Unlimited/sport class racer design speculation

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:


Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Apr 10, 2007
Fresno, California
Maybe not a SpamBot but SpamTerrorism? We've already spent more bandwidth talking about the posts than the posts consumed :gig:
Hey, you're right! Something like this widespread could lead to the collapse of the Internet! If that happened, then we might be forced to resort to drastic measures, like...
like going outside or working on our planes. :roll:

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Nov 14, 2009
Rocky Mountains
like... going outside and working on our planes. :gig:
You are forgiven for thinking that outside is an acceptable place to work on airplanes - considering your zip code. We prefer sealed containment. It keeps the heat in and the wind out.


HBA Supporter
Aug 15, 2013
Western US
Just to toss something into this thread:

Here's a simplified .gif rendering of a 3-view drawing of a racer I quickly drew up to show what I would build for a 1000 to 1200 hp engine being developed near me.


The purpose of this drawing was not to lock anything down but rather to show some general design features that would have impact on development and support issues:

* Though not shown, the forward fuselage structure would have been based on a heavy steel tube cage similar to that of a race car. From the engine mount to the back of the cockpit, the cage would have been 1.75" OD steel of wall thickness .090 or .120--substantially heavier than dictated by flight and operational loads. The aft fuselage and cooling ducts would have been lightweight carbon fiber shells. This comes from watching a Thunder Mustang crash on landing at Reno, in which the entire forward fuselage broke away exposing the pilot to the elements, including copious amounts of vaporized fuel. Thankfully there was no fire and the pilot walked away. But it could have been much worse.

* The cowling is designed with a carefully calibrated amount of extra volume around the engine. The thinking there is that the operational benefits of that volume and the flexibility of engine configuration it allows outweighs its aerodynamic expense. That's not the way it always works out, but it is how I would have placed my bet.

* The airplane and its support equipment and spares would have been designed to fit into a standard 40-foot shipping container. That includes lifting fixtures that index onto mounting pads built into the forward fuselage structure to mate and de-mate the fuselage and one-piece wing inside an hour. The fixtures would include hydraulic articulations to lift the joined assembly up to gear-extension height.

* The locations of the radiator and cooling ducts are designed to allow a great deal of flexibility in addressing potential cooling issues. The spares package would have included at least two different aft fuselages with different radiators and ducting geometry.