What could be done to reinvent the Affordaplane to a more homogeneous project?

The Affordaplane

it has become a classic within the low budget flyers.

it has a clumsy look, but it has a large followship.

so what could be done to reinvent the Affordaplane while keeping it´s simple 2 D structure and enhance a bit the functionality of the bird, including the controls, landing gear design .....?





Both pictures came from a Brazilian website.

 

I'd start with a paper shredder, insert everything about affordaplane, turn on switch, then go from there.

 

Be a better designer.

 

I would identify what the major problems are and go from there?

Specifically, what is wrong with the design? (Facts, not emotions please)

On a more constructive note...If I were to redesign it I would build two of the 2D frames in a V shape, widest at the firewall and coming together at the tail.

 

One thing to be changed from the initial Affordaplane is the rear upper longeron to be placed where it is on the Brazilian pictured on the first posting.

Second, the ailerons moved outwards and a different wingtip.

The concept of the fuselage, is simple, but what I don’t like are the pounds of wasted weight with the Bolts, if it has to be bolts, I’d like to use higrade HI-Lock Bolts, or big size stainless Blindbolts.

The basic idea behind the 2D fuselage is not wrong, just the approach is unhappy.

 

Maybe marry it to the keel idea on the PeeWee. That would keep it inexpensive and easy to build but the "strength per pound" ratio would go way up.

 

Isn't the AirBike a *somewhat* similar design? I haven't really looked closely at both, but I'd compare and contrast... I hear far less negative comments about the Airbike.

 

I'm absolutely with Turd Ferguson on this issue.

If there was a real engineer involved with the Affordaplane, and any real structural engineering had been performed, why doesn't anyone know about it?

As a non-engineer, if I had designed an aircraft and was selling plans for it, I would have a proper engineer do the analysis on it, and then I would be on every forum, discussion group, social media, etc. letting everybody in the solar system know that I had a real live engineer do the structural analysis.

I would be using collection agency telemarketers to robo-dial every household in America, letting them know that a proper engineering analysis had been done. I'd be walking on to the Jimmy Kimmel show and elbowing Scarlett Johanson out of the way, talking about the old retired aero engineer that ran the numbers with a slide rule. I'd be jumping up and down on Oprah's couch like Tom Cruise, to let everyone know that we sandbagged the wing to 6G.

And by the way, just like Sgt. Schultz, I know nothing about the A-plane, and I know nothhing about whether it is or is not safe. I have all emotion and no facts.

The problem is that not that I don't have the facts, it's that nobody can seem to find anybody who does.

 

Hard to comment without seeing more details.

 

Are you talking about this PeeWee;



I’d love to see a parasol made on this base with a Wilga gear or any other gear with a suspension for rough field operations.

 

Yes the Airbike is somewhat similar, except that it was calculated and certified in Germany by a few engineers and by Wayne Ison and his former crew as well.

The Affordaplane went into the same direction, except it had a rudimentary design with some flaws.

I wanted what on that base could be improved, even if the wholes design is to reviewed.

 

I was actually talking about the Kirk(?) PeeWee with a wooden "mono-keel":




...but the mono-keel PeeWee your talking about is just about the same thing :gig:

 

===================================================================

I agree with Aerowerk. The Base Design has to first catch the Builders Eye, then his Budget, and then his Expertise to Build it. Anything can be Improved upon. Many of these Old Airplanes weren't Designed by Engineers, and most were never Patented!

It's 3D Modeled on some different websites, here is the Airframe. https://grabcad.com/library/afford-a-plane-model

How much easier could it be than Gussets & Rivets, and Nuts & Bolts.

First, you have to decide what you want a Legal part 103 Ultralight or a Light Sport Aircraft?

What kind of Materials do you want to use 6061, Carbon Fiber, etc?

What Engine do you want to use?

The Plans are Free/Cheap on the Internet/eBay!

Visit the different Affordaplane Groups and make up a list of all the Pros/Cons of the Plane and what you think needs changed. You could swap out the Square Tube to Round Tube and maybe Save some Weight. The Landing Gear looks like one of the main weak points.

AIR BIKE and a AFFORDAPLANE with a better Landing Gear.

Affordaplane Spec's:
Crew: one
Capacity: one (ultralight configuration)
Length: 17 ft 3 in (5.26 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 5 in (8.36 m)
Height: 5 ft 0 in (1.52 m) varies by main landing gear wheel diameter
Wing area: 123 sq ft (11.4 m2)
Empty weight: 254lb (115kg)
Gross weight: 540lb (245kg)
Useful Load: 286lbs -30lbs(Gas) = 256lbs for Pilot & Bags.
Fuel capacity: 5 US gallons (19 litres)
Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 277 2-stroke gasoline, 26 hp (19 kW)
Propellers: 2, 3, or 4-bladed composite (preferred) or wood

Performance:
Maximum speed: 63 mph (101 km/h; 55 kn)
Cruise speed: 55 mph (89 km/h; 48 kn)
Stall speed: 26 mph (42 km/h; 23 kn)
Never exceed speed: 75 mph (121 km/h; 65 kn)
Range: 150 mi (130 nmi; 241 km) estimated
Service ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,000 m) estimated
Rate of climb: 1,000 ft/min (5.1 m/s) estimated
Wing loading: 4.39 lb/sq ft (21.4 kg/m2) Part 103 compliant at MTOW
====================================================

Specifications (Airbike with Rotax 447)
General characteristics:
Crew: one
Capacity: no passengers
Length: 16 ft 0 in (4.88 m)
Wingspan: 26 ft 0 in (7.93 m)
Height: 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m)
Wing area: 118 sq ft (10.98 sq m)
Empty weight: 257lb (116 kg) <-- Could make it with a 377, or use a Belt Drive.
Useful load: 303lb (137 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 560lb (254 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 447 fixed pitch, 40hp (30 kW)
Propellers: 1 propeller, 1 per engine
Performance

Maximum speed: 80 mph (130 km/h) <--- Full Power Speed with 40hp to High for Part 103.
Cruise speed: 63 mph (102 km/h)
Stall speed: 30 mph (49 km/h) <---Doesn't make 24kt Stall Speed.
Range: 150 nautical miles (279 km)
Rate of climb: 1000 ft/min (5.1 m/s)
Wing loading: 4.75 lb/sq ft (23.1 kg/sq m)
Power/mass: 14 lb/hp (0.12 kW/kg)

With a Rotax 277(26hp) 268.8cc, or a Hirth F-33(28hp) 313cc it would make Part 103 Weight and either one with a Good Tuned pipe could make around 32-35hp.

 

Another heavy ultralight. Sigh.

 

This bird had a weak point, just below the pilots but, but otherwise a perfect bird.

I’m wondering if the structure of the Affordaplane could be turned into something like this?!

 

The designer, on the A-plane FB page recently, made the point that the calculations had been done, plenty of safe examples were flying,etc,etc and that a revised Part-103 compatible adjustment to the design had been made and these changes have been posted on the FB page. Potential builders should buy a set of plans and then add the 103 changes from the files on the FB page.

 

Well, I guess you can't read, it says 254lbs! Sigh. There is many things that could be done to save weight on that design.

 

================================================================
The Top 3 causes of Acciddents was, #1. Running out of Fuel, #2. Flying with a known Mechanical issue. #3. Flying in Bad Weather.

As I said, make a list of all the Pro's and Con's, anything can be changed to make it better.

Most Accidents are on Takeoffs and Landings. A Weak or Poor Designed Landing Gear, with Small Wheels is the main cause. Legal Part 103 Ultralights can only carry 5 Gallons of Gas and so have a High Probability of running out of Gas, so in the Plane you show, would you really want to have an Engine Out, Off Field Landing with that Landing Gear? You have a Max Full Power Speed of about 63mph. If all your going to do is fly circles around your Airport or have lot's of nice mowed level fields near by, you could use that Gear, but you should plan for the Worse Case you might come across.

Never had an AirBike or Affordaplane with a 26hp Engine, so I don't know if that HP Max's out these Planes for Part 103, 63mph. Myself, I would want Bigger Front Tires with a Bigger Tail Wheel Tire like this AirBike has. Then you can Land about anywhere.

Even an Ultralight with only 5 Gallons can venture out 50-80miles depending on Design.

If you put the material list into a Spreadsheet, you can put a Weight to every Part, and Cost.

 

==============================================================

Do you have a link to these FB Part 103 changes, I didn't see them. Wikipedia says it makes 254lbs with the Rotax 277. So a Hirth 28hp should work also since it's lighter than the Rotax. FB page says it can handle Engines: 35hp to 40HP.

 

I can read just fine. What are the chances it comes out at exactly 254 lbs? Also, the listed stall speed requires an implausible lift coefficient, as is true for most ultralights. So I wouldn't put too much credence in the numbers. Maybe at 100 feet AGL at the Dead Sea in January....