radioinred
Well-Known Member
Ok I know I know.... I cant make myself quit. The numbers work out right cg, cL, static margin, weight..... The obvious problem is the uncertainty of the structural integrity of the fuse. I took the practical (though not advisable) route. I stood on the tail and .....
...nothing. not a creek, not a sound. A video proves that the fuse didn't move more than a quarter of an inch vertically. I even bounced a bit.....still nothing. The structure is overbuilt in my opinion and the scale will attest. With the newly built engine mount and engine attached it weighs in at a ground shaking 130 lb.. The block weighs 65 and the mount is 7.4 which makes the fuselage 57.6 pounds! Overbuilt is what I had in mind from the beginning and sure enough it is overbuilt. This leaves 124 pounds left to qualify for UL. 124 pounds for 4 wings, empennage, LG, fuel tank, fabric, paint, controls, etc... unlikely but well see......
I have stolen many ideas and construction methods from planes like the skypup, the texas parasol, and others. It will be a low aspect ratio biplane design. I have designed it to be stall resistant. the lower wing will stall first, creating a calculated forward pitching moment due to the placement of the wing on the fuse. The wingspan is 18 on top 16 on bottom (effective). Chord for each wing is just under 6 feet giving me a total wing area of 204 sq.ft. IF i can miraculously complete the beast under 254, the take off weight with fuel will be right around 475. This means a wing loading of 2.328. Very low, with the high drag of four wings the plane is certainly no Glamorous Glennis.
The design is also quite ugly. But I want a plane that has the advantages of low aspect wings, the nostalgia of a biplane, the ability to store it in a one car garage, short take off roll/land, and very low stall speed. I understand the dangers involved with designing and building (trying at least) my own ultralight. Please understand that I know it is very dangerous and I have taken the council of my local chapter. I am a member of EAA chapter #39 her in Rapid City. The elders certainly have there qualms but some of the younger guys aren't quite so negative. (not hard to believe ha ha!) I have been instructed to proceed under the supervision of engineers and long time pilots so I am in good hands.
I am young and overly ambitious but at least I'm not ignorant to it.:gig:
radioinred
P.S. I have decided to omit the passenger seat for a few obvious reasons:1, disqualification for UL 2, I'm not about to give rides in this plane 3, It had to be omitted for CG issues. Stay tuned for landing gear!
...nothing. not a creek, not a sound. A video proves that the fuse didn't move more than a quarter of an inch vertically. I even bounced a bit.....still nothing. The structure is overbuilt in my opinion and the scale will attest. With the newly built engine mount and engine attached it weighs in at a ground shaking 130 lb.. The block weighs 65 and the mount is 7.4 which makes the fuselage 57.6 pounds! Overbuilt is what I had in mind from the beginning and sure enough it is overbuilt. This leaves 124 pounds left to qualify for UL. 124 pounds for 4 wings, empennage, LG, fuel tank, fabric, paint, controls, etc... unlikely but well see......
I have stolen many ideas and construction methods from planes like the skypup, the texas parasol, and others. It will be a low aspect ratio biplane design. I have designed it to be stall resistant. the lower wing will stall first, creating a calculated forward pitching moment due to the placement of the wing on the fuse. The wingspan is 18 on top 16 on bottom (effective). Chord for each wing is just under 6 feet giving me a total wing area of 204 sq.ft. IF i can miraculously complete the beast under 254, the take off weight with fuel will be right around 475. This means a wing loading of 2.328. Very low, with the high drag of four wings the plane is certainly no Glamorous Glennis.
The design is also quite ugly. But I want a plane that has the advantages of low aspect wings, the nostalgia of a biplane, the ability to store it in a one car garage, short take off roll/land, and very low stall speed. I understand the dangers involved with designing and building (trying at least) my own ultralight. Please understand that I know it is very dangerous and I have taken the council of my local chapter. I am a member of EAA chapter #39 her in Rapid City. The elders certainly have there qualms but some of the younger guys aren't quite so negative. (not hard to believe ha ha!) I have been instructed to proceed under the supervision of engineers and long time pilots so I am in good hands.
I am young and overly ambitious but at least I'm not ignorant to it.:gig:
radioinred
P.S. I have decided to omit the passenger seat for a few obvious reasons:1, disqualification for UL 2, I'm not about to give rides in this plane 3, It had to be omitted for CG issues. Stay tuned for landing gear!