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

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Aerowerx

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
5,371
Location
Marion, Ohio
So let’s think, what would you folks change, but with the same soul of the Affordaplane?!
There are a couple of ideas that other builders have used. One is to use rectangular tubing for the diagonals in the fuselage. Maybe 1inchx2inch. And do not stagger them like the original round tubes. Instead the center line of the diagonals should intersect at the center line of the 2 inch tubes (proper practice at joints).

Gusset plates with rivets at the joints is another idea. Would be lighter and easier to build. You won't have to drill all the way through the 2 inch tubes. It could be riveted flat on the table, flipped over, and the other side riveted (plans say to elevate it off the table for drilling and bolting).

And, erkki67, your picture showing the top longeron going to the wing is another idea I have seen. Also there are ideas for improved landing gear.
 

oldcrow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
Messages
96
Location
Lizella, Ga
I like the way the fuselage, and empennage is built on the A-Plane, but not the wings. If you are going to use foam ribs, I like the 'Texas Parasol' wings, or if you want tube ribs, then 'Airdrome aeroplanes' wings.
If you look a Ralf Taggart's VERY popular and successful 'gyro-bee'. It is constructed the same way as the A-Plane. I do agree that it looks to be a little over built, but that is a sacrifice for simplicity. If it were possible to get the 2x2 square tubing in .065 wall for the rear half of the fuse. Then some significant weight savings could be had, but you have to work with what you have. If this aircraft appeals to you, then by all means build it. There are sooo many ultralight aircraft designs out there, and they pretty much fly about the same ( low and slow) it is either the aesthetics that appeal to you or the type of construction.
To the Original Poster, good luck.
 

FritzW

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,779
Location
Las Cruces, NM
He wasn't wrong, he was just a jerk about being right. I haven't heard a single naysayer back up his accusations about the AP with facts. There are lots of them flying and, as far as I know, there hasn't been a single structural failure.

We all love the Bowers Fly Baby, and I've never heard a word against it on the HBA, but "the Fly Baby has the highest rate of in-flight structural failure among homebuilt aircraft in the US. Almost a quarter of Fly Baby accidents involve wing failures" (follow the link to put that info in context). ...we gripe about the airplane that isn't falling apart but love on the airplane that is??? I completely understand shawnwied's frustration...
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
11
I like the way the fuselage, and empennage is built on the A-Plane, but not the wings. If you are going to use foam ribs, I like the 'Texas Parasol' wings, or if you want tube ribs, then 'Airdrome aeroplanes' wings.
If you look a Ralf Taggart's VERY popular and successful 'gyro-bee'. It is constructed the same way as the A-Plane. I do agree that it looks to be a little over built, but that is a sacrifice for simplicity. If it were possible to get the 2x2 square tubing in .065 wall for the rear half of the fuse. Then some significant weight savings could be had, but you have to work with what you have. If this aircraft appeals to you, then by all means build it. There are sooo many ultralight aircraft designs out there, and they pretty much fly about the same ( low and slow) it is either the aesthetics that appeal to you or the type of construction.
To the Original Poster, good luck.
The plans for the AP show two types of wings. One is a tube wing. built like the Challenger wing. That is the one I built.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
11
There are a lot of people over the years that wanted to build this plane. The first thing they did was look on the net to find out all they could about it. If they were lucky and didn't find this sight, and a couple of others, they would order the plans and go with a build. But most got a hit on this sight. Once reading just a little bit they will get the idea this plane is a piece of junk. When in fact it is a great little plane. No plane is the perfect plane, and no design is for everyone. This plane is the perfect plane for some and the worst for others. What has happened here is a small group of people for some reason has decided to ruin this plane. They don't like it so they think it is their job to prove to the world no one else should like it. I too found this forum, The difference in my case was I didn't see the things pointed out as being so bad as a problem, I saw them as the very reason I wanted to build this plane.
The truth is I got on here to try and change your minds about the Affordaplane. That is going to take more effort then I am willing to put in. It would be easyer to convence a Democrate Clinton is a crook. Or a Republican McConnel is a crook.
To the ones on here thinking the plane might be a good build. It is. I have been flying mine for less than a year, 72+ hrs.. The more I fly it the more I like it. Pay no attention to the people that have not built or flown one. They have no clue of what they are talking about. Look for the people that have built and flown them. You will get a very different picture of what the Affordaplane is.
To all the ones on here wanting to ruin this plane for whatever reason. I hope you find a way to open your mind and see your opinion is not the only one. And an opinion sometimes is not fact. The most important, Sometimes a fact is just an opinion.
Fact: I built an Affordaplane.
Fact: My Affordaplane flys great.
Fact: The Affordaplane has a perfect safety record.
Fact: There are Affordaplanes flying all over the world.
Fact: Everyone I have talked to that has built one liked it.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
6,766
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Fact: everyone who has tried Crack Cocaine or Heroin would say they really liked it, and trusted the person who sold it to them.

A-driver I understand everything in your post, and since I have no personal experience with this aircraft I have to assume that you may be right about some or all of it.

However, I do want to point out one thing that is bothering several of us, aside from personality clashes and aside from me and Shawn poking at each other.

A lot of moderate to highly experienced people on this discussion forum have all really wondered about ONE BASIC ISSUE with the Affordaplane. Almost everyone here has an opinion, or a question, and those are all different... but a large number of experienced intelligent "airplane people" all agree that there is one basic issue that they want an answer to.

No matter how many times this issue is brought up, nobody has a straight accurate answer, and somebody answers a DIFFERENT question instead. Somebody asks: "what time is it?", and the answer comes back "it's not raining outside".

This really pisses off engineers, technical people, and pilots.

So, I am going to give you the opportunity right now to change my mind and maybe everyone else's mind about the Affordaplane, by providing a direct, specific, accurate answer to ONE BASIC ISSUE :

REGARDLESS of how well it flies, how pretty it is, how affordable it is, and REGARDLESS of how many have been built and flown: exactly how was the Affordaplane structural engineering analysis done, and by who?

Let me repeat that question so that everyone hears it clearly, all the way to Wisconsin - Exactly how was the Affordaplane structural engineering analysis done, and by who?
 
Last edited:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,266
Location
Memphis, TN
Lots of people failed to build this plane. Why is the big question. There is a large fail rate to getting it in the air. Maybe the stance it’s idiot proof so anyone can build it and be successful needs to be amended. Fail to finish rate is probably the same as other projects, but the average person feels more gypped as it takes just what the builder wanted to escape, and they just are more vocal about it. Being trolled at the end by two who have succeeded does not help explain why they were successful. If they BS trap someone into their expertise makes them assess. If this plane requires a harrier pilot to fly, it would be nice to know.
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,473
Location
YMM
My bad when I googled "affordaplane" crash there were 6 videos And 4 pictures but looking closer none are actually affordaplane (going by the big tube sticking out of the wreckage)
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
11
Fact: everyone who has tried Crack Cocaine or Heroin would say they really liked it, and trusted the person who sold it to them.

A-driver I understand everything in your post, and since I have no personal experience with this aircraft I have to assume that you may be right about some or all of it.

However, I do want to point out one thing that is bothering several of us, aside from personality clashes and aside from me and Shawn poking at each other.

A lot of moderate to highly experienced people on this discussion forum have all really wondered about ONE BASIC ISSUE with the Affordaplane. Almost everyone here has an opinion, or a question, and those are all different... but a large number of experienced intelligent "airplane people" all agree that there is one basic issue that they want an answer to.

No matter how many times this issue is brought up, nobody has a straight accurate answer, and somebody answers a DIFFERENT question instead. Somebody asks: "what time is it?", and the answer comes back "it's not raining outside".

This really pisses off engineers, technical people, and pilots.

So, I am going to give you the opportunity right now to change my mind and maybe everyone else's mind about the Affordaplane, by providing a direct, specific, accurate answer to ONE BASIC ISSUE :

REGARDLESS of how well it flies, how pretty it is, how affordable it is, and REGARDLESS of how many have been built and flown: exactly how was the Affordaplane structural engineering analysis done, and by who?

Let me repeat that question so that everyone hears it clearly, all the way to Wisconsin - Exactly how was the Affordaplane structural engineering analysis done, and by who?

The structural engineering analysis was done by The designer. He used water to place the weight on the sturcture to verify it structural integrity. He and several other engineers also used computer structural analysis programs to check the design. A friend of mine that is an structural engineer just rechecked the design again last month. All found it to be a safe well built plane, that in ones words. It is built like a tank.

I hope this answers your question direct, specific, and accurate. I do not care one way or the other about your opinion of the plane or me. I do care about your uneducated rants about a plane you have no knowlege of. What I do care about is your posting misinformation about a plane, acting like you know what you are talking about. None of you have any facts or data to back your claims up.

As I said earlier, I don't have the time or desire to post on this forum. I find the closed mind attitude of the internet experts not something I want to argue with.

To all the people that are looking into the Affordaplane. If you doubt the design of the plane. Find a real structural engineer and have him do the math. You will be pleased.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
11
Lots of people failed to build this plane. Why is the big question. There is a large fail rate to getting it in the air. Maybe the stance it’s idiot proof so anyone can build it and be successful needs to be amended. Fail to finish rate is probably the same as other projects, but the average person feels more gypped as it takes just what the builder wanted to escape, and they just are more vocal about it. Being trolled at the end by two who have succeeded does not help explain why they were successful. If they BS trap someone into their expertise makes them assess. If this plane requires a harrier pilot to fly, it would be nice to know.
The Affordaplane start to finish rate is not known. I do not know where you get your information. I can tell you of the planes I know of started in the last two years only one has given up. His is being finished by another builder. The others are on target to finish within the next year. Or are flying. The term Idiot Proof should never be used for anything. It is the easyest scratch build I know of. But an idiot, a person with an IQ less then 70, might find this plane a little hard to build. And harder to fly. Not saying they can not do it. I think they could.
Now for the insults, I am not a Troll, I am not a BS artist. Of all the people that know me only my wife thinks I am an ASS. She is wrong.
I am a pilot. Never flown anything bigger then a Cessna 172, other than flying the Ford Tri-Motor one time. Most of my hours are in a Challenger11 that I built and flew for 20 years. I have flown several ultralights. They are my favorite type of planes. I have 5 of them now.
The Affordaplane flys just like a Cub only slower. It climbs out at 50, cruise is 50, approach is 50. It is also the best handling taildragger I have flown.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
6,766
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
A-driver you are 100% corrrect. We are uneducated and we are ranting about something we don't know enough about.

The problem is that the entire Affordaplane community is doing everything they can to prevent the rest of us from becoming educated. THAT is what is pissing everyone including me off. No matter how much we try and try and try to get educated about this aircraft design, we either get no information or we get nonsense information that tells us nothing useful, so we are forced to remain uneducated despite our best efforts.

We want to become educated but you and Shawn and apparently everyone associated with this design are making sure we do not get educated with any real data.

Your reply to my last post is a perfect example. You say that the designer used water to test the structure. WTF does that mean? Did he put three one liter bottles of drinking water on top of the wing and consider it "tested"? Did he put waterbed mattresses filled with 2400 pounds of water on the wings with the aircraft turned upside down, which would create over 4G equivalent load on the main wings? Did he pour water on the rudder to see if it soaked in? Was the Affordaplane put into a swimming pool to see if it floats, and the designer said "there ya go Bubba... structural testing completed!"?

You're telling a lot of reasonably smart people that this is all wasting your time, and that WE are not understanding something that is obvious, but in all of these discussions there is nobody providing any real data.

If you ask the people who build and fly Vans RV series aircraft these same questions that we are asking you, they can get an answer, something like: "Richard VanGrunsven holds an Aeronautical Engineering degree from XYZ university, he used the structural design parameters found in ABC aircraft engineering textbooks to design the wings for a 6G limit load plus a 1.5 factor of safety, and the prototype was tested by loading the inverted wings with ABCD pounds of sandbags (or water bags) that resulted in a deflection of XYZ inches at the tips."

THAT is an answer to a direct structural engineering question where people's lives are at stake. When any educated or curious person sees this information, they will understand WHY and HOW their RV will be safe to fly in turbulent conditions.

Let's say you wanted to buy a pickup truck and saw an ad on craigslist. You send the guy an e-mail, asking how many miles are on it, and he replies "it's not worn out yet". You send another e-mail asking what size engine it has, and he responds with "it gets up over hills just fine". You finally call him on the phone, begging for any useful information, and you ask what year the truck is, and he says "it's not as old as my dog."

And then the guy says to you that you are uneducated and asking diriculous questions, and that he doesn't have time to deal with you, and why areyou not convinced that there's nothing wrong with the truck.

That's how me and several other people on this forum are feeling right now.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
11
A-driver you are 100% corrrect. We are uneducated and we are ranting about something we don't know enough about.

The problem is that the entire Affordaplane community is doing everything they can to prevent the rest of us from becoming educated. THAT is what is pissing everyone including me off. No matter how much we try and try and try to get educated about this aircraft design, we either get no information or we get nonsense information that tells us nothing useful, so we are forced to remain uneducated despite our best efforts.

We want to become educated but you and Shawn and apparently everyone associated with this design are making sure we do not get educated with any real data.

Your reply to my last post is a perfect example. You say that the designer used water to test the structure. WTF does that mean? Did he put three one liter bottles of drinking water on top of the wing and consider it "tested"? Did he put waterbed mattresses filled with 2400 pounds of water on the wings with the aircraft turned upside down, which would create over 4G equivalent load on the main wings? Did he pour water on the rudder to see if it soaked in? Was the Affordaplane put into a swimming pool to see if it floats, and the designer said "there ya go Bubba... structural testing completed!"?

You're telling a lot of reasonably smart people that this is all wasting your time, and that WE are not understanding something that is obvious, but in all of these discussions there is nobody providing any real data.

If you ask the people who build and fly Vans RV series aircraft these same questions that we are asking you, they can get an answer, something like: "Richard VanGrunsven holds an Aeronautical Engineering degree from XYZ university, he used the structural design parameters found in ABC aircraft engineering textbooks to design the wings for a 6G limit load plus a 1.5 factor of safety, and the prototype was tested by loading the inverted wings with ABCD pounds of sandbags (or water bags) that resulted in a deflection of XYZ inches at the tips."

THAT is an answer to a direct structural engineering question where people's lives are at stake. When any educated or curious person sees this information, they will understand WHY and HOW their RV will be safe to fly in turbulent conditions.

Let's say you wanted to buy a pickup truck and saw an ad on craigslist. You send the guy an e-mail, asking how many miles are on it, and he replies "it's not worn out yet". You send another e-mail asking what size engine it has, and he responds with "it gets up over hills just fine". You finally call him on the phone, begging for any useful information, and you ask what year the truck is, and he says "it's not as old as my dog."

And then the guy says to you that you are uneducated and asking diriculous questions, and that he doesn't have time to deal with you, and why areyou not convinced that there's nothing wrong with the truck.

That's how me and several other people on this forum are feeling right now.
Ok, Last try, The Designer of the Affordaplane, Dave Edwards did the structural testing on the plane using tubs filled with water to load the structure to the limit he was designing to. I do not know what his limits were. He took the amount of weight in lbs he wanted to place on the structure and divided it by 8 giving him the number of gallons of water he would have to place in the tubs to load the structure to the test limit. He also had to include the weight of the tubs in the total. Once he had placed the load on the structure he measured the amount of deflexion of the structure. After removing the weight he would then measure the structure again to see if there was any perminent bend. There was none.
Now, this kind of questioning is the kind of stuff I am talking about. Just about everyone that has been around homebuilt planes knows how to test a structure for load limits. You don't have to be an engineer to know this ****, and for you to think that only a XYZ university grad could design a plane or do the structural analysis is insulting to anybody that can read. All the information on how to do it is easy to find. Or you do think only someone with an Aeronautical Engineering Degree from some university can design an airplane.
You sir are just proving my point. You are given the facts. You do not except them. The plane to you is never going to be exceptable. Fine. I don't care. At least when someone else reads this they will see just what is taken place and if they buy in to your game. We don't need them in this hobby anyway.
As for me saying you are uneducated. You may have a PHD for all I know. What I am talking about is you are uneducated about the Affordaplane. Everything you have asked has been answered on the net. I found the answers. I spend hours every day sharing information about the Affordaplane with other people, And other planes as well. I will do whatever I can to help anyone that really wants to know something I can find out for them.
Here it is, Dave Edwards designed, built, tested the Affordaplane. It is a plans built ultralight, high wing monoplane. He has sold thousands of plans all around the world. Planes have been built in several countries. Many are under construction now. It is easy to build, using standard hand tools. I personally built mine using only hand tools. It was not my first build, but it was the easyest build. It flys like a Piper Cub only slower. It is very light so when you cut power it slows down fast like most ultralights do. It is the best handling taildragger I have flown. Some I have flown. Cub, Champ, Airbike, Kolb, Chinook, Hi-max, Mini-max, Aeroplane Dream Classic, Cessna 140, tail wind.
I don't know what else I can tell you. It has been tested, Dave really did use water in plastic tubs. many flown, it has a perfect safety record. They are flying in several countries. If you still don't like it so be it.
Anyone else on the forum that would like to know anything about the Affordaplane just ask. I will do my best to answer your questions. It really is a fun little airplane, that is not getting a fair shake.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
6,766
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Ok, Last try, The Designer of the Affordaplane, Dave Edwards did the structural testing on the plane using tubs filled with water to load the structure to the limit he was designing to. I do not know what his limits were.

After removing the weight he would then measure the structure again to see if there was any perminent bend. There was none.

You don't have to be an engineer to know this ****, and for you to think that only a XYZ university grad could design a plane or do the structural analysis is insulting to anybody that can read.

As for me saying you are uneducated. You may have a PHD for all I know. What I am talking about is you are uneducated about the Affordaplane. Everything you have asked has been answered on the net.
That may be the "last try", but it is the first time I've seen a reference to the designer doing actual testing. That is much better than any and all of the previous information about the structural testing. Thank you.

It is good news that he looked for deformation after the tests, and did not find any. That is also the first time I have heard that.

I NEVER said you had to be an engineer, I used Dick VanGrunsven as an example of how the Vans community might use facts to address the questions about the RV's structure. If someone asked for how another type of airplane was engineered, another perfectly valid answer might have been "The designer was not a trained engineer but he studied aircraft structure online, did the calculations, and then hired Mr. Bob Smith to verify the calculations". That is just as valid of an answer.

Another perfectly honest and useful answer could have been "Some guy called Victor Bravo designed it, he is not any sort of engineer, and he did not hire any engineer to run any numbers, but he estimated that filling tubs with 300 gallons of water and putting them on the upside down wings would be a good test. After this weight was removed the wings did not show any permanent bend or break. Victor Bravo hopes that this test is sufficient to make customers confident in the safety of the design."

The only UN-ACCEPTABLE answer to a direct question about structural itegrity would be "It's a great plane, stop whining and build one".

You're right, everything has been answered on the net. The grassy knoll, the Roswell aliens, chemtrails, Bush helping the Illuminati plan 9-11, and how they faked the moon landings. Getting all that internet BS and nonsense out of the way, and getting to real data about how the A-plane was designed and tested, is exactly why some of us have such a short fuse in these discussions.

Here is something that I found on a Google search for Affordaplane crashes:
https://theaffordaplaneresource.blogspot.com/2011/
 

GTX_Engines

Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
16
Location
Atlanta, GA
I admit to not having read through the entire thread, just bumped onto this today, then visited the vendor's webpage.

Title of the thread -what do you mean "homogeneous"? 4% whole milk, all mixed up comes to mind, but what do folks homogenate on an airplane?

First impressions about the design of this lovely little duckling (my aero eng. days were WMU, Kalamazoo early 1970's, didn't grad until U of M, Ann Arbor 2003. Delayed launch, LOL):
  1. round tube construction
  2. replace the front support with a wishbone or "H".
  3. hollow composite 2-blade prop
  4. Yamaha Genesis 2-cyl (YG2) 80hp 4-stroke engine. I believe only the Rotax 582 is available any more, so in comparison to that here is the simple justification, 582 vs YG2:
    1. Weight, installed: ~117 lbs vs 123 lbs
    2. TBO: 300 hrs vs 1200 hrs
    3. Power: 65 hp vs 80 hp
    4. HP/Lbs: 0.56 vs 0.65
    5. GPH: ~ 0.5 gph advantage to YG2
    6. Engine type: 2-stk vs 4-stk
    7. Cost: ~ $1500 advantage to YG2
Send me an email when you're ready to make the switch from 2-stroke to 4-stroke. You can follow the Yamaha aircraft engine news on Facebook at "Yamaha Aircraft Engines", https://www.facebook.com/groups/1251356951570824/

Info@MohawkAeroCraft.com
 
Last edited:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
6,766
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Wow, he actually got two partially aircraft related sentences in before he tried to turn the discussion around to his product. Even Ron Popiel can do better than that on an infomercial.

The 582 that GTX is using for comparison is not remotely an acceptable powerplant for the aircraft being mentioned. It is far too heavy and far too much power for a Part 103 ultralight or anything even close to that weight. So bringing up another engine in comparison to the 582 on this discussion is beyond irrelevant.

Talking about putting an 80HP engine on an ultralight airframe that is already being questioned about its safety with a 40HP engine.....?

GTX, I'd like to introduce you to one of our participants here named Armilite, I think you and he should have your very own forum discussion area.
 
2
Group Builder
Top