Doodles...

"Rich S." wrote:

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
...

Here are some (on topic - no less) doodles of a small low wing.
inspired by Bruce King's tiny little BK-1..

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

Richard...............

It looks vaguely familiar. . .

http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/littner/cp80.html

Rich S.

Does look darn close but the Zephyr is a bit larger
at 19+ span and 17' long.

This one is a bit smaller.
call it 16 foot span and 15 feet long.
and maybe a full foot shorter in height.
I think it was 6o to 66 sq ft for the wing area is
about the same for both.

I just uploaded a cross section sketch that shows the
size a little (intended as a pun) better.

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/l-one-2x.jpg

Guess/wish 500 pounds empty with a VW,
but
this is one place where a 912 and adjustable
prop would really rock.

Or spec the Rotax 914 (turbo!) and a higher
aspect ratio wing (longer span) for those
mini-U2 missions....

It looks like a Midget Mustang. The MM-1 span is 18.5 ft 66 sq ft and 16.5 long and anywhere between 650-780 empty or more. If it can be built under 500lbs empty with a light engine VW or 912 it sould be bullet.

Jim Williams

Originally Posted by Richard Lamb

"Rich S." wrote:

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
...

Here are some (on topic - no less) doodles of a small low wing.
inspired by Bruce King's tiny little BK-1..

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

Richard...............

It looks vaguely familiar. . .

http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/littner/cp80.html

Rich S.

Does look darn close but the Zephyr is a bit larger
at 19+ span and 17' long.

This one is a bit smaller.
call it 16 foot span and 15 feet long.
and maybe a full foot shorter in height.
I think it was 6o to 66 sq ft for the wing area is
about the same for both.

I just uploaded a cross section sketch that shows the
size a little (intended as a pun) better.

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/l-one-2x.jpg

Guess/wish 500 pounds empty with a VW,
but
this is one place where a 912 and adjustable
prop would really rock.

Or spec the Rotax 914 (turbo!) and a higher
aspect ratio wing (longer span) for those
mini-U2 missions....

Jim Williams wrote:

It looks like a Midget Mustang. The MM-1 span is 18.5 ft 66 sq ft and
16.5 long and anywhere between 650-780 empty or more. If it can be
built under 500lbs empty with a light engine VW or 912 it sould be
bullet.

Jim Williams

Long was a true artist!
And the MM-1 is his masterpiece.

BTW, have you ever seen the original MM-1 gear arrangement?

The legs are flat aluminum leaf type but the bolt to a weldiment
that has a torque tube running thru the front spar back to the rear spar.

The torque tube has two concentric tubes, welded together at the rear
end - thus doubling the effective length. An interesting solution to
a thorny problem...

Richard

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
...

This one is a bit smaller.
call it 16 foot span and 15 feet long.
and maybe a full foot shorter in height.
I think it was 6o to 66 sq ft for the wing area is
about the same for both.

I can't see any scale or measurements on your sketches. Maybe I need better
glasses.

Or spec the Rotax 914 (turbo!) and a higher
aspect ratio wing (longer span) for those
mini-U2 missions....

Or an Apex T62-32?

http://avonaero.com/solar32.htm

You could lose the cheek cowls, reduce frontal area by a bunch and maybe
come in at your desired weight. Does a tailwheel airframe back up real well?

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote:

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
...

This one is a bit smaller.
call it 16 foot span and 15 feet long.
and maybe a full foot shorter in height.
I think it was 6o to 66 sq ft for the wing area is
about the same for both.

I can't see any scale or measurements on your sketches. Maybe I need better
glasses.

No, you just need the source files, which are drawn full scale.
These are pictures of the cad screen.


Or spec the Rotax 914 (turbo!) and a higher
aspect ratio wing (longer span) for those
mini-U2 missions....

Or an Apex T62-32?

http://avonaero.com/solar32.htm

You could lose the cheek cowls, reduce frontal area by a bunch and maybe
come in at your desired weight. Does a tailwheel airframe back up real well?

You, sir, are a man after my own heart.
Who wants to fly under powered aircraft!

But then there is the gas load (!)
Wet wing between the spars (no clue how much gas that is, but that's
all you get).

Climb to 10000 feet in two minutes and play sailplane?

And yes, it backs up real well.
At least on the ground.
Pick it up by the tailwheel and drag it around like a little red wagon.

It's a tiny little thing...

g

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
...

But then there is the gas load (!)
Wet wing between the spars (no clue how much gas that is, but that's
all you get).

If it will cruise at 80 shp and consumption is 1.3#/shp @ sea level, you get
17 gph. That's got to decrease a bunch at altitude, doesn't it? 50-60
gallons ought to do it.

And yes, it backs up real well.
At least on the ground.
Pick it up by the tailwheel and drag it around like a little red wagon.

You could paint "Beta mode" on the wagon, I guess. I was thinking of the
geometry of reverse thrust on a full-swivel tailwheel. Talk about a ground
loop!

Rich "I *hate* the smell of kerosene in the morning" S.

"Rich S." wrote:

snip\


I can't see any scale or measurements on your sketches. Maybe I need better
glasses.

Rich S.

http://home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/!L-ONE-A4-A.JPG

there is a reference dimension under the fuselage = 48"
and a little lower just above the frames is a foot/inch scale.

that help?

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
...

there is a reference dimension under the fuselage = 48"
and a little lower just above the frames is a foot/inch scale.

that help?

Got it!

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote:

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
...

there is a reference dimension under the fuselage = 48"
and a little lower just above the frames is a foot/inch scale.

that help?

Got it!

Rich S..

Great!

Now, your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to draw up
a reeeeeaaaaaaly light weight retract system for it bg.

Gear mounts on front side of the main spar (sorry, no tricycles)
5x5 wheels with MacGreary rubber,
band brakes with cables? or hydraulic actuation.

If need be (and it will), we'll rework the root using that 15%
Ribblet
airfoil (get all the buzz-words in!) or a 23012/15 (nil CP travel -
important
in such a tiny package) and add a P-51 style planform to provide
room for
the wheels.

now we're too cool...


Some other minor wing concerns:

At stall speeds, the root chord still has an RN (Reynolds Number)
of at least 3 million.

But the tips, being shorter, show barely 2 million.
So what does that imply?

Well, for one, many of the fancy airfoils get pretty lame below
three meg.
Which might result in:
Sloppy aileron control at low speeds at best?
Or even a TIP stall - i,e: a nice fun wing drop at the break (or
before???)

Looking for an airfoil that performs well at these low RN led me to
the
old NACA 4 digit 2312. It is considered a turbulent airfoil, rather
than
a laminar type. But it ought to hold on a little better when slow.

Which means that the rib patterns would be a pure-D beast to loft,
were if not for a little CAD magic.

The more ribs (assuming they fit right) and the thicker the skin the
better
we can hold the desired airfoil shape - but both mean _heavier_.
The dreaded C word - (compromise),

Oh golly, well, that at least scratches the surface....

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
...

Now, your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to draw up
a reeeeeaaaaaaly light weight retract system for it bg.

Moi? (In my best Miss Piggy voice). I'm a retarded firefighter - no engineer
fer sure.

The Emeraude uses the 23012 and I'll bet the Zephyr does as well. Add a bit
of washout to soften the stall.

I would 86 the idea of retracts and go with an RV-type gear off the engine
mount. No spar reinforcement needed, you can keep the fuselage on the wheels
when the wing(s) is/are removed, & other weight-saving advantages.

JMHO
Rich S.