Hello all,
I've been lurking here for a while and thought it's time to introduce myself. I have always been interested in aviation, and in the last couple of years have been thinking about scratch-building an experimental aircraft.
I've looked at many designs and thought a good bit about my plane's mission; I concluded that a Sonex would be a good match (money is a big consideration, of course). No doubt I could build somebody else's design and have lots of enjoyment, but I found myself wanting to make some modifications--some to accommodate a tall guy like me, some to moderate the Sonex's, uh, unconventianal looks.
Then, I got interested in the CX-4, and the soon-to-come CX-5, but again, thoughts of modification crept in; aesthetics play a role, but I'd like a plane that's stressed for more than the Thatcher designs.
So... now I'm thinking that if I go to the effort to build a plane, why not start from the ground up to get exactly the plane I want? I am an architect and have some knowledge of statics & strength of materials, the ability to document a design, and some abilities in 3-D modeling (though buildings can be pretty rudimentary compared to lofting a fuselage).
The questions I put to you are both big picture and more specific:
1) Is this undertaking crazy? I know I will need to build up a library of the basics (yes, I read the sticky) and spend a year or two building my understanding of structures and aerodynamics, but I do enjoy reading and learning.
2) How does one learn things like, for example, how to join a spar to a fuselage, or standard construction methods? Is this something that can feasibly be learned from books (Bingelis, etc.), or is some level of "getting your hands dirty" with experience needed? I don't want to sink a lot of money into plans I don't intend to build, but is that a good way to supplement one's practical knowledge?
3) If one designs an airplane, what form of peer review is available? I have in mind review of construction methods, structural analysis, etc. There are a couple of EAA chapters around here and I've been to a few meetings but I don't get the impression that the average tech counselor is equipped to offer a critique on the level that goes on in this forum, for example. I thought I knew a fair amount about aerodynamics (for a novice) but reading the discussions around here, there are clearly pitfalls at every turn to avoid.
4) The plane I'd like to build (at present, anyway) would be a VW-powered (perhaps turbo), LSA-compliant, tandem 2-seater of fairly conventional configuration, stressed to +6/-3g (see the attached sketch, but please remember it's only a doodle!). It would be flown maybe 100 hours a year max, sometimes with my daughter, mostly flown locally but occasionally cross-country with, say, 2.5 hrs endurance. In short, something like a poor man's RV-8, or a more comfortable Sonerai-II, or a tandem Onex. I like all-aluminum construction. The design need not be outlandish, but if I get to start from scratch, it must be well-proportioned and handsome (you know, the way a Spitfire is universally regarded as elegant). There are lots of planes that do most, but not quite all of these things, and usually, they look a little "off" to my eye compared to conventionally beautiful craft (whatever that counts for). Are this design goals within reason?
I will look forward to hearing some guidance from the voice of experience!
Andy
I've been lurking here for a while and thought it's time to introduce myself. I have always been interested in aviation, and in the last couple of years have been thinking about scratch-building an experimental aircraft.
I've looked at many designs and thought a good bit about my plane's mission; I concluded that a Sonex would be a good match (money is a big consideration, of course). No doubt I could build somebody else's design and have lots of enjoyment, but I found myself wanting to make some modifications--some to accommodate a tall guy like me, some to moderate the Sonex's, uh, unconventianal looks.
Then, I got interested in the CX-4, and the soon-to-come CX-5, but again, thoughts of modification crept in; aesthetics play a role, but I'd like a plane that's stressed for more than the Thatcher designs.
So... now I'm thinking that if I go to the effort to build a plane, why not start from the ground up to get exactly the plane I want? I am an architect and have some knowledge of statics & strength of materials, the ability to document a design, and some abilities in 3-D modeling (though buildings can be pretty rudimentary compared to lofting a fuselage).
The questions I put to you are both big picture and more specific:
1) Is this undertaking crazy? I know I will need to build up a library of the basics (yes, I read the sticky) and spend a year or two building my understanding of structures and aerodynamics, but I do enjoy reading and learning.
2) How does one learn things like, for example, how to join a spar to a fuselage, or standard construction methods? Is this something that can feasibly be learned from books (Bingelis, etc.), or is some level of "getting your hands dirty" with experience needed? I don't want to sink a lot of money into plans I don't intend to build, but is that a good way to supplement one's practical knowledge?
3) If one designs an airplane, what form of peer review is available? I have in mind review of construction methods, structural analysis, etc. There are a couple of EAA chapters around here and I've been to a few meetings but I don't get the impression that the average tech counselor is equipped to offer a critique on the level that goes on in this forum, for example. I thought I knew a fair amount about aerodynamics (for a novice) but reading the discussions around here, there are clearly pitfalls at every turn to avoid.
4) The plane I'd like to build (at present, anyway) would be a VW-powered (perhaps turbo), LSA-compliant, tandem 2-seater of fairly conventional configuration, stressed to +6/-3g (see the attached sketch, but please remember it's only a doodle!). It would be flown maybe 100 hours a year max, sometimes with my daughter, mostly flown locally but occasionally cross-country with, say, 2.5 hrs endurance. In short, something like a poor man's RV-8, or a more comfortable Sonerai-II, or a tandem Onex. I like all-aluminum construction. The design need not be outlandish, but if I get to start from scratch, it must be well-proportioned and handsome (you know, the way a Spitfire is universally regarded as elegant). There are lots of planes that do most, but not quite all of these things, and usually, they look a little "off" to my eye compared to conventionally beautiful craft (whatever that counts for). Are this design goals within reason?
I will look forward to hearing some guidance from the voice of experience!
Andy
