The main reason for folding wings is to put the plane on or in a trailer? Trailers legal, licensed, and insured for the road ain't cheap either.Like you said, folding wings are more often talked about than actually used.
I could see leaving a Catto-style biplane wing structure intact and simply unbolting (or hinging and folding sideways) the forward fuselage. If the canard were controlled with a pushrod and the nosewheel free to swivel, you’d only have to disconnect/connect one control and remove/replace 2-4 bolts or pins.
I’m not kidding. If nothing else it would be an easy way to transport the plane when you don’t want to or can’t fly it.
I’m not completely serious about the Star Wars bit, but I think the associations would come naturally. One nice thing about the diverging X-wing layout is that it would minimize biplane interference.
Two 24’ span wings with 3’ chord each plus an 8’ x 3’ canard would give you a whopping 168 sq ft of area to play with in a relatively compact package.
It may have had 4 hp but what where the cubic inches?
That sure meets the "I could build that" criteria--very simple (primitive?). The aluminum skin over foam ribs would also appear to avoid the use of composites, another stated requirement. I didn't see mention of how the wing spars were done. As built, the planes use light 2-stroke engines (22 or 25 HP), so using a heavier 4 stroke engine would require some adjustments. They ain't pretty (IMO) and they ain't fast, but they look easy to put together and cheap to build and to keep.
Yep, I'd like to learn more, too. It probably deserves a thread, surely somebody knows. Is there another design with closely spaced bare foam ribs and aluminum skin? Info on the stress analysis, bonding method,m and any testing would be interesting.Ahhh... The Eureka. I tried to look that up, but it disappeared all too quickly. Wonder what happened...