• Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Embark on your journey now!

    Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!

still at it.......

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

radioinred

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
91
Location
Rapid City, SD, USA
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!
 

Attachments

  • Engine Mount 003.jpg
    Engine Mount 003.jpg
    60.6 KB · Views: 471
  • Engine Mount 005.jpg
    Engine Mount 005.jpg
    84.7 KB · Views: 582
  • Engine Mount 011.jpg
    Engine Mount 011.jpg
    82.6 KB · Views: 832
  • Engine Mount 010.jpg
    Engine Mount 010.jpg
    73 KB · Views: 280
Back
Top