wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 6:55 pm, cavelamb himself wrote:

Not at 260 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems a tad high but it really doesn't matter; beggers can't be
choosers. It is available, dirt cheap and reliable. Determine it's
CG and it is reduced to a box on the drawing, waiting to be made
practical by the designer.

The Wright 'Flyer' grossed about 750lbs with Orville onboard. Wing
span of 40 feet. Wing area over 500 square feet. Yet it flew
moderately well (in 1905) with only 12 horsepower. Since those days
we have enjoyed quantum leaps in materials and aeronautical knowledge
-- we've more than enough information to build a reliable airplane
from materials commonly available in the average town. Drop the
bureaucrats out of the equation, solve the logistical problems of
where to build and to fly, and you own the sky, de facto if not de
juri.

Here in the western United States on any winter weekend you can see
hundreds of flying machines doing their thing over the myriad of dry
lakes. Many of these are substantial machines with real aircraft
engines but most are not. Yet they all fly and incidents are low.

__________________________________________________ ________

I believe the key to the Wright Brothers success with only 12HP was not the
engine, all up flying weight or the wing area but the propellers.

The props were huge and very slow turning giving them astonishing
efficiency. The total propeller disk area was greater than some WWII
bombers. 100 years on, their propulsive efficiency still exceeds those on
most light aircraft.

I think this is still the key if you want to fly far (if slowly) on a tiny
engine. Make a big slow prop and attach it to a glider-like airframe.