103
Well-Known Member
A very good looking ultralight
Peter does it again
- Thread starter 103
- Start date
Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:
Tench745
Active Member
His designs are starting to reflect my personal biases toward ultralight/aircraft design. Now if only I was experienced enough to know if that's a good thing! 
Tiger Tim
Well-Known Member
Right? His latest machine looks like something I would look forward all day to flying every evening all summer long.His designs are starting to reflect my personal biases toward ultralight/aircraft design. Now if only I was experienced enough to know if that's a good thing!
TFF
Well-Known Member
Number four.
Although some stuff is not to my liking, he is a Mark Stull type. Getting it done, learning, and flying his own stuff.
I saw the biplane at Oshkosh for only a minute, with a non UL person. There is nothing wrong with the concept and really it was more cutting edge than anything next to it that had not been cutting edge for thirty years. So a 20 year old made it. The real statement is really; So, a twenty year old made it, and you haven’t made anything. Make something.
Although some stuff is not to my liking, he is a Mark Stull type. Getting it done, learning, and flying his own stuff.
I saw the biplane at Oshkosh for only a minute, with a non UL person. There is nothing wrong with the concept and really it was more cutting edge than anything next to it that had not been cutting edge for thirty years. So a 20 year old made it. The real statement is really; So, a twenty year old made it, and you haven’t made anything. Make something.
2 Peters.
2 very different budgets.
2 very different results..............4 flyable planes vs 4 iterations of a control stick.
Nothing really relevant but I find the dichotomy interesting.
2 very different budgets.
2 very different results..............4 flyable planes vs 4 iterations of a control stick.
Nothing really relevant but I find the dichotomy interesting.
Huh? Who’s the other Peter?
He builds (and flys) a new airplane more often than I wash my coffee cup...
His latest machine looks like something I would look forward all day to flying every evening all summer long.
His latest machine looks like something I would look forward all day to flying every evening all summer long.
Can you imagine if he started building using conventional materials and practices? That may not happen, he's probably making a fair amount of money from the online videos, and the audience for that doesn't care about what works best.
Well, he used wood and 4130 on this one, both pretty common. I thought the blend of materials to take advantage of their different properties was pretty cool.
My only gripe is unsure why he chose to put the elevator on the bottom of the fuselage instead of the top. On the bottom it rubs the grass and will be taken out for sure and damage the aft wooden structure. Really odd choice in my opinion. Also with a Vitorazi in Tractor config its also an odd choice. I Have a Vitorazi in the Zigolo and thought if I ever wanted to repourpose it could it work in tractor and traded a few emails back with the factory. I received a reply as absolutely not recommended. Figured if I ever did it, I would need to design my own PSRU. I also think that 2 axis is nice but it does limit the types of weather it can be flown in and UL's already are restricted weather wise so that kind of sucks. But for simplicity sake, its likely a good thing.
TFF
Well-Known Member
Very Ugly Stickish tail. My tail dragger Sticks in grass took more effort to get the tail out of the grass. For simple models like the Stick it’s an easy incidence set, just make the bottom flat and follow it back. Teenie Too is somewhat like that.
poormansairforce
Well-Known Member
Uhm...which Peter are you referring to now?
ScaleBirdsScott
Well-Known Member
While there are a few things I think ought to see some revision, he's got it pretty close. I agree throwing something like a Legal Eagle tail on there would really lock it in.
I like it! It would be great to have Peter to log in here again and comment.
I didn't catch it in the video, but perhaps the horizontal tail is also removable to facilitate trailering? That would be made easier if it weren't sharing mount points with the vertical fin. The low position is reminiscent of early model airplanes, where the horizontal stabilizer was mounted with rubber bands, just like the wing. It does have the obvious drawback of dragging in the grass, as has been pointed out.
I didn't catch it in the video, but perhaps the horizontal tail is also removable to facilitate trailering? That would be made easier if it weren't sharing mount points with the vertical fin. The low position is reminiscent of early model airplanes, where the horizontal stabilizer was mounted with rubber bands, just like the wing. It does have the obvious drawback of dragging in the grass, as has been pointed out.
Hephaestus
Well-Known Member
Weight savings? Look at the tail wheel - it's definitely not turf compatible normally. Structurally it is simplest, control runs are simple.
Maybe the plan is stol like technique for takeoff? Get the tail up immediately so it doesn't drag? Landing drop it into the grass as a brake?
Maybe the plan is stol like technique for takeoff? Get the tail up immediately so it doesn't drag? Landing drop it into the grass as a brake?
Latest posts
-
-
-
P-51C at ~70% scale as ultralight?
- Latest: Tangoavenger
-
-
