Sorry, mate - I just don't get it. That has to be one of the most damned ugly little planes on the planet - why would anyone build it? It looks like a joke. There must be DOZENS of nicer machines...
I just saw the two seat 'backyard flyer' - ugh! Sorry - but there is a BIG difference between simple engineering and crude junk. I am usally very careful about criticizing somebody's airplane, but this is devoid of any saving grace. Scary even. Hideous at best.
Just because something is capable of sustained flight does not mean it is a successful design.
I inspected the 2-seat B.F. last year and I saw it perform some neat STOL displays with just a belt drive VW. Its a very cleverly designed airplane, fuselage looks like all welded aluminum. Gene Smith and company are very nice people.
They also offer a nice looking four stroke V-twin for ultralights.
I'm looking forwards to seeing the plane, engine and meeting the folks from Valley Engineering at Oshkosh here in a couple of weeks.
CAN HARDLY WAIT! I will be flying with my Uncle from Texas to South Dakota to participate in the Airventure Cup Race in his awsome RV-7.
Blood pressure rising.... I better go have a beer and work on my Biplane.
The wing looks very similar to a Fokker DV111, that is the good thing.
Pictures of the welding I have seen are not really confidence inspiring.
only a mother could love the looks, for the rest of us I suggest do not look too closely- it sort of reminds me of a 740 volvo- very functional very ugly, both are great from the drivers seat-you can,t see the outside!:roll:
In my opinion, this one here (WileEZ's post) is a pretty not to bad looking airplane. It looks AND sounds good while flying too, especially with that Big Twin 4 stroke. The one that rtfm posted looks like it's got a coffin for a tail boom. But I spect with a little cosmetics, a guy could get rid if that square looking fuselage. It'd sure look better anyway, I think.
I think you are talking about thwo things here...
First, the strength or rigidity of the wing itself, and second, the strength of its attachment to the fuselage.
I have no doubt at all that the internal structure of the wing is sufficiently robust not to need struts or bracing. I have no knowlege at all about the designer(s), except that he/they have done this sort of thing loads of times, successfully. If this is how they have designed it, I think there are reasonable grounds to suppose they have done their homework.
As for the attachment to the fuselage, four bolts sounds fine to me. Remember, even two-seat, heavy gyros are suspended from their rotors by a single bolt. It isn't called the "Jesus bolt" for nothing...
It is an easy matter to calculate the sheer stresses on those four bolts and use bolts of sufficient diameter.
Now that I'm back from my 15 month Baghdad vacation and have a high speed connection once again, I'm hoping to help direct traffic a bit better around here. My wife has even offered to lend a hand keeping up with posts and adding a feminine perspective (I think she finally caught the aviation bug!). Nuf said for now.