(per an email from Erkki) his back is at 90 degrees and his seat is 4" above the lower longeron and he still has about 1" of head room. Even with a center* stick the seat could be about 2" lower. ...I think it's going to be plenty tall enough.
*per the plans, the AP has a side stick and the seat can sit right on the lower longeron but most of the ones I've seen on the internet have a center stick (a much better idea IMHO)
2DD, yes there are diagonals (truss) in the back of the fuselage.
Way to go Erkki!
Life insurance requirements / exclusions have evolved favorably since I had it. Recommend that people look closely at their policy wrt ultralight aircraft exclusions.Make sure you have a ballistic chute, and that your life insurance is paid up.
What is wrong with a properly designed and constructed bolted or riveted aluminum structure?Also it would be a good idea to abandon that bolt-up nonsense and weld up the fuselage out of actual tubing.
This same thing seems to come up every year. It has been discussed, and cussed, so many times. It seems that those who put it down have never actually studied the design closely.Nearly two year old thread about a plane not a single structural analyst in the world would get into, and people still bent on building one. Why? Make sure you have a ballistic chute, and that your life insurance is paid up.
But, if you real must -- move the aft landing gear support to a location that won't impinge into the cockpit in a hard landing... for a start. Then go find a stress analysis (I'm not available) and get someone to run some number on it. Also it would be a good idea to abandon that bolt-up nonsense and weld up the fuselage out of actual tubing. You'll save up enough weight to put in a 1/2 VW... wait for it... or just build a Legal Eagle , or something from Fisher or any number of other kits or plans. Or find a mother that could love it. Sorry -- the hate goes deep on this one!.
Here is another, the N3N with riveted aluminum truss fuselage. https://notastearman.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/2986-bones.jpgA case in point...the New Standard D-25, some of which are still going after almost 100 years!
It has been too long since I last looked at one to definitely say, but I think that there are several sections (hat sections, J sections, etc.) rather than plain angle. Might have some square tube. Don’t recall any round tube.Neat, BJC, was the N3N also mostly angle not tube?
In all the cars mentions of other aircraft ALL are no where near ultralight territory. Furthermore, just because something will fly doesn't make it safe, and especially in this case legal.This same thing seems to come up every year. It has been discussed, and cussed, so many times. It seems that those who put it down have never actually studied the design closely.
If you investigate you will find that there are flying examples. Yes, it is hard to make it meet part 103, but most of them are built as ELSA anyway.
And there are a number of improvements that builders have used.
Yes, there could be improvements in the design, but it was designed for the average weekend garage mechanic to build. If you can use a wrench and a chop saw, you can build an affordaplane.
As for bolts, many part 103 ultralights are made with bolted tubes.