Which Ultralight to build.....

There is a set of Team Air-bike plans for sale on Ebay, a day and a
half to go. http://tinyurl.com/yuftat


On Jun 12, 12:12 am, Richard Riley wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:20:00 GMT, cavelamb himself

wrote:

Designed by Barnaby! Cool.

It's a joint design. I happily take second billing.



From that little picture it looks to have a single surface wing,

Yes, it does.

but the planform???

Yeah, ain't it, though?

In thinking about it, I think plans built and easily folding wing are
the conflict. Folding wings usually need fairly complex fittings at
the wing roots - the kind of things that are beyond people working
with a drill press and bandsaw. I'm not saying it can't be done, just
that it's one reason we don't see them often.

In article , Richard Riley says...

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:20:00 GMT, cavelamb himself
wrote:


Designed by Barnaby! Cool.

It's a joint design. I happily take second billing.


From that little picture it looks to have a single surface wing,

Yes, it does.

but the planform???

Yeah, ain't it, though?

In thinking about it, I think plans built and easily folding wing are
the conflict. Folding wings usually need fairly complex fittings at
the wing roots - the kind of things that are beyond people working
with a drill press and bandsaw. I'm not saying it can't be done, just
that it's one reason we don't see them often.

Hi Richard

Give me a call I'm a little familiar with your plane and think you might be able
to fold it using some off the shelf brackets used on U/L's. Hard to build but
cheap enough to buy.

ciao

Chuck S

On Jun 6, 1:25 am, "WC" wrote:
"Montblack" wrote in message

...

("patrick mitchel" wrote)
how bout the flitplane from ed fisher

http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/flitplane.html
The Flitplane

Looks like a good possibility, especially for a first attempt. What are the
pros and cons?

Searching for plans, various places are selling them (Raceair, Midwest
Engineering..) Who owns the rights?

WayneC

Here's another possibility:

http://www.flyhummel.com/ca-2.htm

I know nothing about it beyond what's on the web.

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...
The Kolb FireFly is perfect for what you ask.
Plane has a folding wing system.
http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/ultralights.html




I agree the Kolb looks perfect. While looking at the "conventional" looking
aircraft I look at the Firefly and think that they managed to get the most
for the least weight. I may even break down and go kit if I can scratch
enough money together all at once. I'm still holding out for plans. The
Flitplane looks good but I can't figure out who owns the rights to it. I've
sent out e-mails asking for current quotes/information etc and have received
no responce. The Air bike looks awsome also but who owns the rights. I can
get some plans online...If I build a plane from these can I fly it? (if they
are un-autherized copies, whats the deal?) Hell, I can't even get a answer
from Weedhopper even though they are listed in the 2007 Kitplane buyers
guide (but weedhoppers web site is like two years behind....) ....

Anyway, thanks for the ideas.... I'm still hunting...

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Jun 6, 12:40 am, "Montblack" Y4_NOT!...
wrote:
("Morgans" wrote)

Then, you get to the definition of the span to weight requirements of
a
motorglider, which are not easy to meet. I do not think it meets the
requirements for a motorglider, by a long shot.

(Reposted in case someone didn't want to slog through my other post.)

As a 'Motorglider':
(ii) Maximum weight does not exceed 850 kg (1874 pounds);
and
(iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared (w/b2) does not exceed 3.0
kg/M2 (0.62 lb./ft.2).

500 lbs MTOW
and
28.5 ft wingspan = 812 (wing span squared)

500 lbs MTOW (/) 812 = 0.61576 lb./ft.2

...which does not exceed 0.62!

So yes, it is a motorglider

...IF the MTOW is 500 lbs
...or we go with longer wings
...or we follow the first link. g

http://www.usppa.org/Resources/FARs/part103_far.htm
(Part 103)

Home Depot Ultralight: aka "Motor Glider
101"http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/homedepotultralight.html

Specifications:

Empty Weight: 254 lbs

Bull****.

First of all, since 254 lbs is the upper limit for FAR 103 any
supposed UL that is spec'ed at EXACLTY 254 lbs is suspect.

Secondly, when the first one was built (and have there been
any more?) the articles about it indicated it was much heavier.

How much does a 10 HP Tecumseh motor weigh, ~ 66 lb?
This plane has two of them, at least half the weight budget
is used by engines and props.

--

FF

Not so at all.

The point was that some subset of aircraft, which do not necessarily fit the
Part 103 definitions for Ultralight Vehicles, could fit the definitions for
self launching gliders. Therefore, those aircraft would also fit the pilot
requirements of self launching gliders--rather than the pilot requiremnets
of either Experimental Amateur Built or ELSA.

The extent to which that is usefull is not obvious to me at this moment.
However, it is intellectually interesting and the gliding performance as
well as the safety is almost certainly better than a primary glider.

As a concept, it certainly is a hoot!

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...


The point was that some subset of aircraft, which do not necessarily fit
the
Part 103 definitions for Ultralight Vehicles, could fit the definitions
for
self launching gliders. Therefore, those aircraft would also fit the
pilot
requirements of self launching gliders--rather than the pilot requiremnets
of either Experimental Amateur Built or ELSA.

The extent to which that is usefull is not obvious to me at this moment.
However, it is intellectually interesting and the gliding performance as
well as the safety is almost certainly better than a primary glider.

Peter,

To me the term "primary glider" define a specific type of glider which were
common in the 1920s and '30s.
http://www.bathurstsoaring.org.au/wg...es/primary.jpg
http://piccies.flybywire.org.uk/Glid.../PrimaryMe.jpg
Do you use the term in the same context?

I have seen a few in museums; however, haven't had the opportunity to fly
one. Maybe someday I'll build one.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:43:45 -0600, "Wayne Paul"
wrote:


To me the term "primary glider" define a specific type of glider which
were
common in the 1920s and '30s.
http://www.bathurstsoaring.org.au/wg...es/primary.jpg
http://piccies.flybywire.org.uk/Glid.../PrimaryMe.jpg
Do you use the term in the same context?

I have seen a few in museums; however, haven't had the opportunity to fly
one. Maybe someday I'll build one.

Do you know about Mike Sandlin's work?

http://home.att.net/~m--sandlin/bug.htm

Sure, I have been watching his progress for several years. However, I
really want to build a replica of one that flew prior to my birth. (And my
current age is "dirt +1.")

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

Would you be interested in a biplane? I have drawings for The SR-! Hornet. it
is a sweet plane on about 30 horse and IS a legal UL. Tube and fabric.


WC wrote:
OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen from
my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good design
for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a good
part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.

Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
close)

Built from plans rather then kit

Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)

Prefer a high wing

Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)

Prefer tractors to pushers

Big wheels a plus (for field operations)

I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a J-3
kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it naked
so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep it simple
and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful rather then on
ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the Dream Classic
or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about the Legal
Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure Aventura UL
(even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take the float
allowance flying boat?

Looking forward to your advice;

WayneC

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...built/200706/1

On Jun 16, 12:38 am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
wrote in message



about:

Home Depot Ultralight: aka "Motor Glider 101

"http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/homedepotultralight.html

In an earlier contribution to the thread, Mr
Montblack kindly provided for us some of
the FAA regs for what qualifies as a motorglider
and applied those to the "Home Depot Motorglider"
thus:


(ii) Maximum weight does not exceed 850 kg (1874 pounds);
and
(iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared
(w/b2) does not exceed 3.0 kg/M2 (0.62 lb./ft.2).

The "Home Depot Motorglider is spec'd as"

500 lbs MTOW
and
28.5 ft wingspan = 812 (wing span squared)

500 lbs MTOW (/) 812 = 0.61576 lb./ft.2

...which does not exceed 0.62!

So yes, it is a motorglider

But, as you may recall I don't believe the
aircraft qualifies as a FAR 103 ultralight
because it is much heavier than the
currently published weight. Since it
is so close the the limit of 0.62, I
also doubt that is qualifies as a
motorglider.

It may be that this is not the same aircraft as
the prototype, It may be a lighter version but
I really doubt it.



...

The point was that some subset of aircraft, which do not necessarily fit the
Part 103 definitions for Ultralight Vehicles, could fit the definitions for
self launching gliders. Therefore, those aircraft would also fit the pilot
requirements of self launching gliders--rather than the pilot requiremnets
of either Experimental Amateur Built or ELSA.

The extent to which that is usefull is not obvious to me at this moment.
However, it is intellectually interesting and the gliding performance as
well as the safety is almost certainly better than a primary glider.

As a concept, it certainly is a hoot!

Yes, that was the point.

The usefulness is suggested by the observation that
motorgliders are allowed two passengers, Ultralights,
only one, but even more by what the FAA does
not say about motorgliders. In particular, there is
no specified restriction on:

1) Retractable landing gear, indeed these are commonplace
on gliders.

2) Floats!

3) Number of engines!

4) Stall speed.

5) Top speed.

6) Size of the fuel tank (Other than MTOW).

Perhaps these are not restricted because it
didn't occur to the folks writing the regs that
anyone would be crazy enough to try to build
a fast, amphibious, multi-engined, cross-country
capable _glider_. Sort of like it didn't occur
to the folks writing the NFL rule book that
anyone would want to hike the ball to to a
quarterback or a punter standing 5 or 10 yards
behind the line of scrimmage. Since it wasn't
forbidden, somebody was crazy enough to try
it. Now everybody thinks that's normal.

--

FF

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...


The point was that some subset of aircraft, which do not necessarily fit
the
Part 103 definitions for Ultralight Vehicles, could fit the definitions
for
self launching gliders. Therefore, those aircraft would also fit the
pilot
requirements of self launching gliders--rather than the pilot
requiremnets
of either Experimental Amateur Built or ELSA.

The extent to which that is usefull is not obvious to me at this moment.
However, it is intellectually interesting and the gliding performance as
well as the safety is almost certainly better than a primary glider.

Peter,

To me the term "primary glider" define a specific type of glider which
were
common in the 1920s and '30s.
http://www.bathurstsoaring.org.au/wg...es/primary.jpg
http://piccies.flybywire.org.uk/Glid.../PrimaryMe.jpg
Do you use the term in the same context?

I have seen a few in museums; however, haven't had the opportunity to fly
one. Maybe someday I'll build one.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder



Yes, that is what I meant.

Peter