Texas Parasol Plans...

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:14:18 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:


Rec.Aviation.Homebuilt special...

Eventually, these will be made available to everybody on Matronics, but for
the time being they are posted at http://www.home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/ just
for the nice boys and girls of RAH and RAU.

Enjoy...

Richard





Got the wing spar design updated yet? Or are we trying to thin the
herd?

Nothing wrong with the wing, Clare.
But there IS something wrong with trying to overload it like you guys did.

The original agreement was that your fearless leader was to have a heavier
wing designed (by a "real" aero engineer) to handle a heavier airplane.
That was never done.

So if you think you have a bitch coming, point it back north.

Richard

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:58:17 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:14:18 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:


Rec.Aviation.Homebuilt special...

Eventually, these will be made available to everybody on Matronics, but for
the time being they are posted at http://www.home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/ just
for the nice boys and girls of RAH and RAU.

Enjoy...

Richard





Got the wing spar design updated yet? Or are we trying to thin the
herd?

Nothing wrong with the wing, Clare.
But there IS something wrong with trying to overload it like you guys did.

The original agreement was that your fearless leader was to have a heavier
wing designed (by a "real" aero engineer) to handle a heavier airplane.
That was never done.

So if you think you have a bitch coming, point it back north.

Richard

If built according to plans your wing will NOT withstand the G rating
listed in your info - and even YOU did not fly YOUR plane built
according to plans.
The jury strut is also CRITICAL, and as designed is an accident
waiting to happen.
So answer the question - have you upgraded the plans?
If the answer is no, everyone on the group is entitled to know the
plane is dangerous as designed, but can relatively easily be made into
a safe airplane.

Well, folks, there you have it.
The experts have again spoken.

Clare, I can understand your anger.
But it's misplaced.
You got had.
But not by me.
I did everything I could to warn you guys.
Although I wonder if Gary ever passed that on to you.

He took a design with a 350 pound recommended empty weight and
built something else. Beefed up fuselage structure, .065 wall
spars (which did nothing to add strength - just cheaper),
ALL METAL SKINS on the fuselage AND wing, and converted auto engines.

What was the final weight you guys came up with? 550? 650? Empty!

But the answer was always, "But that's the way we want it".

So Gary offered to hired an engineer to design a wing compatible
with your wants. But that gentleman died before finishing the
work - and now it's MY problem? Sorry, guy. No way.

That's why I finally bit down and asked you guys not to call
it by the Texas Parasol or Chuckbird name.
It's not - and you damned well know it.

Those drawings are straight from my first parasol.
And yes, I did fly it just as it is drawn, with the exception
of using a VW on it rather than a Rotax.

Rave if you must, Clare, but there are several dozen of these
planes _flying_ for over 20 years now. Doc, who has been
the test pilot on almost all of these, had over 650 hours on
his "Lucky Lady" when the airfield changed hands and he quit.
Doc loved to play acro with it. Loops (well, tall skinny ones),
spins, rolls. I'll trust my life to his test work because I've
seen what he can do with it.

As for you "analysis"?

So far we've seen NO structural failures, and only one fatality -
on a first flight, ran out of gas and spun it in.
(I can't tell you how hard that was to deal with.)



Changing the subject only a bit...

I went out to Kitty Hawk Airfield last weekend to look at a CGS
Hawk I was hoping to buy. The fellow I met with (Don) was very
knowledgeable about the design - AND that particular airplane.
I'm very impressed with Chuck's design, but I walked (ran?) away
from this airplane.

A few years ago some fool decided the plane needed more power
and mounted an 80 hp Rotax 912 on it. (anybody here familiar
with the Hawk?). On the first takeoff, the engine twisted plumb
off the mount, cut the tailboom off and (obviously) crashed, killing
the pilot.

Don was very up-front and honest about it - and the condition of
the rebuilt machine. The tailboom was extended, the nose also,
and a Rotax 582 installed. It weighs well over 350 pounds.
But many of the other local "experts" call it a POS death trap.

Unfortunately, it is still refered to as a CGS Hawk - and I'll bet my
bottom dollar that Chuck S absolutely hates that.

Just about the same way I feel about what you fellows have done.

Disgusted,

Richard

And my apologies to the rest of the group for airing
dirty laundry in public...

Richard

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:33:20 GMT, Richard Lamb wrote:

And my apologies to the rest of the group for airing
dirty laundry in public...

Absolutely no problem, Richard, I appreciated hearing your side of it.
Congratulations on getting the plans online for free downloading... wish we
could do that with the Fly Baby.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:33:20 GMT, Richard Lamb wrote:


And my apologies to the rest of the group for airing
dirty laundry in public...


Absolutely no problem, Richard, I appreciated hearing your side of it.
Congratulations on getting the plans online for free downloading... wish we
could do that with the Fly Baby.

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks, Ron.

It would be no problem, technically, to put the plans in machine form.
Well, other than the legality issues...
Find a solution to that one and I can have them ready in a week or two.

I think I was about 12 years old when Air Progress Homebuilt issue presented
the Fly Baby. I wanted one so bad I could taste the spruce.

I still think it's one of the all time best all wood amateur built designs.
A real classic.

Always will be too.

Richard

Richard Lamb wrote:


Those drawings are straight from my first parasol.
And yes, I did fly it just as it is drawn, with the exception
of using a VW on it rather than a Rotax.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a lie and Richard knows it.

The set of plans Richard has posted are the same ones he sold to me
(and many others) for $80. As of February, 2003, I had identified
numerous errors in the plans and provided corrections to several other
builders. Richard's contribution was to refer to my questions as
'yammering.'

I was trained to audit blueprints for errors but the errors in the
Parasol drawings will be obvious to all -- compare the dimensions of
the cabanes to the width of the fuselage, or the dimensions shown for
the landing gear/strut carry-throughs.

Richard built a plane. And Richard made some drawings. But the
drawings depict parts that COULD NOT FIT TOGETHER. The extent of the
errors made it clear that they were not simple typos -- they appeared
to be for a fuselage OTHER than the one shown in the drawings. This
lead to an interesting series of exchanges between Richard and I in
2003, because if you modified the carry-throughs to attach to the
fuselage, it caused interference between the landing gear or the
struts. So which did he adjust? He could offer no explanation, making
it painfully clear that he had NOT designed the airframe and had taken
measurements from at least two airframes in creating 'his' drawings,
which he then sold to the public at eighty bucks a whack. Waytago,
Richard.

Since the parts don't fit, the plane won't fly, which makes any
question of safety moot. But in the process of discovering that you'll
**** away a lot of money on metal that will end up being unusable.

I still have the file of drawings, should anyone be interested. But
which way you go with the corrections is up to you -- I abandoned the
project when it became obvious it was a scam.

-R.S.Hoover

wrote:

Since the parts don't fit, the plane won't fly, which makes any
question of safety moot. But in the process of discovering that you'll
**** away a lot of money on metal that will end up being unusable.

-R.S.Hoover


Well, if it won't fly then I guess it just won't fly...

Glad you opted out, Robert.

Richard Lamb wrote:


Well, if it won't fly then I guess it just won't fly...

Glad you opted out, Robert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

And that is exactly the kind of flippant, smart-assed response builders
got when they sought information about the errors in the drawings.

Nice job, Richard. You do yourself proud.

-R.S.Hoover

wrote
snip
I was trained to audit blueprints for errors but the errors in the
Parasol drawings will be obvious to all -- compare the dimensions of
the cabanes to the width of the fuselage, or the dimensions shown for
the landing gear/strut carry-throughs.
snip
Since the parts don't fit, the plane won't fly, which makes any
question of safety moot. But in the process of discovering that you'll
**** away a lot of money on metal that will end up being unusable.

Do how do these plans look? Does everything look like it would work, now?
--
Jim in NC