Manufacture aircraft kit parts as a retirement side hustle.

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Tom DM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
223
Location
EBGB Grimbergen airfield (N of Brussels, Belgium)
"
Sorry, I'm not following you. How did the substitution of the O-100 for the O-200 and the elimination of the BRS decrease the empty weight by 110kg (242 lbs)? Just how heavy is that BRS?
"
The weight of the BRS is not important as it is not on the plane. No BRS follows the rule: what is not there, costs nothing, needs nothing. The French push for it on ULMs as some broke up in flight (heavy turbulence in mountains). T211 has been there at max weight, in the mountains , didn't flinch with French naval pilot (and me sick) showing off.

Under French ULM-rules resides a class with has but 2 requirements for a 2-seater: MTOW of 450 kg and stall speed equal or less than 65 kph (35 Kts / 40 MPH). That is the aim with the T211-ULM.
Adding a BRS (weighs 15 kg) allowed a 475 Kg MOTW.

The estimated weight of the O-100 airframe comes from the J2200-airframe minus J2200 + O-100 . Hope that makes sense :)

"
Even if the 240kg empty weight can be achieved, is there any popular aircraft with an MTOW of 1000 lbs (450kg) and a span of 25 feet than flies well (or even safely) on 50 HP?
"
Not sure about "popular" aircraft : the T211 never has been popular. There are less than 50 flying or flown aircrafts of the type.

There is no doubt in my mind about feasability of the 250 Kg empty weight objective (using Jabiru 2200). No over exotic materials are required.

How do I get to the possible yet marginal 50 HP (real usable)?

Firstly there is (better: was) a T211 with a A-65 engine (N211XH). It owner converted it later to O-200 and reported no increased in cruise speed only a bit better take off performance. Cruise @ 75%= 49 HP

Secondly : the T10 was a twin-seat (side by side) Little Dipper adapted fuselage with classic landing gear. It kept its original Franklin 50 Hp twin cilindre.
I have never found factual proof of its real existance, but have quite some independant confirmation that it was indeed at least on the design table. I think the T10 was an expolation of the T1, making it a 2-seater for minimal added cost. Hence no nosewheel (about 7 kg won and a rather big part out of the propwash)

The standard T211 takes off at 2500 RPM (75 Hp). I tested quite a lot of take-offs (1 pob, half fuel, TOW 450 kg) at 2250 RPM . This RPM conforms to 55 HP.
Take off were from a 614 m grasstrip, needs in this confirguration about 200 m for take-off, climb rate 200-250 ft/min at 65 kts.

T211 (standard) maintains straight and level flight at 2200 RPM/ speed 75 kts/ 450 kg all day long

I grant you 50HP leaves not a very big powermargin on the table but then an O-100 of a O-200 for that matter could easily get 5-10 HP extra trough high compression pistons. The O-100 should indeed prove underpowered but on the other hand be the perfect substitute for the original Little Dipper's Franklin (if somebody would care to make a 2nd replica)


Bleu skies
 

Tom DM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
223
Location
EBGB Grimbergen airfield (N of Brussels, Belgium)
What county? I thought most T-211 had O-200s.

All around the world : the bulk in North and South America, a few in India (some non-flying given to engineering schools), Europe (3-5 UK, 2 Be), at least 2 in South-Africa, 2-3 in Oz), probably some in China (where Indus vanished). Installed engines: A-65 , C-90, O-200, Jabiru 2200 and Jabiru 3300

2 WAM 3-cyl diesels: one in the US , one in the UK. The one in the UK : proof of concept, the one in the US: one of the last strategic errors of former Indus-management. Nice in a technical way though but politely: the WAM-diesel with the big frontal intercooler made any plane on which it was bolted look rather -ahum- less of a stunner. Jet fuel is cheap, the WAM diesel not and nor did it fulfill the hopes to its management.
The WAM / Wisch-engine hibernates with some doubt if it is ever to awake.

3-5 T211 decommissioned after mishap: an out of fuel ferry, an involontary flight day VFR into night VFR with off field landing, a flight into a tree due to downdraft in the mountains, recentely a write- off du to wind/storm-damage. No fatalities (I think).

There might be some oddball here or there but the above covers the T211s about.

Blue skies
 

Tom DM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
223
Location
EBGB Grimbergen airfield (N of Brussels, Belgium)
What is wrong with the current Mitsubishi Mirage based engine solution ? Its a 3 cylinder, 1.2L port injection. You can buy them for less than $600 with as low as 7k miles on them. Add another $250 for shipping it across the US. Add a Rotax E box for $2500 and a mounting plate for the gearbox for $400. Now we are up to $3750. OK now some shopping at Aeromomentum, A coolant expansion tank $163, Radiator small 4" thick $385, some silicone coolant hoses 3x $20 each = $60. A custom engine mount $800 (if you cant weld), engine to mount package $140, cable operated throttle body $197. So now we are up to $5495.

I evade experminental plane with experimental motor. The T211 has been betrayed several times by its engine so I want the engine as a known factor.
Weight is rather important: engine-package 60 kg / 80 Hp/ direct drive. It has Jabiru 2200 written all over it.

Depending on new >< used : 10000 US >< 5000 US. For the prototype a used engine is OK.

Blue skies
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
7,807
Location
US
I evade experminental plane with experimental motor. The T211 has been betrayed several times by its engine so I want the engine as a known factor.
Weight is rather important: engine-package 60 kg / 80 Hp/ direct drive. It has Jabiru 2200 written all over it.

Depending on new >< used : 10000 US >< 5000 US. For the prototype a used engine is OK.

Blue skies
If the Jab 2200 is big enough and on your list, is there any reason not to consider a 2180cc or larger Sauer or Limbach for your plane? They aren't especially popular in the US (cheaper, non-certified VW derivatives are favored), but they've been around a while.

Mark
 
Last edited:

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,090
Pops mentioned fabric work. I could do that. I enjoy it. But having been a director of aircraft maintenance and having done some fabric jobs, one has to realize that it's really labor-intensive (around eight man-weeks for the typical lightplane) and that's only if you don't find stuff needing repair once the old rag is off. And there's always that stuff. Cracks, corrosion, wear. Stuff that needs fixing now because it won't be so accessible later.

And unless it's Stewart, it stinks, and the neighbors won't like that. The town will resent spraying in my garage, and so will my insurance company. Might get away with one project but that would be about it.

There are a lot of old airplanes that aren't flying because the fabric is shot and the job costs a lot of money. Ten years ago here in Canada it usually went past $30K at shop rates. Now it would be over $40K. A guy in his garage can do it for a lot less than shop rates, but he soon learns why shops have to charge so much. The amount of material that ends up in the garbage is phenomenal. Cleaning up the mess takes time. Just controlling the overspray is a job. So it's not likely I could make a few bucks buying an old Taylorcraft for $8K and sell it for $40K and still have something decent for my time. It would still have its old engine and old instruments and old interior, and it would still carry the liability. Besides, I'd be so attached to it by then I wouldn't want to sell it. Can't make any money that way.

Engines? There are lots of HBAers here who think a new engine could easily be produced cheaply enough to revolutionize homebuilding. I wish they'd get at it. We sure need one. And since the O-200 is often regarded as a 90 HP engine, I wouldn't expect a full 50 HP out of the O-100. Having flown O-200s and C-90s and C-85s, I can tell you that the C-90 pulls much better than an O-200, and they are in demand because of that. They generate their power at a lower RPM, losing less of it to propeller drag.
 

KeithO

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
652
Location
Jackson, MI
It was not that long ago that the Jabiru was a new unproven engine.. How short some memories are... And they were not without their issues...

I evade experminental plane with experimental motor. The T211 has been betrayed several times by its engine so I want the engine as a known factor.
Weight is rather important: engine-package 60 kg / 80 Hp/ direct drive. It has Jabiru 2200 written all over it.

Depending on new >< used : 10000 US >< 5000 US. For the prototype a used engine is OK.

Blue skies
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
10,801
Location
USA.
Pops mentioned fabric work. I could do that. I enjoy it. But having been a director of aircraft maintenance and having done some fabric jobs, one has to realize that it's really labor-intensive (around eight man-weeks for the typical lightplane) and that's only if you don't find stuff needing repair once the old rag is off. And there's always that stuff. Cracks, corrosion, wear. Stuff that needs fixing now because it won't be so accessible later.

And unless it's Stewart, it stinks, and the neighbors won't like that. The town will resent spraying in my garage, and so will my insurance company. Might get away with one project but that would be about it.

There are a lot of old airplanes that aren't flying because the fabric is shot and the job costs a lot of money. Ten years ago here in Canada it usually went past $30K at shop rates. Now it would be over $40K. A guy in his garage can do it for a lot less than shop rates, but he soon learns why shops have to charge so much. The amount of material that ends up in the garbage is phenomenal. Cleaning up the mess takes time. Just controlling the overspray is a job. So it's not likely I could make a few bucks buying an old Taylorcraft for $8K and sell it for $40K and still have something decent for my time. It would still have its old engine and old instruments and old interior, and it would still carry the liability. Besides, I'd be so attached to it by then I wouldn't want to sell it. Can't make any money that way.

Engines? There are lots of HBAers here who think a new engine could easily be produced cheaply enough to revolutionize homebuilding. I wish they'd get at it. We sure need one. And since the O-200 is often regarded as a 90 HP engine, I wouldn't expect a full 50 HP out of the O-100. Having flown O-200s and C-90s and C-85s, I can tell you that the C-90 pulls much better than an O-200, and they are in demand because of that. They generate their power at a lower RPM, losing less of it to propeller drag.
With a good HVLP turbine spray outfit with the gun adjusted correctly, overspray is not a problem 1 foot from the spray pattern. Almost no cleanup. Pick you projects carefully where the covering and paint is all that it needs to be done to sell. Inspect before buying.
 

Tom DM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
223
Location
EBGB Grimbergen airfield (N of Brussels, Belgium)
It was not that long ago that the Jabiru was a new unproven engine.. How short some memories are... And they were not without their issues...

Some have memories and quite good ones because it links with scars.

Jabiru has been hailed as the best things since slided bread, then suddenly it became the worst engine ever and then they improved, remade a bit of a reputation etc.

My reasoning for Jabiru is that at the end of the day it has the needed charcarteristics (weight, dim , power) , carries an acceptable price, it is made for the application not adapted too and in the market where it operates, proves that it holds together mechanically and financially. And finally it exists, you can get them... you are not held ranson by some manufacturer who plays his monopoly card to the extreme.

And all along we keep our eyes open,

Blue skies
 

Tom DM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
223
Location
EBGB Grimbergen airfield (N of Brussels, Belgium)
If the Jab 2200 is big enough and on your list, is there any reason not to consider a 2180cc or larger Sauer or Limbach for your plane? They aren't especially popular in the US (cheaper, non-certified VW derivatives are favored), but they've been around a while.

Mark

Hi Mark,


There are in fact several reasons. Purely theoretical I am more drawn to an engine specifically made for the job, rather than one which has been adapted to. More hands on: i encountered and witnessed far too many problems with VW-derived products to trust them.

In this thread Keith pointed out that Jabiru was not long ago an unproven engine and it has indeed had very bad rep in Europe (to the point of interdiction). But VW-convertions have a reputation not much better, if fact most mayor (engine) first/near-hand problems I witnessed were with VW-derived products.

Sauer, Limbach etc: known. They are good, carry the price for it and have similar spec to the J2200. I suppose some incidents may be linked to the "it is but a VW beetle engine": self-proclamed specialists started rebuilding/ maintaining.

Proof on the sum (for me) are the people that use the engine in a more "charged" way: flight clubs, ULM-flight instructors etc. I see close to no VW-derived products there.

Finally : I am not married to Jabiru but gosh not even close to dating VW :)

Blue skies
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,090
The J-2200 is nice and light but of course it's only 134 cubic inches. It makes its HP by redlining at 3300 RPM, which means a shorter, less-efficient propeller.

What we need is an engine that makes its power at 2500 or so, but that requires larger bores and longer stroke, both of them adding size and weight.

My Auster's Gipsy Major 7 engine weighed about the same as the Continental O-300, fully equipped. The Auster's gross and empty weights were about the same as an O-300 172. That Gipsy swung an 82-inch prop at 2550 RPM, compared to the 172/O-300's 76-inch prop at 2700. The Auster could fly circles around the 172. It's takeoff and climb were awesome, could still cruise at 108 MPH and max out at 124.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
2,662
Location
Canada
Find a niche, and stick with it.
An amateur musician friend started a side business that morphed into a full-time job after his regular job faded. A (master electrician) friend had a retirement business repairing old musical amplifiers and speakers. He specialized in huge, concert-sized speakers with analog innerds. He kept a large supply of obscure coils, speaker cones, etc. He also had all the wood-working tools to repair or build new speaker cabinets.
He could count on one finger the number of competitors in Vancouver ... heck ... the entire province!
He also had a reputation for fixing things that other guys had already failed at repairing.
Mind you, he was still a "driven" workaholic until his dying days.

So the OP's challenge is to find a popular airplane accessory (e.g. carburetor) that is no longer in production, but plenty are still in service and users are having difficulty finding spare parts. Learn all the ins and outs and invest in new-production gaskets. Price your replacement gaskets almost as high as the cost of you over-hauling the carb. Buy up any spare carbs, over-haul them and have them ready for quick sale. Offer discounts when customers mail in old carbs for exchange.
 

Manudubourg

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
9
Location
New England
"Under French ULM-rules resides a class with has but 2 requirements for a 2-seater: MTOW of 450 kg and stall speed equal or less than 65 kph (35 Kts / 40 MPH).

Tom,
the rules changed few years ago. 500kg (525kg with ’chute) and 70kmh stall speed Are now in effect.
Em
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
9,465
Location
World traveler
Tom,
the rules changed few years ago. 500kg (525kg with ’chute) and 70kmh stall speed Are now in effect.
Em

The new French rules also, quite logically, include minimum allowances for people and fuel so you can’t claim a two-seater with a gross weight of 500 kg and an empty weight of 400 kg as a two-seater. The allowances are 86 kg for the pilot plus 30 liters or 22 kg of fuel for a single-seater and 156 kg for two people plus 45 liters or 33 kg of fuel for a two-seater, all very reasonable IMHO.

That reminds me of some conversations we had about the Vashon Ranger two-seater with a gross weight of 1320 lb and an empty weight of 875 lb. With a full 169 lb tank of fuel it can carry two people with full fuel only if they weight 138 lb each. That’s awfully skinny even for French people. :-/
 

Tom DM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
223
Location
EBGB Grimbergen airfield (N of Brussels, Belgium)
Hi Em,

You are quite right. The rules changed in 2019 because on one side few could abide them (and almost every european nation had its own interpretations) , on the other side the 450/475 kg rule resulted in some quite fragile ULMs which suffered consequently failures.


For the (re)design of the T211 I tried stick to the old rules because
a/ the project started quite before 2019 and focussed from the start heavily on the 450 kg MTOW or 250 kg empty weight.
b/ putting extra weight on something is the easiest thing to do. The airframe has no objections to that: the actual aircrafts enjoy 576kg MTOW.
c/ every kg won without comprise to strength pays enormous dividends as well on the building part as over the lifespan over the aircraft.
d/ and not least: the original designer did a cracking job. Here and there were left some on the table.

The design/ technical side is quite buttoned up, The main scope of work is marrying the different domains: technique, money, exploitation and the legal side.
And when you think : well it is about time , something happens for good, for bad yet sometimes for ugly.

Blue skies
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
10,701
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Pete was not ever intending the O-100 to be a "side hustle". He wanted it to be his full-time business, to pay the rent and make money. He actually wanted to close down the aircraft woodwork business and concentrate on the engine if he could. That's why he worked himself into the grave chasing it.

YES, like most inventors and engineers, he was not a corporate-minded or business-savvy person. No corporate personality could have invented or developed that engine.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,090
I'm probably not going to be developing any new aircraft engines. As much fun as that may sound.
It would be fun for a day or a week, until the realities start sinking in. Those realities are what have kept new engines from appearing regularly, and not appearing affordably at all.

How many here remember the Zoche diesels? From Wiki:

The testing and gestation period of the Zoche engines has already lasted over 25 years; and whether or when production may eventually start is unknown. However, in 2019, Georg Zoche posted this message online: "Don't worry and remain patient; we are working on it".

Zoche aero-diesel - Wikipedia

Nobody is holding their breath anymore. Most don't think it will ever be available.
 
Top