rear spar region, it would behoove you to pad those. And, if the pilot is wearing a helmet, he may get his head rattled.
Yes that is a good point. I wonder if bending that tube out will affect its weight carrying ability or compressive resistance to much?
 

philr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Messages
200
I have decided to change the landing gear design to make something similar to the Aerolite 103 gear legs adopted to 4130 tube fuse construction. 1" fiberglass rod into welded metal fittings at each end.
1656870043584.png
 

Lucky Dog

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2021
Messages
124
Maybe not. You'll need more triangulation to cantilever those rods. Check out the Rans S18 and Kolb Firefly for inspiration. Also, here's a link to a titanium supplier who has good prices and sells by the inch. Titanium tubes are lighter than fiberglass (for equal strength) and make better springs than 4130 or fiberglass. Tubing - Titanium Joe
 

philr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Messages
200
Maybe not. You'll need more triangulation to cantilever those rods. Check out the Rans S18 and Kolb Firefly for inspiration. Also, here's a link to a titanium supplier who has good prices and sells by the inch. Titanium tubes are lighter than fiberglass (for equal strength) and make better springs than 4130 or fiberglass. Tubing - Titanium Joe
Yes I think I will add a flat plate on the outside of the fuselage to further brace the landing gear and upgrade the cross tube to 7/8"x.065
 

philr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Messages
200
Maybe not. You'll need more triangulation to cantilever those rods. Check out the Rans S18 and Kolb Firefly for inspiration. Also, here's a link to a titanium supplier who has good prices and sells by the inch. Titanium tubes are lighter than fiberglass (for equal strength) and make better springs than 4130 or fiberglass. Tubing - Titanium Joe
Something like this.
1657023242908.png


1657023338740.png
 

Lucky Dog

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2021
Messages
124
That should handle torsion, but I don't think a .875" x .065" tube can handle the bending moment at the mid point. Because the control stick pivots there, a failure might cause problem. Maybe put a 3" x .375" tube
vertical there and triangulate it to the clusters on either side with .5" tubes?
 

Lucky Dog

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2021
Messages
124
This is a Kolb Firefly forward fuselage. It is one of the lighter weight space frames in the UL world, and it's gear sleeves are well reinforced.
1657147765024.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • gear reinforcement.jpg
    gear reinforcement.jpg
    17.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

philr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Messages
200
I see what you are saying about triangulating but that kolb fuse isn't really what I want and everything I do to take up the torsion loads is adding too much weight. I remembered the gear my Ultravia Pelican GS had and kind of replicated it here but with welded fittings. The design needs two hard points and I think the tube between the legs takes up the torsion loads. The Pelican is composite but I think a tube cluster like this can distribute the loads. What do y'all think.
1657205042217.png
1657205202933.png
 

philr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Messages
200
I see what you are saying about triangulating but that kolb fuse isn't really what I want and everything I do to take up the torsion loads is adding too much weight. I remembered the gear my Ultravia Pelican GS had and kind of replicated it here but with welded fittings. The design needs two hard points and I think the tube between the legs takes up the torsion loads. The Pelican is composite but I think a tube cluster like this can distribute the loads. What do y'all think.
View attachment 127465
View attachment 127466
Here is a pic of the old gear from the Ultravia Pelican GS.
1657221560652.png
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
3,250
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
I see what you are saying about triangulating but that kolb fuse isn't really what I want and everything I do to take up the torsion loads is adding too much weight. I remembered the gear my Ultravia Pelican GS had and kind of replicated it here but with welded fittings. The design needs two hard points and I think the tube between the legs takes up the torsion loads. The Pelican is composite but I think a tube cluster like this can distribute the loads. What do y'all think.
View attachment 127465
View attachment 127466
Post 217 copied in error. See next post.
 
Last edited:

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
3,250
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
From post # 217 “What do y'all think?”

An ultralight needs to be designed to fail in extreme conditions but the failure needs to be of minor concern and easily repaired.

Birds replace feathers on a regular schedule to fix normal hanger rash.

The landing gear needs to handle normal landings but a few “hard landings” may require an upgrade or replacement part and still be acceptable. IMHO

Don’t overdesign non critical components. Landing gear failures in an UL do not result in fatalities.

That said, the Kolb is a good example and a data point.
 
Top