Quantcast

The Ranger, an easily built high wing LSA runabout

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

erkki67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
2,231
Location
Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
Fritz, the container is still the size where the Ranger should fit.

And the wing shall remain strutt braced, so no cantilever type.

The wing section parts would be shorter and easier to work on, even in a small workshop, like the size of the shown container.

And beside of giving more space to work on the single parts, it gives me a bit of play to store the Ranger not too tight in the container.

A third benefit is there too, It leaves me an option to play with an alternative fuel one day.

The idea to have a look at the SE33, I like that idea, I’ll see what Ill find out regarding that engine.
 

erkki67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
2,231
Location
Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
Regarding the engine SE33, no possibility to install a PSRU, only direct drive o_O

The Helvenco 250 engine is an interesting engine, but as the engine comes from the Karting sector, it was built accordingly.

The things I’d like to see differently, is the carburator position or orientation, 90 deg downward, and the water cooler also elsewhere.

Even better would be if the engine would be standing upright, with a narrower noseprint.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,277
Location
Rocky Mountains
T If it pivoted at the front spar (which is where I plan to do it) it wouldn't add anything to the length. << >>
IMHO It sounds like an expensive, complicated, PITA solution to a problem that doesn't exist. ;)
Haven't been following your thread in detail and missed this small fact. Makes your last IMHO statement much less of an O. :cool:
 

Will Aldridge

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
956
Location
Northern Utah
The biggest disadvantage is it would require a complete redesign of wing. You'd have all the weight, hassle and expense of a cantilever wing but you'd still need all the weight, hassle and expense of wing struts.



Is it too long? (If it ain't broke, why fix it?) Even pivoting at the rear spar (which is what Erkki asked about) it fits in a 20' shipping container. How much shorter does it need to be? If it pivoted at the front spar (which is where I plan to do it) it wouldn't add anything to the length. ...and it wouldn't add as much weight to the tailwheel when folded.

IMHO It sounds like an expensive, complicated, PITA solution to a problem that doesn't exist. ;)
If I'm understanding HW correctly he's asking for a kitfox style folding wing:20180831_163509.jpg

Still strut braced and definitely not cantilevered and quite light. Advantages are structurally it only requires one pin inserted in the front spar to be ready to fly, as opposed to the current design that requires the wing to be supported while the struts are installed. The kitfox also needs the turtle deck installed but i doubt that would be an issue with your design. Main drawback i see in your plan to store in a shipping container is that it's a lot wider and more subject to hangar rash going into and out of the container. The kitfox with wings folded is 7.5' wide.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,863
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
I would also like to suggest that while it is still being designed, and if it is possible without too much re-design or re-drawing, that the original version "bed mount" fuselage nose section (the flat spot the original Briggs engine would sit on top of), should be made large enough for a standard Rotax 503 bolt mounting pattern mounting plate. There are two fairly important reasons for this:

1) There are literally tens of thousands of 503 engines out there, which are well-understood and well-loved by the UL and LSA community. The 503 is also regarded as a very reliable and easily maintained engine, as far as 2-strokes go. There are lots of people out there who have these engines mounted on a flying lawnchair style ultralight, with a reduction drive and a propeller already in hand. They might be interested in building a Ranger partly because it could use an engine they already own. And 503's are available at low cost on the used market.

2) The final production version of Pete Plumb's Pegasus O-100 is being built with two integral mounting options, the "rear case" Continental style mount and a "bottom" bed mount Rotax style bolt pattern. The hand prop version of this engine with a magneto is about 100 pounds, and doesn't need a redrive. An electronic ignition can save a couple of pounds off of this weight too. The Continental style mounting ears can also be cut off to reduce the weight of the cranakcase by a couple more pounds if desired. I'm guessing that a fair number of potential Ranger builders will want to use this engine if they could, becauise a lot of exissting "airplane" people have access to used Continental parts that will allow them to minimize the engine cost for an O-100.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,277
Location
Rocky Mountains
If I'm understanding HW correctly he's asking for a kitfox style folding wing:
Poor word-smithing on my part .... again. :oops:

I'm actually not a fan of the Kitfox style fold, even though I had cash in hand to buy one a while back. Just too much fiddling for me to consider it 'easy'.
Fritz folding the wing from the front strut, using VB's rope hinge, looks to me like a reasonable option. Fortunately VB made the mistake of publishing his idea here so 'prior art' exists and he can no longer patent the idea. I plan to use it, royalty free, when needed.......
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,157
Location
US
Regarding the engine SE33, no possibility to install a PSRU, only direct drive o_O
If you can live with 30-32HP, then direct drive may be a positive not a negative. Less weight (no PSRU, smaller prop), less cost, and less to go wrong (Torsional vibration, belts, bearings, etc)

How much would we give up? Per Jan's calculator, given a 32 HP engine, what is the expected thrust at 60 MPH:
48" direct drive prop at 3600 RPM: 121lbs
70" prop with 1.98:1 PSRU (3600 engine RPM): 140 lbs (similar to the Valley Engineering Big Twin continuous HP, PSRU ratio, prop)

The thrust difference might be larger at lower airspeeds.

19 lbs of thrust ain't zero, but it comes at a price in weight, cost, and complexity.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,157
Location
US
I need short field performance!
I can't estimate TO distances, but we do know that the SD-1 folks claim that plane with this engine needs 260 m (858 ft) to take off and climb over a 15 meter obstacle. That plane has 6 m (19.7ft) wingspan and a max TO weight of 240 KG (533 lbs), so I'm sure the Ranger would probably get off the ground better.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,750
Location
Port Townsend WA
Direct drive can handle more than a 48" prop. I have been testing 60", then cut it to 58" for more rpm.
Does need to be thin composite tips.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,157
Location
US
Direct drive can handle more than a 48" prop. I have been testing 60", then cut it to 58" for more rpm.
Does need to be thin composite tips.
Good point. I stopped increasing the dia at 48" because >at 60 MPH< there is very little improvement for going bigger. At lower airpspeeds, it's probably worth it to go longer if the engine can turn that prop up to max power RPM.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,750
Location
Port Townsend WA
Good point. I stopped increasing the dia at 48" because >at 60 MPH< there is very little improvement for going bigger. At lower airpspeeds, it's probably worth it to go longer if the engine can turn that prop up to max power RPM.
The blade area needs to be proportional to power. So large diameter results in small chord blade tips.
Toothpick props!
 
Top