The Last Airplane

More Texas Parasol resources:

Yahoo Group for Texas Parasol. Richard posts there, frequently,
sniped at by several, and supported by several.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasp...guid=131192371

A builder making rapid progress, and making a number of very sensible
mods (including a flywheel end drive, aluminum ribs, no structural
attachments in highly stressed areas of the spar, etc..):

http://dktp.topcities.com/index.html

flybynightkarmarepair wrote:

IF you can weld, or come up with the cash for a pre-welded fuselage.
And I think 1/2 VW engines are a waste of time, me. Better dreamers
build the Double Eagle, IMHO.

http://www.doubleeagleairplane.com/

But if you don't weld, the Texas Parasol makes SOME sense. And if you
ignore the lift strut attachment details in the plans, and make the
front spar 2.25"...the wings look very quick to build. If you have a
DSL connection and about 2 hours, you can download the plans for
free. This package is sort of an easter basket, but includes a lot of
details that developed AFTER the initial plans release, and is, IMHO,
worth the time to download it an look it over. This is NOT, again,
IMHO, a First TIme Builder's project. Too many details are left
undeveloped.

http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/...et.02.11.2006/

Finally, Graham Lee's Miranda bears looking at. The aluminum tube
with gusset construction well proven on blizzards of his Nieuport
replicas in a cabin biplane. To the best of my knowledge though, no
one has yet built this design, and it is not exactly "minimal". I
haven't seen the plans for this one yet.

http://www.nieuports.com/index.asp?page=miranda

I can weld but it's been more than a few years since I was in good
practice. I downloaded the TP plans and if I can get my hands on Bob's
updates, I may consider building it. I like the idea of simple but I
also think a welded tube fuse is pretty simple too.

Right now I'm building a small business but after we relocate in a year
or 2 I expect to have the space to start building again. I had to scrap
my las project...

Tony

On Jul 26, 8:03 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

surely the best simplest 'last aeroplane' would be the open framework
Legal Eagle ultralight by Leonard Millholland.
it would have to be the most competent minimalist aircraft going.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Either of Leonard's designs would be the logical first-choice, his
welded fuselage being clearly superior with regard to strength vs
weight. Indeed, I have said as much -- many times -- when I was a
subscriber to the Legal Eagle Group. (*) But Leonard's design fails
the minimalist test by requiring not only a skilled weldor but a wide
range of tubing sizes. With the Chuck-Bird the only welding is
reduced to a couple of joints that could be done with an arc-welder
and a minimum of skill. By reducing the fuselage to a riveted, bolted
or even bonded structure, you've not only reduced the required skill-
level, you've opened up the range of accepted materials to such an
extent that virtually anyone should be able to lay hands upon suitable
'fuselage-stuff.' (As an experiment, I was able to fabricate a half-
scale fuselage structure using 3/8" square longerons and Kevlar roving
as the shear-web.)

-R.S.Hoover

PS -- (*) - Should you express an opinion that differs from that of
the moderator or principle users of a particular Group you will often
be 86'd or invited to take your opinions elsewhere. This form of Info
Nazism is quite common on the Internet since it is always done for the
'good of the Group,' etc. (In the case of the Legal Eagle, a couple
of the Groups 'leaders' pointed out that since I had not bought the
plans and was not building a Legal Eagle, my comments (which were
about engines) were seen as criticism of Leonard's efforts. They
weren't, but when someone makes it clear you are not welcome, the only
honorable thing to do is to drop out of the Group.)

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:07:32 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 26, 8:03 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

surely the best simplest 'last aeroplane' would be the open framework
Legal Eagle ultralight by Leonard Millholland.
it would have to be the most competent minimalist aircraft going.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Either of Leonard's designs would be the logical first-choice, his
welded fuselage being clearly superior with regard to strength vs
weight. Indeed, I have said as much -- many times -- when I was a
subscriber to the Legal Eagle Group. (*) But Leonard's design fails
the minimalist test by requiring not only a skilled weldor but a wide
range of tubing sizes. With the Chuck-Bird the only welding is
reduced to a couple of joints that could be done with an arc-welder
and a minimum of skill. By reducing the fuselage to a riveted, bolted
or even bonded structure, you've not only reduced the required skill-
level, you've opened up the range of accepted materials to such an
extent that virtually anyone should be able to lay hands upon suitable
'fuselage-stuff.' (As an experiment, I was able to fabricate a half-
scale fuselage structure using 3/8" square longerons and Kevlar roving
as the shear-web.)

-R.S.Hoover

PS -- (*) - Should you express an opinion that differs from that of
the moderator or principle users of a particular Group you will often
be 86'd or invited to take your opinions elsewhere. This form of Info
Nazism is quite common on the Internet since it is always done for the
'good of the Group,' etc. (In the case of the Legal Eagle, a couple
of the Groups 'leaders' pointed out that since I had not bought the
plans and was not building a Legal Eagle, my comments (which were
about engines) were seen as criticism of Leonard's efforts. They
weren't, but when someone makes it clear you are not welcome, the only
honorable thing to do is to drop out of the Group.)


I wouldnt worry about them Bob.
cheap has never been a criteria I've even considered in relation to
aviation.

structurally sound, design strength, margin of safety, flight
qualities, stall speed, Vne, structural cruising speed, glide ratio,
cg range, endurance and such are terms that interest me. oh and
fatigue life, particularly fatigue life is what interests me.
"free plan" is a criteria used by the incompetent.

Chuck Slusarzic is a stand out pioneer because his was the first fully
stress analysed ultralight. I wonder if the "Free Plans" types even
realise what that means.

Stealth Pilot

On Jul 27, 4:52 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

I wouldnt worry about them Bob.
cheap has never been a criteria I've even considered in relation to
aviation.
----------------------------------------------------------------

That simply means you are wealthy.

The MEDIAN income in the United States is about $28,000 per year.

When the President of the EAA refers to one of Van's kits as
'inexpensive' and the Lycoming to power it as 'affordable' he's
saying homebuilt aviation is only for the wealthy. It's not, but the
bureaucracy that controls the EAA has moved so far from our roots that
they now treat an affordable homebuilt as a special case, something to
be singled-out and pointed to: See? Even poor people can build
airplanes.

About half of my mail comes from those 'poor people.' 'Cheap' is a
valid factor in their homebuilt equation because they have no other
choice.

Being poor does not mean being dumb, any more than flying on the cheap
means an unsafe airframe or an unreliable engine. For the most part,
what it means is that you don't have the option of BUYING solutions to
the problems you encounter; you will have to figure them out for
yourself, perhaps with a bit of help from your friends.

So they solve the problems and go flying. But don't expect to see
these people at Oshkosh or other EAA-sponsored fly-in's. They have
been priced out of the market. Fortunately, there are no traffic cops
in the sky and despite our growing population, America remains mostly
empty space.

-R.S.Hoover

I had looked at the TP for most of the same reasons everyone else
had.The idea of a low cost,simple build,( I may be wrong here )UL was
interesting. Contacting the group,I found out the UL part was nearly
impossible. I chose a larger ac,designed by someone with 50 years of
experience designing homebuilts that became certified and have again
become homebuilts. I decided with costs spread out over 5-6 years and
a VW powerplant made it affordable,and inexpensive to operate.I know
the design is sound, all the numbers have been run, the only thing
that is yet to be determined are my skills and judgement in
construction.

Jodel D 18 builder,
Griff

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:08:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 27, 4:52 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

I wouldnt worry about them Bob.
cheap has never been a criteria I've even considered in relation to
aviation.
----------------------------------------------------------------

That simply means you are wealthy.

The MEDIAN income in the United States is about $28,000 per year.

When the President of the EAA refers to one of Van's kits as
'inexpensive' and the Lycoming to power it as 'affordable' he's
saying homebuilt aviation is only for the wealthy. It's not, but the
bureaucracy that controls the EAA has moved so far from our roots that
they now treat an affordable homebuilt as a special case, something to
be singled-out and pointed to: See? Even poor people can build
airplanes.

About half of my mail comes from those 'poor people.' 'Cheap' is a
valid factor in their homebuilt equation because they have no other
choice.

Being poor does not mean being dumb, any more than flying on the cheap
means an unsafe airframe or an unreliable engine. For the most part,
what it means is that you don't have the option of BUYING solutions to
the problems you encounter; you will have to figure them out for
yourself, perhaps with a bit of help from your friends.

So they solve the problems and go flying. But don't expect to see
these people at Oshkosh or other EAA-sponsored fly-in's. They have
been priced out of the market. Fortunately, there are no traffic cops
in the sky and despite our growing population, America remains mostly
empty space.

-R.S.Hoover

Bob I stuffed up.
the design I actually meant was Izon's Airbike. it looks to me to be a
suberb minimalist aircraft.
the one I quoted in my brain fart looks a little less engineered to
me.

the texas parasol has known structural problems so why people overlook
that just because the plans are free is a mystery to me.

for the poor people you have the Turbulent files I sent. that aircraft
has a 40 year history of safe use. you can give away copies of the
stuff whenever you think it will help someone.

A set of Corby Starlet plans in Australia is $250 form John Corby
himself. for that you get an aircraft that didnt win a design contest
(it was a runner up) was flown to second place in a national
australian aerobatic contest and has a 30 year history of safe use all
over Australia. it was designed by an aeronautical engineer( John
Corby) who did a full stress evaluation on it.

if guys want wooden aircraft which can use alternative timbers the
Druine Turbulent is a good choice. it has a cantilever wing that is
light years ahead of a Bowers Flybaby in aeronautical sophistication.
The Corby Starlet may be less build effort.

$250 in the entire cost of an aircraft is something that I see as an
investment if the plans I'm buying are backed by full structural
analysis.

An engineer is someone who can build for $10 what any idiot can for
$100.
I'm a $10 aviator. I'm not poor. I'm an engineer. oddly I build the
same way the poor people do by choice. theirs is a far more
interesting path and they have nothing to be ashamed of for treading
it. they should tread the path as an engineer though with head held
high.

keep up the good work.
Stealth Pilot