![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
And my apologies to the rest of the group for airing
dirty laundry in public... Richard |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Morgans wrote:
Do how do these plans look? Does everything look like it would work, now? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Jim, The drawings Richard posted are the same garbage he was flogging for $80 a copy four years ago. The cabanes and the carry-throughs for the LG & struts appear to be for a fuselage that is 24" wide whereas the fuselage as shown is only 22". The drawings do not contain enough data to develop the angles of either the axle-carrier cluster or the rear LG 'gooseneck' where it attaches to the carry-throughs. The LG yoke does not match the hole locations shown for its attachment to the front carry-through and if the carry-throughs are attached as shown then either the location for the landing gear attachment OR the strut attachment will be in error since doing it one way violates the rule for edge-distance whilst doing it the other requires re-locating the carry-through... which throws out the locations for all of the other structural members in that portion of the fuselage. The point here is that Richard's statement about flying a plane built from those drawings is pure Texas bull****. He built an airplane and it flew but when the errors became evident and several of us asked him to provide various dimensions from that airplane he simply refused to do so. Rather curious behavior for the 'designer' of an airplane, don't you think? Work it out for yourself, Jim. Take your yo-yo and a piecea cardboard and simply lay-out the forward carry-through. The errors are immediate obvious and on the surface, don't look too serious. Now try resolving them. You've got the point where the carry-thrus attach to the lower longerons and that's pretty much fixed because you've already fabricated the side-frames. Now you've got to accommodate the LG yoke, the landing gear leg and the strut attachment. That's where you'll run into conflict, espeically so if you've already drilled the carry-throughs... which are now junk because the holes are in the wrong locations. (Along with those four cabanes, if you bent them according to the plans.) So what are you going to move? The fasteners for the landing gear legs must ALIGN between the front & rear carry-throughs, otherwise the legs won't pivot. But the flanges of the forward carry-throughs are NOT parallel to each other because of the curvature of the lower longeron -- you'll run out of edge-distance before you get the legs to align WITHOUT interference with either the longeron or the strut-end. Adjust any one of the errors to fit and the result will create a conflict with the other two points of attachment. And we're looking at some significant loads here; forward wing strut, forward landing gear leg, all of which goes into the carry-throughs then into the longeron attachment. You wanna GUESS at the dimesions? Because that's what it boils down to. This is all simple geometry, Jim, right there in front of you on the drawings. Richard finally admitted that he more-or-less built the landing gear in-place, which means he KNEW the drawings were bull****. So what did he change? What were the dimensions of the finished structure? And that's where he goes all coy and sez he'll leave it up to you to figure out. Now isn't that cute. Will it fly? Of course it will fly! Lookit how many 'Chuck Birds' are already flying. But the plans Richard drew up simply don't make sense and he's obviously incapable of correcting them. Designer my ass. -R.S.Hoover |
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 |