# Moni Motorglider

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### Flyguyeddy

##### Well-Known Member
Probably too heavy. The original KFM was pretty light, I believe.
But they also required like 30+ pounds of steel to be added to the engine mount as ballast.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
But it needed 25+ pounds of lead on the engine mount to balance the airplane.

#### Bill-Higdon

##### Well-Known Member
Recently bought Moni plans from plansforu.com. $6. I don't know if they are complete, I was just interested in the design and wanted to see what the plans looked like. They are all electronic, of course, and not particularly high quality, but for$6, it's not much of a risk.
You got screwed, they're avialable for free on the web if you know where to look with all of the corrections

#### ssorell

##### Member
You got screwed, they're avialable for free on the web if you know where to look with all of the corrections
Well, OK. I don't know where to look.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
The "plans" are NOT enough to build an airplane from. The kits had some highly prefabricated parts (wing spar extrusions) which you cannot just put together from raw materials.

A re-design of the Moni using traditional (sheet metal and angle extrusion) spars would be an ideal little sportplane on low power.

#### Flyguyeddy

##### Well-Known Member
The "plans" are NOT enough to build an airplane from. The kits had some highly prefabricated parts (wing spar extrusions) which you cannot just put together from raw materials.

A re-design of the Moni using traditional (sheet metal and angle extrusion) spars would be an ideal little sportplane on low power.
The italians did this. The drawings are available

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
Yes, you're right, they did something along those lines. Those plans would be well worth having

#### Flyguyeddy

##### Well-Known Member
Yes, you're right, they did something along those lines. Those plans would be well worth having
The moni group on groups.io has the as-10 spar drawings

Last edited:

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
"Aerosuvlippi" or something like that is who did the AS.10 IIRC.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
Now one of you Bozos better pony up and buy this right now !!! I would buy this in a heartbeat if I hadn't just bought a 1-26. May be the last opportunity to get an original kit.

And DO NOT cut those giant lightening holes in the spar as offered in the plans!!!

#### karmarepair

##### Well-Known Member
Does anyone know the bonding agent involved, beyond "epoxy"?
John was friends with Dick Schreder, so barring anyone with better information, I'm going to assume the then-current, still available Hysol 9430. <Correction: It was more likely 9410, which was thickened with Asbestos, and was replaced with 9430, also used by Strojnik> <<Still later correction, after I got access to the plans: YES, it WAS Hysol 9410. And trouble showed up pretty soon - first flight was 1981, first kits in 1982, the Service Bulletin shifting to riveted wings was in March of 1984, when 273 kits had been shipped>> Better, I think, if anybody should try this today, is Hysol 9394. Prep was a vigorous scuff just before bonding.

Last edited:

#### Finn

##### Member
Victor Bravo,
Just what I am looking for.
Fin

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
My pleasure, go get this kit and start a discussion thread / build log on it here on HBA. This little airplane has enthralled a LOT of people, myself included. We've discussed it many times, and many of us would love to be in on the discussion.

Once again, it is fairly well established you shouldn't cut the lightening holes shown in the spar, unless you are cutting the wing span way down from 27 feet to make a "Mini-Moni" (16-18ft. span) or a "Midi-Moni" (20-22 ft. span). Even with a shorter span, leaving the spar alone is a good move for safety.

Put in the effort to countersink the spar and dimple the ribs & skin, then use the same flush rivets recommended by Sonex and/or Zenith.

IMHO be prepared to substitute a modern paramotor engine or a direct-drive small-block V-twin for the KFM. You'll need the weight and the reliability / fuel efficiency will make a big difference in your enjoyment.

#### karmarepair

##### Well-Known Member
My pleasure, go get this kit and start a discussion thread / build log on it here on HBA. This little airplane has enthralled a LOT of people, myself included. We've discussed it many times, and many of us would love to be in on the discussion.
I'm another Fan Boy for this airplane, in spite of its flaws, and I've been doing a deep dive on it in the last few days. Joining monimotorglider groups.io Group is a MUST. They have all the plans revisions, lots of pictures, all the newsletters, etc. The revised plans have a pretty good description of riveting the wings vice bonding them.

The KFM engine is a MAJOR problem, which is a shame since the airplane is designed around it. They throw props, break cranks, and there are no parts available anywhere at any price. There is not much room to swing a bigger prop, unless you extend the gear, etc. The bigger prop will mean more drag when it's stopped and you're soaring, so your glide ratio will suffer, and you won't climb as well in thermals. Basically you can't build a reliable airplane that meets the original mission if you stick to the plans, which means you will be in for a fair amount of time designing and implementing modifications. Some hard cases seem to have made it work, others abandoned for Rotax 447 (probably the most successful), Rotax 277, Kawasaki 440, opposed Hirth, and what looks like one Continental 4 cylinder GPU that may have crashed on it's first flight.

I'd fiddle around a little bit with your favorite design textbook or praxis to figure out how best to fly with a direct drive V-twin, hand propped, following the model of the Luciole or the SD-1, or the Russian Heath Parasol on YouTube, working out the weight and balance, and how much span you'll need for a decent climb. I'd prefer either a conventional aluminum bar taildragger or a tri-gear, but I haven't found the tri-gear plans - I think I remember seeing them in the MON-INK, the last couple of issues of the combined Sonerai/Monerai/Moni Newsletter before INAV hit the ditch and flipped. There is enough in the files sections of the IO.Groups to puzzle out the taildragger. The plans have the allowable CG limits for the airframe. You'll need to design your own firewall forward, including a new cowl, if you go this way.

It won't make Part 103 weight, in any case, plus it's too fast, if you were thinking along those lines.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
If you put the fuel in the wings (there are drawings for wing tanks) then you can retract a larger monowheel into the space occupied by the fuel tank, gaining speed, MPG, and cool factor

Getting the fuel out of the fuselage is a nice safety feature... if you don't like the idea of "flame-broiled pilot" after a hard landing.

This ALSO allows someone to simply buy a retractable gear assembly out of a wrecked sailplane, and be halfway there.