Quantcast

The simplest airplane to build?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,576
Location
US
Vigilant Two requirements are specified simple and 1000 pounds of load
Also I use the word plane
Your design is commonly called a wing and I think by the time you design it for 1000 pounds of bloat and make it steerable it will be Neither simple north quick.
The FAA will tell you: the craft as described is definitely an airplane.
'Steerable" was not a stated criteria. The goalposts are changing? Anyway, steerability could be achieved with two cables and some compound pulleys.
If we count the engine as one piece, the Rogallo Barge's parts count will be about 30 total (even with the previously unstated gilding-the-lilly mission creep steerability requirement). No machining, no welding, no rivets. Seems unlikely another approach will be simpler.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
661
Joolkano
I really like the looks of that airplane .
Does it break some new ground in the way of simplicity?
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,145
Location
Jackson
Vigilant Two requirements are specified simple and 1000 pounds of load
Also I use the word plane
Your design is commonly called a wing and I think by the time you design it for 1000 pounds of bloat and make it steerable it will be Neither simple north quick.
Lets be honest. 1000 lbs of useful load and 'simple' don't work together in the same sentence, when talking about a/c. But I'm sure all of us will welcome your innovation, if you can pull it off. :)
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
661
The FAA will tell you: the craft as described is definitely an airplane.
'Steerable" was not a stated criteria. The goalposts are changing? Anyway, steerability could be achieved with two cables and some compound pulleys.
If we count the engine as one piece, the Rogallo Barge's parts count will be about 30 total (even with the previously unstated gilding-the-lilly mission creep steerability requirement). No machining, no welding, no rivets. Seems unlikely another approach will be simpler.
I don’t know I think by the time make it steerable and able to carry 1000 pounds your mission creep is going to move up a lot
So how about we say you win that’s the simplest airplane possible and now we move on to something that Looks like an airplane
 

Mark Z

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
677
Location
Granbury, Texas USA 0TX0
I’ve been a major builder (high school project) of 3 RV-12s. I know of a builder who built a Rans S-21 in under 7 months alone. I don’t think that could happen with the -12.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
8,812
Location
North Carolina
I don’t know I think by the time make it steerable and able to carry 1000 pounds your mission creep is going to move up a lot
So how about we say you win that’s the simplest airplane possible and now we move on to something that Looks like an airplane
So, what does an airplane look like?
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
661
Lets be honest. 1000 lbs of useful load and 'simple' don't work together in the same sentence, when talking about a/c. But I'm sure all of us will welcome your innovation, if you can pull it off. :)
Lol I don’t think that requires any innovation.
They’ve been doing it for a long time , I didn’t think that part was controversy all at all .I just want to explore the trade-offs between making one component simple versus making it’s complicated.

I even gave illustrations , drew pictures on the wall!

Something that nobody really Seems to want to do
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,984
Location
Fort Walton Beach, Florida, USA
Wow, Pilot-34, I wonder if you’re actually interested in getting some advice or just trolling.

My brief answer is that there aren’t many simple homebuilt aircraft capable of carrying 1,000 lb. Two that that come mind are the Christavia Mk IV and the Wag-Aero Sportsman 2 + 2, there are plenty more.

if you want to come up with something new from scratch then I would say a cantilever-wing, four-seat design inspired by the Evans Volksplane would be a good place to start.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
661
Wow, Pilot-34, I wonder if you’re actually interested in getting some advice or just trolling. My brief answer is that there aren’t many simple homebuilt aircraft capable of carrying 1,000 lb. Two that that come mind are the Christavia Mk IV and the Wag-Aero Sportsman 2 + 2.
Nope not looking for any advice at all you’re beating a straw man to death.
By the way there wasn’t even a requirement for a homebuilder aircraft.
So in short I’m not asking the question you or some others are answering.

So far vigilant seems to be the only one exploring simplicity.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
661
Your initial post was all over the place, very unclear. Maybe you could start out by clarifying what you are talking about?
I don’t know how it could be any clearer
I want to talk about simplifying aircraft.
How one component can interact with another to create complications
I even illustrated my point.

Big clue here I never asked for advice I did use the word discussion

And I clearly said I wasn’t interested in purchasing one already built having somebody build one for me or buying a kit

Just out of curiosity why would you think I asked anything else?
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,299
Location
Port Townsend WA
Quicksilver type of ultralight or rail type frame for 1000 pounds with heavy tubes is probably the quickest.
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,145
Location
Jackson
Lol I don’t think that requires any innovation.
They’ve been doing it for a long time , I didn’t think that part was controversy all at all .I just want to explore the trade-offs between making one component simple versus making it’s complicated.

I even gave illustrations , drew pictures on the wall!

Something that nobody really Seems to want to do
Since you quoted me in that post....
Just to prove you aren't trolling, who is/are 'they', that built one or more 'simple' a/c with a 1000 lb useful load?
When did 'they' start building 'simple' aircraft with a 1000 lb useful load?
What is the name/model number of the plane or planes that is/are 'simple' and have a 1000 lb useful load?

Now, for extra credit (and to finally convince us you aren't trolling), why don't you just build one of those planes that 'they' have been building for a long time?
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
661
Come on really ?
About any real bush plane is going to be pretty simple but if you wanna look for one without flaps you might want to take a look at the aeronca sedan
Seems like they started building them back in the 40s.

Now to convince us all that you’re not just trolling please explain why you couldn’t understand the simple English in my original post And tried to make this thread about something other than the interaction of simple components?
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,271
Location
Orange County, California
You're getting flippant and less-than-serious answers because the question is impossibly vague and ill-defined, and then you're arguing or challenging every single person that attempts an answer.

I'm trying, very strongly, how to see this entire thread as anything but a troll thread.

How about clarifying what you mean by "discussing simplifying aircraft," and actually discussing the topic you say you want to discuss, instead of challenging and arguing with everyone who tries answering?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top