Texas Parasol Plans...

I was going to let this slide, but every time I read it. It just
****es me off more. I am not one of the Canadian group. But I bought
a set of plans from Richard with his recomendations that it was for a
first time builder, and a good choice for a direct drive VW engine.
Come to find out its not either...!!!!!!!!

The problem isn't the Canadian group that Richard blames for all his
problems. Its Richard himself. He is his own worst enemy. And this
recent post is another example of how Richard's view of reality is
shall we say cloudy at best..........

For those that don't know Richard,,,,, He is on mental disabilty for
his service in Vietnam. And has been for years.

Richard didn't DESIGN the Texas Parasol, Chuck Beason did along with
a group of other builders flyers in the San Antonio area of Texas.....
Richard wasn't one of them. Since Richard was on disabiltiy he
started hanging around Chuck's shop and Chuck took a liking to him and
let him help build complete planes to sell to people. Somewhere along
the line. Richard became computer literate, and did CAD drawings from
measurements of Chucks planes. I don't know if Richard screwed Chuck
B. But Chuck B. told me over the phone that Richard did. And several
people in the area I talked to personally on the phone feel Richard
screwed Chuck... For the first few years Richard sold plans, those on
the internet he let everyone believe he was the one that designed the
plane. When in fact there wasn't a single part of the plane that
Richard designed. And to top it off, when the spar debate came up.
Richard sold the rights to the Texas Parasol to Ted F. of sirus
aviation. All in all a sick joke kind of thing.


Richard in January of this year on this newsgroup said he calculated
the max gross load of 650 lbs. and the thread is in the archives.

Richard's problem and the problem with the spars is Chuck designed the
plane to be buillt light using the smaller 2 stroke engines.......
Richard wanted the Texas Parasol to be all things to all
builders........

And thats were the controversy comes in.

The plans, call for 2 inch by .058 inch thick front tube spars.....
Herbert Beaujon a ligitimate designer says this wing is a 500 lb max
gross wing..... NOT 650 lbs that Richard first claimed to his plans
holders, and future VW engine users. THATS a HUGE difference.... When
confronted with this information. Richard would not reveal how he came
about with the 650 lb number. But INSTEAD showing how he came up with
the number Richard reduced the max gross weight of the Texas Paraso to
600 lbs instead.... Also Richard refused to do a wing load test.
And he gave the exact same response as above. ", but there are
several dozen of theseplanes _flying_ for over 20 years now. Doc, HARR
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" END QUOTE. WTF kind of answer is that
when there is a legimate saftey concern. When I personally asked how
Doc Harr's wings were built. Richard WOULD NOT reply, I assume
because he didn't know how Harr's wings were built.....

Come to find out. Several of Chuck B.s orginal birds had been built
with a longer wing span, and shorter chord. Other pilots had noticed
the "gulling" of the front spar and had added flying wires to that area
of the front spar much like the king post ULS do.....which adds
signicant strenth to the spar. Richard never mentioned this to any of
his builders. He also never mentioned untill pressure was put on him.
That just maybe, not a single airplane had ever been built with the
wing design that was called for in the plans... All were
different.....Richard didn't like Chucks longer wing. He didn't like
the flying wires either, hence he didn't tell anyone.

So not being able to get any strait answers from Richard, about
exactly how Doc Harrs wings were built, and not being able to get
Richard to do a load test on his own wings, to confirm his 600 lb mas
gross weight.

The Candian group set up there own spar load test, under the direction
of an aero engineer. The aero engineer said the wing is a 500 lb max
gross wing. but if its loaded to 2 G's assuming a 600 lb max its going
to fail........... And low and behold it failed at 2 G's... and
PROVED the wing shown in Richard's Texas Parasol drawings are 500 lb
max gross

Confronted with this knowlege. Richard threw up his hands discussed
and just disappeared from the internet until reappering here a couple
of months ago. spouting the same bull**** about "his design" grossing
650 lbs

What this dirty laundry is all about is a guy that took someone elses
design for a lite 500 lb gross plane using light rotax engines and,
claiming it as his own, and marketing it to a group of folks claiming
it now can use a VW engine, 12 gal of fuel and fly a 200 lb pilot on
the same 500 lb gross wing........


And just another fact Richard never built a plane from his plans as he
said...... he built a longer plane by one bay., and maybe with these
wings, maybe with different wings..... I have documented persoanl
emails saying he built it two different ways. I think it makes a
difference as to what he has had to smoke, drink or medications he is
was taking at the time a question was asked......

For reference on why the 2 inch tube spars are a concern

Chuck Slusarczyk CSG HAWK uses 2.25 inch front spar, and so does the
Rans S-4. Both high wing single place planes..... Chuck S. can
verifiy his own max gross on those 2.25 inch spars, and how that was
derived..... Both planes use max Rotax 503 engines weights some 60 lbs
lighter than the direct drive VW.

BTW Chuck S. I think I would stay as far away from Richard Lamb as
possible... In doing research on Richard I came accross a post
referring to HIS LATEST DESIGN posted to the Romance Chat newsgroup. in
January of 2006. Sounds a lot like to me one of Bruce Kings BK 1.1
also from the San Antonio TX area.
Richard seems to use that word DESIGN rather loosely

Monty Graves

Quote from Richard.
"I haven't cut any metal on the latest design.
But I've done a whole lot of drawing on it.
(Not much else to do at the moment)


Some of the sketches are posted at
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/


I've got two details left to clean up.


One is the attachment of the landing gear.
I was trying to work it out so that the legs
stay on the airframe if the wings are removed.
It would make things a lot easier to live with.


But there turns out to be a lot of mechanical
complexity in doing it that way. The center
part of the wing would have to protrude far
enough outside the airframe that we'd have a
challenge in making the wing pieces line up
exactly right (OK, not all that hard, but a
lot of extra complication).


So it looks like the gear legs will be under
the wing, and a simple plywood cradle for the
fuselage solves the "move it" problem.


The other challenge involves the design of the
tail. This one ain't no baby buggy! As is, I
am projecting 160 MPH cruise (on 4 gallons per
hour fuel burn!)


I'm working out how to build the tail so that the
stabilizer (normally the fixed surface) can be
adjusted (in flight) to provide longitudinal trim
force without a lot of extra drag to slow it down.


This is not unusual on larger aircraft, but on one
so small (and it is TINY), it is a real challenge.
(Extra weight that far back is a killer!)


Estimated cost for the thing is about 4 grand.
(except for the bubble canopy - might be another
500-800 or so there. No valid quotes yet.)
Not too bad though.


Well, enough of that.


Let's go find a sucker to sploosh!


Richard

In article .com, Monty Graves
says...


Chuck Slusarczyk CSG HAWK uses 2.25 inch front spar, and so does the
Rans S-4. Both high wing single place planes..... Chuck S. can
verifiy his own max gross on those 2.25 inch spars, and how that was
derived..... Both planes use max Rotax 503 engines weights some 60 lbs
lighter than the direct drive VW.


That's correct,our Single seat Hawk has 2 1/4" dia spars and our 2 seaters have
a 3" dia spar. Back when the original was designed we first designed the wing
and sized the spars based on a plus 6 g ultimate load factor.We then
substantiated the designed wing with actual load tests.We used a lift
distribution for a rectangular wing to determine the loads spanwise .Then since
it was a 2 spar wing the load was divided chordwise at 70% on the front spar and
30% on the rear spar. After the sandbag tests we found we were within about 3%
of the designed load.

In my humble opinion the reason we don't see many wing failures with wings that
I consider under designed. Is the fact that the light wing loading and inability
of these planes to maintain energy prevents them from pulling more then about 3
g's before they stall. But that's just my opinion I don't want to start a "spar
wars" episode :-)

See ya

Chuck S

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article .com, Monty Graves

In my humble opinion the reason we don't see many wing failures with wings that
I consider under designed. Is the fact that the light wing loading and inability
of these planes to maintain energy prevents them from pulling more then about 3
g's before they stall. But that's just my opinion I don't want to start a "spar
wars" episode :-)

See ya

Chuck S

Yep.
And I have pointed that out before, but nobody wanted to hear (or believe) it.
That's not how "real" airplanes work, so it was just another "lie".

Bottom line is that I'm simply sick and tired of the bickering and back
biting, and do not wish to play any more...

I'm not going to go into a long tirade against Chuck Beeson.
He was once my best friend. Those days are long past.
I respect him for what he has accomplished.
It's a hell of a piece of work he's done.

But ALL of us (Me, Sonny, Doc, Paul, Charlie, the Longs, his wife, and every
body else) have all walked away from him. And for good reason. Since I'm the
only one of the bunch who is an "emotionally disturbed Viet Nam Vet", maybe,
just maybe, there's more to it than "me".

Whether that fits with anybody's close held beliefs is simply not important
to me any more.

Now that's about as plain as I can put it folks.

Richard

Monty, I'm glad you made this intervention here. The Texas Parasol always
attracted me as a project after my actual plane (CH701) is finished, just
for the sake of enjoying building something.

I downloaded the plans from Matronic last week and I was just going to send
Richard $30.00 for his CD or DVD.

As of NOW the files are DELETED and you just saved me $30.00.

Thanks
Jean-Paul (back to the 701 construction) Roy


"Monty Graves" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was going to let this slide, but every time I read it. It just
****es me off more. I am not one of the Canadian group. But I bought
a set of plans from Richard with his recomendations that it was for a
first time builder, and a good choice for a direct drive VW engine.
Come to find out its not either...!!!!!!!!

The problem isn't the Canadian group that Richard blames for all his
problems. Its Richard himself. He is his own worst enemy. And this
recent post is another example of how Richard's view of reality is
shall we say cloudy at best..........

For those that don't know Richard,,,,, He is on mental disabilty for
his service in Vietnam. And has been for years.

Richard didn't DESIGN the Texas Parasol, Chuck Beason did along with
a group of other builders flyers in the San Antonio area of Texas.....
Richard wasn't one of them. Since Richard was on disabiltiy he
started hanging around Chuck's shop and Chuck took a liking to him and
let him help build complete planes to sell to people. Somewhere along
the line. Richard became computer literate, and did CAD drawings from
measurements of Chucks planes. I don't know if Richard screwed Chuck
B. But Chuck B. told me over the phone that Richard did. And several
people in the area I talked to personally on the phone feel Richard
screwed Chuck... For the first few years Richard sold plans, those on
the internet he let everyone believe he was the one that designed the
plane. When in fact there wasn't a single part of the plane that
Richard designed. And to top it off, when the spar debate came up.
Richard sold the rights to the Texas Parasol to Ted F. of sirus
aviation. All in all a sick joke kind of thing.


Richard in January of this year on this newsgroup said he calculated
the max gross load of 650 lbs. and the thread is in the archives.

Richard's problem and the problem with the spars is Chuck designed the
plane to be buillt light using the smaller 2 stroke engines.......
Richard wanted the Texas Parasol to be all things to all
builders........

And thats were the controversy comes in.

The plans, call for 2 inch by .058 inch thick front tube spars.....
Herbert Beaujon a ligitimate designer says this wing is a 500 lb max
gross wing..... NOT 650 lbs that Richard first claimed to his plans
holders, and future VW engine users. THATS a HUGE difference.... When
confronted with this information. Richard would not reveal how he came
about with the 650 lb number. But INSTEAD showing how he came up with
the number Richard reduced the max gross weight of the Texas Paraso to
600 lbs instead.... Also Richard refused to do a wing load test.
And he gave the exact same response as above. ", but there are
several dozen of theseplanes _flying_ for over 20 years now. Doc, HARR
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" END QUOTE. WTF kind of answer is that
when there is a legimate saftey concern. When I personally asked how
Doc Harr's wings were built. Richard WOULD NOT reply, I assume
because he didn't know how Harr's wings were built.....

Come to find out. Several of Chuck B.s orginal birds had been built
with a longer wing span, and shorter chord. Other pilots had noticed
the "gulling" of the front spar and had added flying wires to that area
of the front spar much like the king post ULS do.....which adds
signicant strenth to the spar. Richard never mentioned this to any of
his builders. He also never mentioned untill pressure was put on him.
That just maybe, not a single airplane had ever been built with the
wing design that was called for in the plans... All were
different.....Richard didn't like Chucks longer wing. He didn't like
the flying wires either, hence he didn't tell anyone.

So not being able to get any strait answers from Richard, about
exactly how Doc Harrs wings were built, and not being able to get
Richard to do a load test on his own wings, to confirm his 600 lb mas
gross weight.

The Candian group set up there own spar load test, under the direction
of an aero engineer. The aero engineer said the wing is a 500 lb max
gross wing. but if its loaded to 2 G's assuming a 600 lb max its going
to fail........... And low and behold it failed at 2 G's... and
PROVED the wing shown in Richard's Texas Parasol drawings are 500 lb
max gross

Confronted with this knowlege. Richard threw up his hands discussed
and just disappeared from the internet until reappering here a couple
of months ago. spouting the same bull**** about "his design" grossing
650 lbs

What this dirty laundry is all about is a guy that took someone elses
design for a lite 500 lb gross plane using light rotax engines and,
claiming it as his own, and marketing it to a group of folks claiming
it now can use a VW engine, 12 gal of fuel and fly a 200 lb pilot on
the same 500 lb gross wing........


And just another fact Richard never built a plane from his plans as he
said...... he built a longer plane by one bay., and maybe with these
wings, maybe with different wings..... I have documented persoanl
emails saying he built it two different ways. I think it makes a
difference as to what he has had to smoke, drink or medications he is
was taking at the time a question was asked......

For reference on why the 2 inch tube spars are a concern

Chuck Slusarczyk CSG HAWK uses 2.25 inch front spar, and so does the
Rans S-4. Both high wing single place planes..... Chuck S. can
verifiy his own max gross on those 2.25 inch spars, and how that was
derived..... Both planes use max Rotax 503 engines weights some 60 lbs
lighter than the direct drive VW.

BTW Chuck S. I think I would stay as far away from Richard Lamb as
possible... In doing research on Richard I came accross a post
referring to HIS LATEST DESIGN posted to the Romance Chat newsgroup. in
January of 2006. Sounds a lot like to me one of Bruce Kings BK 1.1
also from the San Antonio TX area.
Richard seems to use that word DESIGN rather loosely

Monty Graves

Quote from Richard.
"I haven't cut any metal on the latest design.
But I've done a whole lot of drawing on it.
(Not much else to do at the moment)


Some of the sketches are posted at
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/


I've got two details left to clean up.


One is the attachment of the landing gear.
I was trying to work it out so that the legs
stay on the airframe if the wings are removed.
It would make things a lot easier to live with.


But there turns out to be a lot of mechanical
complexity in doing it that way. The center
part of the wing would have to protrude far
enough outside the airframe that we'd have a
challenge in making the wing pieces line up
exactly right (OK, not all that hard, but a
lot of extra complication).


So it looks like the gear legs will be under
the wing, and a simple plywood cradle for the
fuselage solves the "move it" problem.


The other challenge involves the design of the
tail. This one ain't no baby buggy! As is, I
am projecting 160 MPH cruise (on 4 gallons per
hour fuel burn!)


I'm working out how to build the tail so that the
stabilizer (normally the fixed surface) can be
adjusted (in flight) to provide longitudinal trim
force without a lot of extra drag to slow it down.


This is not unusual on larger aircraft, but on one
so small (and it is TINY), it is a real challenge.
(Extra weight that far back is a killer!)


Estimated cost for the thing is about 4 grand.
(except for the bubble canopy - might be another
500-800 or so there. No valid quotes yet.)
Not too bad though.


Well, enough of that.


Let's go find a sucker to sploosh!


Richard

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:29:05 -0500, "Jean-Paul Roy"
wrote:

Monty, I'm glad you made this intervention here. The Texas Parasol always
attracted me as a project after my actual plane (CH701) is finished, just
for the sake of enjoying building something.

I downloaded the plans from Matronic last week and I was just going to send
Richard $30.00 for his CD or DVD.

As of NOW the files are DELETED and you just saved me $30.00.

Thanks
Jean-Paul (back to the 701 construction) Roy

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.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

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

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 06:35:38 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:



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

either take the plans off the internet
or
publish all the details relating to their structural deficiencies
along with the plans
or
get the design structurally fixed

then you can have a truce.
another death from those plans and you will be crucified.

Stealth Pilot

either take the plans off the internet
or
publish all the details relating to their structural deficiencies
along with the plans
or
get the design structurally fixed

then you can have a truce.
another death from those plans and you will be crucified.

Stealth Pilot

HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT A.N.Y.O.N.E HAS DIED AS A RESULT OF
ANY STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS

I RESENT THE HELL OUT OF THAT, YOU BLOODY STALKING MORON!

POST YOUR LONG LIST OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIED FROM _ANY_
PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRETY OF THE PLANE.

MAY I KINDLY SUGGEST YOU GO **** UP A ROPE.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 06:35:38 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:

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.

Richerd,
You are getting ahead of yourself.
Forget the pictures you saw in the Rec Av magazine. Those were
projects some guys built. They were NOT the tests done by Gary. Gary
did the tests on a wing BUILT ACCORDING TO PLANS, and IT FAILED THE
TEST.

The other improvements I noted should/could be made HAVE NEVER BEEN
IMPLEMENTED to the best of my knowledge.

As for the extruded aluminum truss construction, using the sizes
listed in the plans, and the rivets specified, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to achieve proper hole edge clearances in MANY locations.
I know, for an ultralight there are no inspections, so you can get
away with it - but you are NOT building to acceptable aircraft
standards if proper edge clearances can not be maintained.

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.)

Then put the D@%&D thing in the plans, already.


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 Texas Parasol is just an angle aluminum Baby Ace in concept -
shortened and with bigger tailfeathers to compensate.
Apparently you built yours one station longer, making it the same
dimensions as the Ace. The wings are the same dimensions and planform
as well, from what I understand. So the CONCEPT is a good one.
The plane CAN be built as a safe, economical, fun-to-fly plane - but
NOT as per plans.
Fix the inadequacies (which means admitting to them first) and make
the plans accurate enough to build from, and you'll have all kinds of
support.
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.

Then document the modifications and put them in the plans.

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.

That sounds like a good idea.

I have personally flown both of my parasols (well duh!) and several of the
others.

But tell everyone how you built yours. It was not strictly to plans.
What about the leave in the spar??

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?

A FULL truce is as close as the corrections to the plans. Just because
nobody's killed themselves YET does not mean the plans, as they exist
today, are safe. By your admission, many builders ARE making changes.

Richard

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

Clare, thanks for taking a reasonable position and tone.
Muchly appreciated.
I'll reply as best I can, ok?

Richerd,
You are getting ahead of yourself.
Forget the pictures you saw in the Rec Av magazine. Those were
projects some guys built. They were NOT the tests done by Gary. Gary
did the tests on a wing BUILT ACCORDING TO PLANS, and IT FAILED THE
TEST.

That was not my take from the article, but if I'm wrong on that point,
I'll offer an apology.

The Test:

I've never been offered any description of the set up - only the conclusions.

As I understand it, it was assumed that the front spar would take 100% of the
load. That is, of course, true IF the spar is located at the center of
pressure - as a normal wing is arranged.

But the wing in question is obviously NOT arranged that way.
The spars are at the leading and trailing edges while the center of pressure
remains back around 30% to 40% of the chord.

The airfoil used is a Clark-Y. There is a minor deviation at the leading edge
due to the 2" diameter of the leading edge being a bit larger than the radius
shown in the tables.

At zero degrees AoA the CP is at 40%.
At 12 degrees AoA it has moved forward to 30%

In my work, I've ASSUMED that the front spar would only receive 70% of the
total load. That makes a tremendous difference in the amount of deflection
of the spar, and, seems to be much closer to what we observe in the actual
structure in flight.

I think this also explains why Beeson could build a wing using .035 wall spars
tubes. My crude work on those indicates they wouldn't survive 2 G's at 100%
load. But they do - although with noticeable deflection under load in flight.

Just to be through, the wing structure should also be mounted at, in this
case, 12 degrees nose down (it's inverted, remember) to account for the
angle of attack at the test load. This will have the effect of pulling the
load vector forward some, but the magnitude is tiny compared to a 30% offset.


The other improvements I noted should/could be made HAVE NEVER BEEN
IMPLEMENTED to the best of my knowledge.

Hey, I'm not saying it's a bad idea.
Like you pointed out there are some real benefits to it.

Rivet heads under the fabric are a pain to work around.
On my first parasol (PBJ) I use a thin piece of wood molding on the
outboard side of the top longeron to avoid that.

On the second one I just used flush rivet - and avoided the problem
without adding the extra weight.


As for the extruded aluminum truss construction, using the sizes
listed in the plans, and the rivets specified, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to achieve proper hole edge clearances in MANY locations.
I know, for an ultralight there are no inspections, so you can get
away with it - but you are NOT building to acceptable aircraft
standards if proper edge clearances can not be maintained.


The edge margins for thin sheet are well known and easily found.
I'm not having much luck locating the tables for Lugs on short notice.

The difference, as I recall, is the relative thickness of the metal being
bolted or riveted. Those extrusions are five times thicker that .025 sheet
metal.

But I'm still looking for it and will post it here when I find it.

Examining the results of some of the accidents, even the one straight in
on the nose fatality, you do not find broken rivets. The angles bent, but
seldom even break. In the bad one, the first bay of the fuselage truss was
crumpled up like an accordion.


The Texas Parasol is just an angle aluminum Baby Ace in concept -
shortened and with bigger tailfeathers to compensate.

It's a Texas airplane, guys. Texans just GOTTA have a lot of tail!

Apparently you built yours one station longer, making it the same
dimensions as the Ace. The wings are the same dimensions and planform
as well, from what I understand. So the CONCEPT is a good one.
The plane CAN be built as a safe, economical, fun-to-fly plane - but
NOT as per plans.

It's still quite a bit smaller than a Baby Ace.

The added 15 inches was for weight and balance purposed only.
A full dressed 2180 VW can weigh well over 200 pounds.
Compared to a light weight 2 stroke, that can create a - situation!

It was nearly TOO much extra tail arm as it was tough getting the CG
far enough _forward_ to stay in an acceptable range. I think we've
got it worked out though. Just had to come up with a lighter tail wheel
and leg.

But tell everyone how you built yours. It was not strictly to plans.
What about the leave in the spar??

I don't know where that rumor came from.
The wing on the new plane was built mainly according to the plans,
with the exception of boxing in the compression struts at the strut
attach bay. My reason for that was that the struts on this plane angle
in a bit at the fuselage end, creating a small compression load at the spar
ends. Probably not really necessary, but it made me feel better.

The internal sleeves are as per plans.

I also added a short .017 sheet metal cover over the leading edge.
I'd not think that's a structural thing - purely cosmetic.

A FULL truce is as close as the corrections to the plans. Just because
nobody's killed themselves YET does not mean the plans, as they exist
today, are safe. By your admission, many builders ARE making changes.

Well, I think that was more of an accusation than an admission, Clare.

I have had one friend who was killed in his.
It was a hard loss to deal with.
And it gave me pause to seriously reconsider.

Please believe me folks, if we had ANY experience that indicated there were
real structural problems with the thing, I'd be the first one to address them.

But the physical evidence simply does not support that claim.

At least - as shown in the plans - and not "improved" to be faster, heavier, etc.


Mission Requirements:

It is intended to be a very inexpensive, very light (ALmost UL), very slow,
SINGLE seat baby buggy.

Hand tools only - with very little welding (the main gear axle clusters) and
little if any machine work needed.

Relatively tolerant of "workmanship" issues.

Protection for the pilot in the advent of an accident. (be real, folks!)

Good flying qualities, and fun to fly.


If that's not what you want, this is not the airplane to build.

And I'd appreciate it if people would NOT try to make it into something it was
never intended to be.
There in lies the real danger.


Richard