Quantcast

Plans/Kits for aircraft like the Monocoupe 90

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,361
Location
USA.
My old flight instructor went to NJ back in, I think, the late 50's or early 1960's and helped to assemble some Jungmeisters . He was German and had flown one before.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,596
Location
Memphis, TN
I have a friend with a Steve Wolf made Jungmann. It has real German and Spanish wings but a simplified more modern fuselage. It’s a tough call. In the Jungmxxx world, it’s real or go away. True delicacy. If there were engines and simplified plans, there would have been a bunch built in the pre Vans homebuilt world. Flat motors are acceptable only on Jungmanns, Jungmeisters will have rocks thrown at it. You will be booed. The Production ones made in the 60s hide under radial cowls. The recent German made one has an in-line. There is one other local Jungmann but I don’t think it has flown in years and knew another owner who just sold his dads. As much as I love my friend’s, when I first learned it wasn’t a real fuselage, a little shine went away.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,835
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
OK, so what I'm talking about is like the modern kit-car versions of the Shelby Cobra. The purists at the Yacht Club turn up their nose at the loathsome replica owners... and the replica owners have a better handling, faster, more reliable car that gives them every bit of the original experience (except entry into the Yacht Club with Binky and Buffy).

I'll take it :)
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,725
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
OK, so what I'm talking about is like the modern kit-car versions of the Shelby Cobra. The purists at the Yacht Club turn up their nose at the loathsome replica owners... and the replica owners have a better handling, faster, more reliable car that gives them every bit of the original experience (except entry into the Yacht Club with Binky and Buffy).

I'll take it :)
A tube-and-gusset version of the Jungmeister with a non-inverted engine would be an abomination.

Throw down that shovel, and climb out of that hole that you are digging for yourself, VB.


BJC
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,351
Location
Thunder Bay
A tube-and-gusset version of the Jungmeister with a non-inverted engine would be an abomination.
Maybe, but check out the Stampe SV4-RS. Someone has made a full-scale Stampe biplane entirely in tube and gusset and powered it with a Rotax and honestly, it looks like a fantastic way to get around. I won’t use the word ‘better’ but certainly different in an acceptable kind of way. Now take the same idea and apply it to a Jungmann for a non-aerobatic little two seat tourer...
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,596
Location
Memphis, TN
Kit cobras should have aluminum bodies. I have completely turned off on kit cobras except one fiberglass one. There use to be two but one of the industry’s gorillas bought it out to kill the competition.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,596
Location
Memphis, TN
Closest auto analogy is Mercedes SLR of the 50s. Hammer the competition to submission with your fine china. The thing is, a Bucker is about being a Bucker. It’s not a looks machine. It’s about hanging inverted in the seatbelt. Hanging inverted with elegance. Curtis Pitts said if he had known about the Jungmeister he never would have designed the Special. That of course would be a shame, but that is intent. There is plans from France done up in wood. There is no emotional attachment as you cant fly it like a Bucker.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,361
Location
USA.
Maybe, but check out the Stampe SV4-RS. Someone has made a full-scale Stampe biplane entirely in tube and gusset and powered it with a Rotax and honestly, it looks like a fantastic way to get around. I won’t use the word ‘better’ but certainly different in an acceptable kind of way. Now take the same idea and apply it to a Jungmann for a non-aerobatic little two seat tourer...
I have the engine mount plans for putting a Lyc-360 in a Stampe. That would be a nice airplane.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,835
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
There are plenty of things that I'm a rabid purist about, so I can absolutely understand where BJC, TFF, Pops, and others are coming from. But put down your torches and step away from the Frankenstein castle for a moment, and allow me to specify what I was talking about a little further:

My T&G idea was for a full-size replica fuselage, using aluminum tube and riveted gussets, instead of the highly complex, multiple telescopic tube weldment of the original. With either traditional original wood, or perhaps Carlson style aluminum rib/spar wings, with the same airfoil, moments, control throws, areas, and setup of the original. Not an ultralight, not an "Early Birds Jenny" or Graham Lee kinda-sorta replica with a 2-stroke.

Externally it would be identical to the original. Internally it would have aluminum tube (even multi-telescopic if that was appropriate) instead of steel, for easier fabrication. But it would be stressed to the same aerobatic loads as the original. It would have the same handling as the original.

It would not be original, any more than the Baslee Nieuports and Triplanes, or the Titan T-51, any more than the 2020 Shelby Mustang is an original 1968 Shelby, or the "new" Ford GT-40 was an original LeMans GT-40.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,596
Location
Memphis, TN
Some of my points should be grain of salt in that if you built a tube and gusset one, I would be proud for you to finish a plane.

Some things just shouldn’t be poser. The world has become full of posers. More of no one wants to put in the time. Consumer grade is fine. It shouldn’t. There are reasons Fabre Eggs are special, mainly because you can’t have one. Rolex watches. Real or $50 fake. People go for the fake instead of a Seiko because they want the real thing without the work. Fooling yourself is all that happens. Special without the special. Doesn’t that leave a bad taste in your mouth?
The only Bucker I have is a Pica model. It has so many inconsistencies. It’s a hack facsimile. I don’t fly it much anymore. It does look like a Bucker in the air thought.
Homebuilt with a LOM
 

Attachments

Wayne

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
442
Location
Chicago, IL
I'm loving your responses gang - most entertaining and informative!! We talk a lot on here about efficiency and a bunch of other stuff - but what about the beauty of an aircraft? Hence my mention of the Monocoupe - a beautiful aircraft!
 

flitzerpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
72
Location
Hirwaun, Aberdare, S.Wales, UK.
VB, as one whose Nomme de Guerre on the Flitzer Sporflugverein is Ernst Kessler, I am wholeheartedly behind the idea of a replica Jungmeister, but with Verner 7Si installed. My designs for the most part are all-wooden construction and I have drafted both Jungmann and Jungmeister albeit to 90% scale as timber projects. Intimate detail design is yet to be concluded due to the amount of other design work I am involved with but these two icons remain fixed in my mind.

Incidentally a new Flitzer F.2 Tiger has commenced in the USA, which looks a little like a straight-winged, single-seat Jungmann and was originally intended for an inverted Blackburn Cirrus ll motor. It was partly inspired by the Heinkel 71 fighter trainer but simplified, in the same way that the Vale Stormcock (another Flitzer evolution) was inspired by the 1928 Blackburn Lincock.

These are all plans-built designs although 4130 metal fittings were available at one time and CDs are still obtainable for the Z-21 and most metal fittings are common to several of the later Flitzer developments.

I am also a fan of the Monocoupe, but how close a replica should adhere structurally to the construction of the original depends on your point of view.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,835
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
flitzerpilot, I hate to de-rail this Monocoupe discussion thread, but I have to offer you a small gift that you may not have seen on another thread here some months ago.

A good friend of mine just passed away, he had been a aircraft structures engineer and "stressman" trained in England through the DH technical school after the war. His resume and accomplishments in aircraft structural work and rocket engine structure ranged from the Trident to the 747, from land speed record cars to Rocketdyne on the F-1 engine that took us to the moon, and walking in to JPL with a slide rule fixing problems that the young engineers could not solve on the computer. His last project was re-designing the airframe structure of the 1940 Heston Racer, using nothing but the dozen or so photographs that exist, for the man in New Zealand who is building a 100% flying replica.

I showed him the set of Flitzer Z-21 plans (that I purchased from someone on this forum), knowing that he would probably appreciate your magnificent drawings. He spent nearly an hour looking at them last New Year's Eve, and finally turned to me and said "My God, this is even better than what we had at DeHavilland's".

There may well be a higher honor or more praiseworthy compliment for a set of aircraft plans to be found somewhere in aviation, but I'm not aware of it.
 

flitzerpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
72
Location
Hirwaun, Aberdare, S.Wales, UK.
BTW, Billyvray, I should have said that the Rotax-powered wooden Spanish Jungmann replica is absolutely superb!

With the same theme in mind, I attach an impression of my pseudo Laird 'replicas' which are 'hybrids', based both on the early Solution and the Warner-powered LC-DE. Two of these Flitzer-based developments have commenced construction in the UK and the USA.
 

Attachments

flitzerpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
72
Location
Hirwaun, Aberdare, S.Wales, UK.
VB,

My God, that comment from the ex-DH Technical School stress engineer is praise indeed. Many thanks for sharing that with me, and no I hadn't seen it. The Z-21 drawings were very rushed, although some were improved later. They were all done in six weeks, some 33 sheets, but with some supplementary drawings issued later. All the later Flitzer-type drawings, covering about fifteen different versions are, IMO, of better quality still.

Incidentally, on the Buecker theme, having flown a CASA 2.131 Jungmann and enjoyed its super handling, especially the ailerons, which as you know are driven by direct push-pull tubes on roller bearings, indicative of the fine engineering and attention to detail that Anders employed, I was at pains to achieve very similar control sensitivity and feed back with light break-out forces on my original Flitzer Z-1. Happily, pilots and test pilots alike who've flown both agree that its handling and control harmonisation is 'ideal', including the esteemed Des Penrose, ex-DH and Hawker-Siddeley test pilot. Indeed, Dan Griffith, whose name will be known to many on this forum, when asked which aircraft in his experience how the Stummelflitzer Z-1R handled, he thought for moment then replied, 'Like a lightweight Jungmeister!'

You can imagine how delighted I was to hear that!

Attached is an image of the Z-1R in flight. Thanks again, VB..
 

Attachments

Top