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

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

challenger_II

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
131
Location
Fisher County, Tx. USA
The litigation over the TEAM Airbike was well published.
Also, many litigations, regarding suits against builders/plans-holders do not get published. A case in point is the gentleman, in San Antonio, Tx, that was the actual designer of the Texas Parasol. He designed, and built, a rather neat two-place, flew it around for several years, and then sold it to an airline pilot up the country. Said tin can driver declined a familiarization flight with the OB, and then took up a pal to go around the patch. He tried landing said Very Light Airplane in the same fashion as a General Aviation aircraft, and planted the bird at the end of the runway. He took the OB to court, for selling him a defective aircraft.


QUOTE="Andy Garrett, post: 510471, member: 43514"]
Your comment triggered my curiosity, so I just spent the last 45 minutes searching and reading everything from regs, to EAA articles, to articles in Air Law & Commerce.

There is a fair amount of guidance and compulsory 'warnings' about selling homebuilt aircraft even if you didn't build it. There is also a lot of info on product liability concerns for component manufactures and sellers and particularly, kit manufacturers and sellers (though nothing regarding plans only scratch built aircraft). One fairly recent and well published case was a suit for $35 million against Vans after an RV-10 accident in Oregon. The case was dismissed.

Other than that one suit, I can find nothing.

Perhaps you aware of a particular case...
[/QUOTE]
 

challenger_II

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
131
Location
Fisher County, Tx. USA
Fritz, I know you posted this, but I am quoting you for reference:

On a bird, with a center root tube, One would be wise to allow more head clearance, in anticipation of encountering turbulence. My Challengers (have had 4 of them) had scads of clearance, yet, wen I caught a sharp downdraft, I would bounce my head off the root tube. Not pleasant.

Just my two pence worth.

Everett

(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!
 

kennyrayandersen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
73
Location
Ft. Worth TX
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!.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,895
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Make sure you have a ballistic chute, and that your life insurance is paid up.
Life insurance requirements / exclusions have evolved favorably since I had it. Recommend that people look closely at their policy wrt ultralight aircraft exclusions.

Also it would be a good idea to abandon that bolt-up nonsense and weld up the fuselage out of actual tubing.
What is wrong with a properly designed and constructed bolted or riveted aluminum structure?


BJC
 

Aerowerx

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
5,727
Location
Marion, Ohio
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!.
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.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
8,142
Location
Fort Walton Beach, Florida, USA
To be clear, I certainly have no issues with the *concept* of the Affordaplane, it's just the implementation that seems to leave something to be desired. I would love to see more bolted/riveted aluminum angle designs, there is nothing inherently wrong with the construction even if angles are less efficient than tubes. A case in point...the New Standard D-25, some of which are still going after almost 100 years!

 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,895
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Neat, BJC, was the N3N also mostly angle not tube?
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.

Some old navy guy here will know.


BJC
 

challenger_II

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
131
Location
Fisher County, Tx. USA
I wish Molt Taylor was still alive: he could clear up the rumor that the N3N was designed to use up left-over dirigible materials. Fuselage frame is almost entirely riveted angle aluminum. And is WAY stout! They converted many N3N's to the R-1340, and put a hopper in the front bucket.

The General Skyfarer was another example of riveted angle construction.

Another example of aluminum tube construction is the DH Tiger Moth.

Urban legend is that the N3N fuselage was made up from leftover formed aluminum shapes meant for dirigibles.
View attachment 101510
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,662
Location
Thunder Bay
The General Skyfarer was another example of riveted angle construction.

Another example of aluminum tube construction is the DH Tiger Moth.
Ooohhh, I like the Skyfarer and never knew it was riveted angle, but the Moth is all mild steel in the fuselage.
 

kennyrayandersen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
73
Location
Ft. Worth TX
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.
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.

I don't hate the concept, but nuts and bolts are heavy. If the landing gear issue is fixed, and that is a real safety issue, and the weight issue is fixed I wouldn't be as bothered by it.

Sure it's not elegant, but at least the landing gear wouldn't be trying to crush you in a hard landing. The aft leg needs to be redirected, or backed up and that's a safety issue. If the rest of the frame were optimized you might be able to bring the weight down into legal territory but why send someone in a mission to build one thinking he's going to get an ultralight it off the deal?

You know, there are other options, like a legal eagle, which will actually make FAR 103 weight. Sure you'd have to either learn how to weld it get some one to weld it, but then you get a lightweight fuselage that follows standard aircraft protocols.

You found a couple of examples that show it is possible to build an airplane this way (I'll bet money they had actual engineers working on this designs though), but compare that to the number of airplanes built with welded right and fabric!

Again I don't hate the concept, just the execution.
 

cpd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
129
why does everyone keep hating on the A-plane, there are quite a few up and flying now and none have had any significant issues. its simple, its crude, but it works.
 

blane.c

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
4,587
Location
capital district NY
I suppose the title of this thread may have something to do with it, it doesn't say Affordaplane it is perfect lets leave it the way it is. What it does say is lets improve it. Which of course implies there is something wrong with it. Of course there are also the words homogeneous and project which could lead one to believe there might be a simpler more straightforward way to accomplish the task of building an Affordaplane. Or maybe less expensive is the goal?
 
Top