Maybe the best UL wing design ?

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Gregory Perkins

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
131
Location
Atlanta
The Nomad and Honcho ultralights by DSK aircraft benefited from their relationship with Volmer Jensen and they also were selling a Sailplane that I dont remember the name of. They used spars that were built up from aluminum tubes that appeared to be highly engineered more so than any other UL wings I am aware of. See attached$$ Honcho Wing info pic3.jpg$$ Nomad Wing 1.jpg$$ Nomad WING INFO.jpg$$ Wing Data NomadBrochure.jpg$$ Honcho Wing data-LG A.jpg
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Armilite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
3,591
Location
AMES, IA USA
With Robust Engineering they are very Heavy at 32 lbs. A USA Part 103 Aircraft 254 lbs Empty Weight and the Highest MTOW I have seen for one is 660 lbs which need 40.1hp. At 254 lbs and Avg Pilot Weight between 180-235lbs + Gas 30 lbs, at 254 lbs + 235 lbs + 30 lbs = 519 lbs! Even for most Small kit planes, the MTOW falls into the same 450 lbs to 660 lbs range. Most of these Tube & Fabric Airplanes in the last 40+ Years have used 0.058" to 0.065" Wall Tubing for up to MTOW of 660 lbs. Using Spar OD's of 2" x 2" or 2.25" x 2". My T-Bird I, uses 2" OD x 2" OD - both 0.065" wall tubes for an MTOW of 660 lbs. With over 4000 Built in the last 40+ years, I have only heard of (1) T-Bird failure (Human-caused) and that was a Bolt not tightened, not a structural Failure from Tube Size used. Spar Loads are usually 70/30 so using a Bigger Front Spar helps. I believe the CGS Hawk has one of the Highest MTOW at 800 lbs.
 
Last edited:

llemon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2021
Messages
61
Isn't this mostly the same issue as a normal tube spar? Ie too little mass where you want it and a bunch where you don't?

As for best it all comes down to what you want to do... but I like the Eurcoupe wing covered in oratex for my project.
 

karmarepair

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
596
Location
United States
Isn't this mostly the same issue as a normal tube spar? Ie too little mass where you want it and a bunch where you don't?
Not NEARLY as bad as a single tube spar, which has mass at the centroid of the tube where it does you no good except buckling resistance.

It may not be as structurally efficient as the "idea" beam spar, but it's "constructable".
 

pwood66889

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
1,937
Location
Sopchoppy, Florida, USA
"Define best. I like to educate people on how WEIGHT IS THE ENEMY..."
Yes, WSimpson, but not the only one. Numerous examples exist about beating "THE ENEMY" but falling to the next one (or 2 or 10) in line.

'It may not be as structurally efficient as the "idea(l?)" beam spar, but it is "constructable." '
Good point, Karm. Brings to mind the glories of "unotrainium," and why all aircraft are not made of such... :)
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,426
Location
Memphis, TN
Best designed. I think the real dream is a wing pops out of thin air. Next would be throw stuff on the ground and it all joins into a wing. Farm yard parts designed wing. Light weight with perfect amounts of strength at any location ? Aww, bless your little heart. That would require effort.
 

ToddK

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
512
Location
Shweaty Texas
The sport hornet had a similar wing design. Very sturdy. One key benefit is the smaller tubing is much more available. I suspended work on my own design when I could not get the 3" OD tube spars locally.

The problem with a built up tube/gusset spar is the fabrication of all the little bits, and drilling all the spars in the right spot so it all goes together.

In that past that meant a whole bunch of large jigs. Now with the right kind of CNC tooling, it could be automated to save time and labor. CNC tube cutting, drilling, and bending are now all possible with commercial, and/or DIY machines.
 
Top