Marty_d

Columbia XJL-1.

Bet that was a nasty surprise for the chook.

There was talk of a company in the US that made plastic fairings that slipped over the tubes, only needed a couple of screws to hold them to the tubes. Here's a link... http://www.uflyit.com/streamline_fairings.htm

Price isn't bad, $180 - $200 US for 4 lengths (8 ft each for the small, 10 ft for the large). Postage would probably be a bit of a bugger though, they sting you on the long items.

Hey Geoff,

I bought all the round tube for the struts so will probably use them unless another set of Sav ones comes up. Had thought of adding bent 0.016" 6061-T6 front and rear to form an airfoil shape,

but shying away from the idea of riveting to the strut in case it weakens it.

How did you go with the size of the Sav ones, did you have to shorten / lengthen or are they identical?

Cheers, Marty

Hi PhilHere are the pics of the wing mounts that l have made they are going in to savannah[ATTACH]23673[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]23674[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]23675[/ATTACH] wing struts .

cheers Geoff.

Is that what happens when you leave a Jab and a 337 in the same hangar overnight?

Haven't you got anything to do marty_d

I'm an old fashioned type and haven't got 3D CAD (but very impressed when one of you puts up some 3D plans!)

This is a 2-minute scribble of what I'm thinking of.

A float off a seaplane (obviously size/displacement/load/balance needs to be worked out). Couple of small floats at the tips. Aluminium "D-box" spar & leading edge - top of spar meets over the bike and the lower part clamps onto the bike using it as a stressed member. Rest of the wing dacron with slide in battens (or aluminium, doesn't really matter).

Looks like you have to push the bike backwards onto the craft in order to leave the fan shroud & drive mechanism fixed.

HITC, should've sold your landing craft idea to DARPA, they go in for tricky stuff like that. Failing that, the producers of the next James Bond film...

Frank, regarding the guy who test flew the WIG and it flipped - I would have thought an accurate scale model would have been a good idea to work out weight & balance first.

How about an add-on (like HITC's idea) but to fit a motorbike? You just drive your bike onto the hull and secure it with the rear wheel parked on a roller connected to the fan. A linkage for ailerons/rudder is secured to the handle bars. Use throttle and gears to get up to speed, lean to use ailerons and turn the handlebars to use rudder. Maybe elevator could be on a linkage secured to the pilot's chest... lean back to go up, lean forward to go down...

I've always dreamed of a flying motorbike... maybe ground effect is the way to go!

Just had a mental image of a flock of Hells Angels skimming across the water. Don't think it'd work with Harley's though.

I believe someone tried to set up a company to make WIG craft here in southern Tas a few years back. Didn't get off the ground. (pardon the pun).

I think they're a fantastic idea too.

The thing is, they're always flying right above their landing strip (as it were), so it really doesn't matter if your engine fails, apart from the lengthy paddle back to shore. The one shown in the video has a 70hp motorbike engine and they say it gets 300km range off 45 litres, which is a hell of a lot better than any conventional motorboat.

You'd save on instruments too... no altimeter needed!

On the down side, the view would get a bit boring.

Just in case anyone doesn't want to miss it, Planes was released in Oz last Thursday and it probably won't be at the cinema for long as the attendances have been rather poor.My wife and I went yesterday and we both loved it, still grinning! And that's quite something for my wife who, although she loves flying isn't so much 'into' the the planes themselves.

 

I'd really recommend seeing it in 3D although it's about double the entry price because it's a more worthy 3D subject than just about any other I would think and the effects are really excellent. And there's even an Aussie plane! Enjoy!

I read somewhere that they've customised this movie to the country it's released in - so there's an Australian actor doing one of the character's voice here, and local actors in Germany, France, Russia, Italy and Brazil doing the voice there.

Here it is... http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/jessica-marais-lands-role-to-give-planes-an-australian-accent-20130913-2tomx.html

Geez. You must be old Marty. Control line Combat. My All-American with Fox 35 .That was a while ago. Lambton Oval Newcastle.

Mine didn't have a name. I built it (which probably had a lot to do with the pitch instability), whacked an OS .25 on the front and flew it about twice before said pitch problems resulted in the plane trying to fly underground, which as we all know doesn't work too well. From then on I only made models with fuselages.

Marty,Scott never had any stability issues that I am aware of with the Opel and further more the scale model flew perfectly stable as well. It is a great tragedy that he lost his life from a structural spar failure that originated from a hole drilled through the spar structure to take the oxygen lines when he broke the world height record for ultralights. If Scott was with us today we would have seen many more Opels I am sure. It is a great pity when we lose people like Scott and Charles Legetti that all the development on their designs ceases.

Sorry if it appeared that I was picking holes - I wasn't. As I said it was only an impression. My first foray into model aircraft was control-line Combat aircraft which had a somewhat similar appearance to the Opel, and pitch stability was not one of their attributes.

It's always a tragedy when the people with the genius to innovate, and the courage to trust their designs, perish.

Another thing I like about this particular aircraft is the single retractable wheel. As with others - such as the Europa - it seems to make sense to have one beefed-up, retractable wheel on the centre line where you have the strength of the fuselage to mount directly to. Other obvious advantages: easily retracted, weight saving (even a beefed-up single leg is going to be lighter than 3 full sized legs/wheels), and if the wheel protrudes slightly when retracted, at least a wheels-up (sorry, "wheel-up") landing is not going to be as hard on the belly...

I guess the disadvantage is you'd need to make damn sure your wings are level when landing.

How much more rag and tube do you want? $350 for a set of plans, $2000 for some Spruce & ply and off you go! If you wanted to you could get one of these flying with an EA81 for $10 000. No specialty tools needed and been flying for 80 0dd years. Why are folk trying to reinvent the wheel?....Scotty [ATTACH]23584[/ATTACH]

Well that does amaze me! I mean I don't know about GA but I know in gliding just the incipient spin is not only encouraged but mandatory practice! it shocks me to think that it is not allowed in RA. a developed spin certainly not! but letting the nose drop off, opposite rudder and central stick. hardly rocket science and could very well save your life one day. How many people are killed world wide by aircraft spinning in! I'm remembering back but I could have sworn I did it as part of my training.

As Dazza says - if it can save your life but is against the rules, what's more important?

That would be great.... I'll keep them private..I have tried making a piece or two but they haven't come out as expected...

I'm building a 701 in Hobart, but I found the HomeBuiltHelp "Metalworking 101" DVD was very useful in giving me the confidence to get started. (This series is aimed at 701 builders but the concepts would translate to other aircraft, and they have other DVD series that may be more suitable to you).

http://www.homebuilthelp.com/CH701BuildVideos.htm

If I can help with any questions feel free to PM.

Cheers, Marty

True but 700 feet to me is a fair distance. 7 feet on the other hand would be close.

You would want to know how it behaves in turbulence and at low speeds. Its a lot of leading edge sweepback for a low speed plane.( 110 Knots is not fast) It would have to be aerodynamically clean though. Nev

That Scott Winton Opel just looked wrong to me... a square slab of flying wing, looked like it'd get very twitchy very easily (just an impression NOT backed up by any in-depth design knowledge!)

Swept-back flying wings though I find fascinating, especially the strength you would be able to get into the wing with such a massive thickness and chord at the root.

220km/hr is only 118kts.So some numbers follow...

Scott Winton Opel; 40hp = 280 kmh (151kts)

 

Verhees Delta; 50hp = 220 kmh (118kts)

 

Arnold AR-5; 62hp = 213 mph (185kts)

 

[ATTACH=full]23577[/ATTACH]

 

The Arnold AR-5 was powered by a Rotax 532, then later a 582, and weighed less than 300kg!

 

Have a look at; http://www.ar-5.com/kitcarm93.html

I don't believe it either.

So...

220km/h cruise

13 litres/h at cruise

60 litre tank

500 litres of baggage space

Amazing.

Can you squeal like a pig?

Tassie .... Dont make me laugh .. He's only got one head !!

White leather seats? Wouldn't trust my mates on them!!

I actually flinched then.