Quantcast

Pegasus O-100 airframes

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,946
Location
Mojave, Ca
Stolp V-star or Starlet?

Would have to really be careful on the build to keep it light.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,991
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
How about the CX-4?
When Dave first brought his then-new CX4 to Sun n Fun, I spent an hour or so looking at it, sitting in it, looking at the plans and talking to Dave. I really like what Dave has done, but, always looking for more HP, I asked him about substituting an 80 HP Jabiru engine for the VW. I was expecting a response along the lines of “It is not designed for more HP ...”. What he said was that the Jabiru is so much lighter than the VW that moving it forward enough to maintain the balance would destroy the aesthetics. I think that he was right.


BJC
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,826
Location
Memphis, TN
A Fournier like plane would be a great commercial kickoff design for a volume engine. A light Starlet or Pober Pixie would be cool as both have been flown on VW. V-Star is bigger than a Starduster One and are just as heavy. A Headwind would be the sentimental favorite.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,538
Location
Fresno, California
Headwind good. I thought of the Skyote, but I think it might be a little to heavy for the engine. I still like the idea of a ‘Formula P’ racing class.

I little sideways from the current line of thought, but how about a snow racer (I forget what they are called)? Maybe, too, a swamp buggy flat boat.

Mooney Mite?
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,527
Location
USA.
When Dave first brought his then-new CX4 to Sun n Fun, I spent an hour or so looking at it, sitting in it, looking at the plans and talking to Dave. I really like what Dave has done, but, always looking for more HP, I asked him about substituting an 80 HP Jabiru engine for the VW. I was expecting a response along the lines of “It is not designed for more HP ...”. What he said was that the Jabiru is so much lighter than the VW that moving it forward enough to maintain the balance would destroy the aesthetics. I think that he was right.


BJC
It not that the VW is heavy, its everything people put on the basic engine that makes it heavy. Since they learned to fly on C-150, C-152, C172, Cherokee's they wouldn't think of flying something as basic as an airplane without an electrical system. The basic VW "long block" weighs 116 lbs for all except the 2180 cc and larger, they are 2 pound heavier because of the stroker crank. If you un-bolted the engine mount from the airframe on the SSSC and put it on a scale it would be 141 lbs. That is everything including the oil cooler and filter on the firewall. Contrary to modern opinion there is consequences for your actions.
 

Highplains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2014
Messages
356
Location
Over the Rainbow in Kansas, USA
Boy, most of the airplanes mentioned are hardly made anymore or basically extinct. To sell that motor I hope there's someone working on a new aircraft design to use it on.
Pete posted this for the Crackerjack - the original span was 28', chord 45", area 104, AR 7.46, length 18', weight of my prototype was 406 I think. The Geissinger Crackerjack is 443 empty and about 660 with me and full of fuel.

I would expect this to be somewhere in the center of the universe of possibilities. For instance a design could fly two people given enough area or cruise at 150 mph for small one seater. Somebody is going to design a small twin, they are light enough and inexpensive enough you could build a 4 engine plane for less than an RV-10.
 
Last edited:

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,527
Location
USA.
I agree, believe the Crackerjack design is about the center of the bandwidth for the engine. Small, clean, light, single place for a faster cruise and the other end would be the Graham Lee designs. Covers a lot of possible airplanes.
Believe is going to be winner. I know I would like to own one.
 

Autodidact

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
4,513
Location
Oklahoma
A slightly enlarged, all metal, redesign of the Heath Parasol. Most any small European single seater like the Druine Turbulent, Jodel Bebe, Brugger Colibri, etc.
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,446
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
A Fournier class motor glider or WW1 subscale replica seems like good choices. Rans Chaos?

I'm most interested in the motor glider but........

How much power is the Pegasus really putting out? How does it compare to the HKS700? Valley Engineering Big Bad Twin?
 

Highplains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2014
Messages
356
Location
Over the Rainbow in Kansas, USA
I think a 75% scale T-Craft would make an interesting single seat design. Two sets of wings (clipped and full) would allow mild Acro flight for one and high altitude cruise for the other. Might have to fudge the height of the fuselage slightly as well as the landing gear to make entry easier. BTW, at 75% the full size wing span and area would be very close to the Crackerjack.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,048
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
One of the things I listed was the LMA series (Light Mikniature Aircraft), which IIRC included a 75% or 80% Taylorcraft. A little mini single seat clipwing with the O-100 would be flat out adorable ! Does anyone here have any experience with the LMA designs?
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,946
Location
Mojave, Ca
Hell, my T-craft is Lycoming O-145 powered. These engines are known to produce their rated 65 HP only on the first hour of life and go downhill from there... Since mine was last overhauled in 1945, I'm thinking the O-100 would be a significant boost in performance compared to what I've been flying behind.
 

Highplains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2014
Messages
356
Location
Over the Rainbow in Kansas, USA
From a quick search, LMA went out of business around 8 years ago, and was probably a warm corpse for many years before that. Their 3/4 version of a T-Craft was an overweight ultralight built from wood. The also did a full size in wood as well, but when you can buy a real one for the same money...why?

A T-Craft fuselage is a combination of a Warren Truss from the side and a Pratt Truss from the top and bottom until you get to the cabin and front end. But a fairly simple and well executed design. A 75% copy would use about half the steel.

http://www.taylorcraft.org/docs/fuselage_frame_dimensions.pdf

I would think that for any early designs using the O-100 engine, it would be advantageous to keep the wing loading low (8 lbs/ ft^2) or below with good pilot protection in case of off airport landings flipping it onto it's back until reasonable number of engines have accumulated serious flight time. What these numbers need to be, I have no idea, but bases on hardware designs I have been involved with in the past lead me to believe that the first 20 in the field will show issues that the design team never considered.

It's been too many years (decades really) since the last time I cracked open a Statics book. Might be interesting to do the calculations manually again, but I am sure Solidworks would cover in in a fraction of the time and provide a model for VR3 Engineering to cut tubes that fit accurately to the thickness of a business card.
 

Highplains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2014
Messages
356
Location
Over the Rainbow in Kansas, USA
From a quick search, LMA went out of business around 8 years ago, and was probably a warm corpse for many years before that. Their 3/4 version of a T-Craft was an overweight ultralight built from wood. The also did a full size in wood as well, but when you can buy a real one for the same money...why?

A T-Craft fuselage is a combination of a Warren Truss from the side and a Pratt Truss from the top and bottom until you get to the cabin and front end. But a fairly simple and well executed design. A 75% copy would use about half the steel.

http://www.taylorcraft.org/docs/fuselage_frame_dimensions.pdf

I would think that for any early designs using the O-100 engine, it would be advantageous to keep the wing loading low (8 lbs/ ft^2) or below with good pilot protection in case of off airport landings flipping it onto it's back until reasonable number of engines have accumulated serious flight time. What these numbers need to be, I have no idea, but bases on hardware designs I have been involved with in the past lead me to believe that the first 20 in the field will show issues that the design team never considered.

It's been too many years (decades really) since the last time I cracked open a Statics book. Might be interesting to do the calculations manually again, but I am sure Solidworks would cover in in a fraction of the time and provide a model for VR3 Engineering to cut tubes that fit accurately to the thickness of a business card.
 
Top