Ultralight Biplanes

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

WonderousMountain

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,672
Location
Bellingham, Wa
That Propeller is a Lipps Special, he took Jack Norris advice on it and cut the crazy large root out in favor of a Cowl optimized flow. Instant success, not how I would do it, but a positive example. Those big cheeks hack off power if you don't give them consideration. It will probably take a decade, but I think new biplanes will drift towards Phantom styling. Personally, I'd rather see a gull upper with removable outter sections. Maybe not for a 300mph airplane.
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
3,183
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
And that “fun” aspect of E-AB aircraft is why we participate in this forum. Some find fun in fast A to B, some in low and slow A to B, some wear funny hats and need to be towed aloft, some foot launch, some fly aerobatics, some race, some drift around with the door open. Each type of flying has its own definition of performance.

It’s all good.

BJC
BJC,

Good post. Got me thinking. I like it when the "fun factor" does not take a deep dip when the Db level suddenly decreases due to noise maker issues of the single engine variety. In other words I, like many others, have a desire for reasonable to good engine out performance.

I have zero time in a Pitts S-1S so I am curious how your heart rate would respond when the fan driver fails. Is it a big deal or about the same as a Cessna?
 

PTAirco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,686
Location
Corona CA
I have zero time in a Pitts S-1S so I am curious how your heart rate would respond when the fan driver fails. Is it a big deal or about the same as a Cessna?
Whatever is below you when the engine stops, that's where you will land.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
16,842
Location
Memphis, TN
I think it depends on terrain and the type of pilot your are on gliding a S1. There is one guy on another forum that would fly formation with his skydiving buddies with the engine shut off so it wouldn’t be a big deal if they bumped into him. He would deadstick the landings. Back in the 70s a lot of the competition Pitts did not have a starter, those guys might loose an engine while in some crazy maneuver and have to deadstick. Can’t just hit the start button. Any engine out is about where you are in your pilot journey with a mix of luck.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
14,957
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
I have zero time in a Pitts S-1S so I am curious how your heart rate would respond when the fan driver fails. Is it a big deal or about the same as a Cessna?
Years ago, while learning a new sequence, I discovered that it takes at least 3 gallons in the tank to keep making noise on an inverted 45 up line. (That is due to the flop tube geometry; it will feed down to the last cup or two at +1g.) A typical flight for me, back then, started with about 8 gallons on board.

The noise quit instantly, but the propeller, which was probably turning about 3,000 RPM, kept turning while I pulled positive, rolled upright, and grabbed the pump. The engine then started making more noise than my heart.

I once watched live video from inside the space shuttle as it flew its approach and landing. It looked like a normal power off approach in a Pitts.


BJC
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
10,685
Location
CT, USA
I have zero time in a Pitts S-1S so I am curious how your heart rate would respond when the fan driver fails. Is it a big deal or about the same as a Cessna?
The small biplanes land fast, so a field that might be OK for a Cessna might mean rolling the biplane up into a ball. OTOH, the biplane pilot is probably more used to how the plane handles in unusual situations, so "engine failure followed by panicked pilot error" kind of crash may be less likely.

When I saw smoke coming out of my Starduster's cowling it was like, OK, I got to get this plane down RIGHT NOW. With a mile long field underneath me and many off airport landings behind me (though not in that plane), I wasn't particularly stressed... until moments before touchdown when I realized the beautiful field was marshy with five foot tall clump grass, even a Cessna wouldn't have done well. At that point there was no time left to be stressed. See above about rolling into a ball, fortunately a biplane has a built in roll cage.
 

tag

New Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Messages
2
I have plans to Ed Fishers Micro Mong biplane. When powered with the Rotax 277 it is capable of falling into Part 103.
Romeodz, Do you still have plans for the Micro Mong? Would you be willing to sell them?
 

addicted2climbing

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,337
Location
Glendale, CA
The Zipster is likely easier to hit Part 103 than the Micro Mong. Zipster plans can be found online for free if you do a google search. Hart never paid Ed for the rights, yet retains the original velums. He really should return them, but we all know that's not gonna happen. So if you find plans not much he can do if you build one. In regards to the Micro Mong Green Sky has the rights and with the passing of the owner and everything falling to the son the Micro Mong might end up being another lost design of Ed's. I reached out to the son and after many emails he finally replied and said he still had plans to release Mong plans again. This was a few years ago and still nothing. I hope he does make them available again, but if nothing happens I plan to reach out to him again to at least post the plans on my website for him to sell so what few remaining designs of Ed's remain available.
 

addicted2climbing

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,337
Location
Glendale, CA
Any update on Ed? AFAIK, he hasn’t posted here in a few years.


BJC
I have not spoken to him in maybe 6 months, but He is out of aviation sadly. He was rebuilding a J3 Cub and when installing the gear bungies the tool shot free and broke both his legs. It was a very bad accident and he has been recovering ever since. I still send him the occasional email asking how he is and will send one for the holidays. I have been tied up with a huge motion picture new product contract I got but that's is done now and I should get a bit of a break before anymore orders so plan to focus on airplane stuff more in the new year. Planning to order an Avid Router this week so by the time its ready I can have the hangar cleaned and be ready to use it. I am leaving for the holidays so my son can meet my wifes family in France and we return 12/05.

Marc
 

Lucky Dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2021
Messages
94
A FAR 103 biplane is tough to make because you'll need a little more wing area to compensate for tip losses and the total length of the spars are longer than you'd need for a monoplane. Homer Kolb's Firefly defeats any hopes that a UL biplane is a better solution for UL 103. That said, Some of the biplane's weight disadvantages are reeled back in because you can use a shorter chord and span, which, if you fuss with the design a little, can help compress the length of the fuselage. and create a plane that fits in small spaces. The SNS8 is a great example. The project in this pic is a pusher based around an industrial V-twin. I'll report back after test flights.
 

Attachments

flitzerpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
294
Location
Hirwaun, Aberdare, S.Wales, UK.
Talking ultralight biplanes (the term means something slightly different in the UK).while flying the prototype Flitzer Z-1, which handles like a Pitts S-1C being aerobatic on an 1834cc VW - except that the the landing is a more gentlemanly affair, I suffered an engine failure due to stale fuel. Power was reducing at a rate which allowed me to gain about 500' before it finally went quiet.

I turned downwind to provide for a greater possibility of finding a suitable field, everywhere being covered with sheep or pylons as far as I could see from 2500'. I briefly used the controls to assess power-off handling at best gliding speed of 60 mph and all was well. Far off I saw a large field, seemingly clear of obstructions, which I thought I might just be able to reach. In any case nothing else seemed feasible.

To my amazement I arrived in the vicinity of the boundary hedge 100' too high and had to slip height off, touching down at 45 mph with plenty of room to spare. Far from exhibiting a very steep glide, the aeroplane had performed better than I expected. Rationalising this, the cabane pyramid is largely buried within the decking, the 'I struts are streamlined, the bullet-cowl provides good streamlining to the fuselage and just about the only thing which is a major drag source without creating lift is the arcane 'period' undercarriage. Possibly the stationary propeller contributed less drag than a throttled engine and windmilling prop.

After considering my situation for a while the farmer arrived in his Land Rover.

'You were lucky!' he said in the strong local accent.

'Yes,' I agreed. Everywhere else was sheep and pylons!'

'No,' he said. 'If you'd just landed ten feet to your right, you'd 'ave gone down the BIGGEST BADGERS' HOLE in Gloucestershire!'

:0)
 

flitzerpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
294
Location
Hirwaun, Aberdare, S.Wales, UK.
Talking ultralight biplanes (the term means something slightly different in the UK).while flying the prototype Flitzer Z-1, which handles like a Pitts S-1C being aerobatic on an 1834cc VW - except that the the landing is a more gentlemanly affair, I suffered an engine failure due to stale fuel. Power was reducing at a rate which allowed me to gain about 500' before it finally went quiet.

I turned downwind to provide for a greater possibility of finding a suitable field, everywhere being covered with sheep or pylons as far as I could see from 2500'. I briefly used the controls to assess power-off handling at best gliding speed of 60 mph and all was well. Far off I saw a large field, seemingly clear of obstructions, which I thought I might just be able to reach. In any case nothing else seemed feasible.

To my amazement I arrived in the vicinity of the boundary hedge 100' too high and had to slip height off, touching down at 45 mph with plenty of room to spare. Far from exhibiting a very steep glide, the aeroplane had performed better than I expected. Rationalising this, the cabane pyramid is largely buried within the decking, the 'I struts are streamlined, the bullet-cowl provides good streamlining to the fuselage and just about the only thing which is a major drag source without creating lift is the arcane 'period' undercarriage. Possibly the stationary propeller contributed less drag than a throttled engine and windmilling prop.

After considering my situation for a while the farmer arrived in his Land Rover.

'You were lucky!' he said in the strong local accent.

'Yes,' I agreed. Everywhere else was sheep and pylons!'

'No,' he said. 'If you'd just landed ten feet to your right, you'd 'ave gone down the BIGGEST BADGERS' HOLE in Gloucestershire!'

:0)
 
Top