![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
And just to make things clear, I don't have a pony in this race. I did not buy plans. I did not invest ANY time or money in the project, and there was no reason for my Friend Gary to say anything negative about the plane EXCEPT the fact he is VERY dedicated to SAFE flying. He, and a lot of the other fellows, were hoping it would be a good, cheap plane, and easy to build and fly. The building method is VERY interesting, but to get proper hole edge clearances the longerons in the cabin area should be 1" angle. If built "inside out" with the flats of the angles in, instead of out, you would not have issues with the fabric at the rivet heads, and you would also have a smoother interior. Lots of other little "improvements" that would make it a better plane - . Really just needs a good designer to go ever it and fix the little details - the ones that make the current rendition difficult to build and less than adequate structurally. As they say, the devil's inthe details - and they will kill you. Your loyalty to your friend is noted and admired, Clare. But for just a moment, stop and reread what you wrote above. Sure, the inside-out approach has some interesting merit, but is that really and improvement, a radical modification, or a new design? The first step in designing something like an airplane is to carefully define the (dreaded) Mission Requirements Statement. This one, as it is, fulfills the mission requirements set out for it. And it has done so safely for many years. As far as I could tell from the photos and article published in the Canadian Recreational Aviation magazine the only thing the Canadian projects have in common with this one is that they both use extruded aluminum angle for the fuselage truss. You can claim these were only improvements if you want. But what it really was is a completely new, unproved, and much heavier machine. (I'm curious why they didn't go to a 2-1/4" front spar as we discussed repeatedly. I know it an expensive piece of tube, but it would have solved the problem quite adequately.) My friend, Al Robinson is doing exactly the same thing! But man, what a difference in attitudes. His Texas Pete is a two-seat side by side with a Geo Metro of power. Gross weight will be right about 900 pounds. (His pics and details are posted on the Texas Parasol group at Yahoo Groups) (as are reports of some of those who finished and have flown their (real) Texas Parasols) The modifications he has made to the wing structure were supervised and blessed by none other than the late Lt. Graham Lee. I don't think Graham had a degree, but he was one hell of an engineer. Al is getting close to being ready to static test his wing - and I intend to be there to help when he does. He kindly invited me, and I wouldn't miss is. If it holds ok, we'll cover it and go flying. If it doesn't look safe to BOTH of us, we'll come up with something else. Most likely (if necessary!) an I beam main spar built up using extruded aluminum angle front and back of an aluminum sheer web. At least that's our fall back plan. That type construction allows us to custom tailor the load factor allowance to what ever the builder desires. I've got the thing drawn up, but I've not built it and tested it yet, so it hasn't been published. And it's not going to be unless it IS tested. I have personally flown both of my parasols (well duh!) and several of the others. Doc has flown damned near all of them and scared the pee outta me several times in the process. Sonny is building his FOURTH original design based on this stuff. Paul Hammond flew his every weekend for years. Doc is home taking care of the kids. I'm sitting here trying to be patient and not pull my hair out. So if is possible, can we call a truce and go make fun of milli-amp for a while? Richard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Richard Lamb and the Texas Parasol Plans ...and Sirius Aviation | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 12 | August 9th 05 08:00 PM |
want to trade 601 plans for 701 plans | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | January 27th 05 07:50 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
Texas Soars into Aviation History | A | Piloting | 7 | December 17th 03 02:09 AM |
good book about prisoners of war | Jim Atkins | Military Aviation | 16 | August 1st 03 10:18 AM |