|
St_Ides posted:I think I've actually seen your aircraft at the same airstrip in the first post. I'd like to hear more about professional ballooning if you have the time to write something up for us. Direct hourly cost is about $15/hr basically 10 litres per hour of regular automotive fuel and 4 ounces of amsoil two stroke oil. Recovering the wings and rebuilding the engines are another ongoing cost but not so much that I need to save money in a special account for them. My Lazair used to be based at Lubitz field when I uncle owned it, so you probably have seen it. He used to have a yellow one but it is pieces in a barn right now. Noone has been able to tell me who built mine only who restored it. The engines are supposed to last a long time if taken care of. They were originally used in fire fighting pumps that lived a very hard life so they are built pretty tough and are not as high strung as modern small two strokes. The UPAC convention is August 17, 18 and 19th you should come out and see whats out there. I have been there quite a few times and it will be nice to be able to do some flying there this year. Colonel K posted:Radio The tailwind helped out quite a bit and then I ended up dicking around the local wind farm so I was a bit longer coming home. My radio is a Dynon Dx15 handheld with a headset adapter. I can hear myself through the side channel but I think the engine noise is making things unintelligable.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
helno posted:
Isn't that the Talon XP? Or do the names change as the companies go bankrupt and others take over? Anyway it's way up on my "aircraft to get if I don't get as horribly rich as planned" list. edit: yes, the design jumps between different owners etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Aviation_Explorer
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 12:17
|
|
|
Ola posted:Isn't that the Talon XP? Or do the names change as the companies go bankrupt and others take over? Anyway it's way up on my "aircraft to get if I don't get as horribly rich as planned" list. They do. This one is actually a Zepher II.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Finally got some video footage of the Lazair. A friend of mine came out and managed to get a bit of video. I'll have to get a bit closer next time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z2KfmcsioQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
I hate to bump this thread again but I got a bit of time in a few new aircraft. Last year at the UPAC annual general meeting I won a draw for flight instruction from Lift-off aviation which is an ultralight pilots school. I used the gift certificate to get my Girlfriend a taste of why I like flying small planes and went up for a bit of practise myself. The plane is a Birdman Chinook which is a more typical ultralight than the Lazair.    This last weekend was the Canadian Owners and pilots associations convention and I spent all of saturday parking airplanes of all shapes and sizes from trikes all the way up to a DC-3. They were selling raffle tickets for a flight in a privately owned Lear 23 and I WON! So we took off and did a very fast low pass over the airport and headed to London Via Kincardine. At London I hopped in the right seat of the president of COPA's Piper Seneca and flew home.    
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
Fantastic stuff! looks like a huge amount of fun. Does the microlight have twin strut mounted fuel tanks? That's a really interesting solution. presumably that could lead to some interesting balance problems. were you in the right hand seat for the Lear? Must have been a blast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
The Chinook does have strut mounted fuel tanks. It doesnt have a cross feed (at least this particular one doesnt) and we ran one tank right down and you would never have known. The Lear requires a two person crew so I got to hand fly it a bit on the way to London I was in the back most of the time.  It is very touchy in pitch and was a bit of a pain to get trimmed. We pegged the VSI on takeoff and it is +-5000 fpm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
I love the schoolbus style fan behind the pilot there. Does it fly high enough to let the atmosphere cool down the cabin or does it get sweltering in there in the summer?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
That looks like incredible fun. Although I imagine the fuel burn would make the eyes water when filling up. I flew our aeroplane down for its annual inspection this week, I hadn't been in the air much recently and it was great to get a decent flight in. Also got about 20 mins IMC in, busting up and back through the clouds on my initial leg. What is the maintenence routine like on your aeroplane?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
The fuel burn was incredibly high on the Lear. 1000lbs per hour per engine but we were flying pretty low and slow (only 200 knots at 4500 feet). It is capable of cruising up at FL40 if you want to go far so I bet it has a pretty good climate control system. There really is no maintenence routine to the lazair. You can see every part of the airframe and control system during the walkaround anything that looks out of place you repair. The engines require periodic inspection for carbon build up but you can see if that is needed by removing two nuts and pulling off the exhaust header and looking directly into the cylinder. The crank bearings are replaced every 300 hours or so. The covering is another item that you just keep an eye on and replace when needed so I'll cross that bridge when I get there. A complete engine rebuild takes about an afternoon. Mine has less than 100 hours after being completely rebuilt (new cranks bearings seals pistons and cylinder sleeves) http://mypage.direct.ca/h/highland/Lazair/engine/engine.html What type of plane have you got and what kind of cost of ownership do you have?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
That rebuild is fantastic, so simple. I imagine that re-covering is quite an involved process. Does it use a doped fabric? I've got an Aviat Husky, which is a lot of fun. As the plane is relatively new fortunately the maintence costs aren't too bad. with annuals being around the £1100 mark. I do the oil changes myself at 40-50 hours. Otherwise the main stuff is Avgas (equivalent to $14.8 a gallon at my home airfield) Landing fees and hangerage. I'd love to switch the 76" hartzell for an mt205 prop and have a set of bushwheels but that would be some serious spending.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Slung Blade posted:I love the schoolbus style fan behind the pilot there. Does it fly high enough to let the atmosphere cool down the cabin or does it get sweltering in there in the summer? To put it into perspective the passenger windows on an airliner are about 1.5-2 square feet. My side window on the jet I fly is about 6 square feet and the front is around the same, for a total of about 24 square feet of window in the front, and in the passenger cabin 36ish. Also in the front of a jet you generally have most of the electrical relays, most of the avionics, a dark painted glare shield collecting heat, and two humans putting off body heat in something about the size of a closet, so it can get hot quick. So much so that the flight deck alone uses 80-90% of the cooling capacity of one of the two air cycle machines to keep the area cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 11:33
|
|
|
How safe are these ultralights? They look awesome as hell and I've always wanted to get my PPL, but maybe this would be a cheaper alternative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
hayden. posted:How safe are these ultralights? They look awesome as hell and I've always wanted to get my PPL, but maybe this would be a cheaper alternative. In a large part pretty safe. The idea is that they're draggy enough to never get going that fast, and in full stall they're falling at a non lethal airspeed. Really, they're as safe as you want to be. If you treat them as a "real airplane" they're as safe as a real airplane. If you treat it like a lawnmower... well you can expect some lawnmower ish things to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Nerobro expressed it pretty well. The Lazair in particular has an incredibly low fatal accident rate despite being flown in large numbers by unlicensed pilots. This is entirely due to its very low stall speed. It is similar to the safety of a kit car vs a factory car. If you do it properly it is fine but if you try to cut corners it will bite you in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Well I had a bit of a hiatus on flying while work was being done on my kitchen. I also took a bit of time to install the fancy new props and replace a recoil starter that was acting up.  The new props work great. I didn't have the GPS so I can't confirm an increase in climb rate but it sure felt alot faster. Edit. Flew with the GPS tonight. Getting about 350-380 ft/min now previously was around 250. helno fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Jul 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
I've always said that there are model airplanes that could carry a person. Now you're using model parts to carry you. :-)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
This plane kind of throws out the idea that every part needs to be specifically for an airplane. See that little blue box on the lower left hand side of the engine? It is an electronic ignition module from a chainsaw. The recoil starter is what you would find on a typical lawnmower but with the tabs to hold it on moved outwards a hair to match the motor. Covering material is for greenhouses and applied like model airplane covering film. So when are you gonna get cracking at the DA2A? i'd love to see the look on a hackerspaces groups faces when you tell them you are building an airplane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
Looks great helno, Has your cruise changed much? I'd guess not so much as they probably have a pretty set comfort zone in terms of cruising speed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Cruise not so much. Full power level flight with the biplanes got me around 43-45 mph, new props I was doing over 50 in level flight. Biggest change was in the takeoff. Normally you apply full power and wait for the tail to come up. Now you apply full power and the tail comes up instantly. I have a GoPro in the mail so I'll have some video for you guys soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Glad to see there is some improvement. How did you get on drilling the props? The new cam should make for some cracking low and slow videos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
It would seem money is starting to go my way. I think I can order aluminum this week. that means I also need to build some work tables and start doing an ever loving butt-load of layout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:Glad to see there is some improvement. How did you get on drilling the props? The local flying guys pointed me in the direction of a retired machinist who does some gunsmithing. He has worked with carbon fibre and had no trouble. Good luck with the build Nerobro.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Here's a question I haven't seen addressed at all: Why not use motorcycle engine units for light aircraft? You can very easily find a whole motor kit that's the same size and weight, and has all the accessories strapped in. The shipping weight of a hayabusa motor with EVERYTHING bolted on (including battery) in a crate is 175lb. Add a few pounds for oil. They're also designed to run near redline for a long time. The "needs reduction gearing" is moot because the transmissions are built in. You could easily run a chain drive to a thrust bearing and not worry about modifying the engine cases at all. It may also be beneficial for cruising to leave the transmission in and just upshift to put yourself in a more efficient engine range, then downshift back into the powerband for TO/GA. Is this crazy talk?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
It's an interesting question. I'm guessing that only one spark plug per cylinder would be a bit of a problem, as well as wanting to have dual magnetos / or coils if using them. I'm not sure how keen people would be on using chain drives to drive the prop as it is a rather obvious failure point which would put you in trouble instantly. They'll be runing extremely quickly compared to the big lazy lycomings or even the revvier rotax engines That being said it would be fascinating to see someone pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
I seem to recall reading about a replica of the wright flyer that was using a CB750 engine and a chain to drive the twin props. Probably not used simply because it is just not an aircraft engine. People really like there archaic fixed ignition timing and ice prone carbs. I am really hoping that the electric conversion for mine ends up being remotely affordable. Took some inflight video today. I'll upload it later but for now here is a short tour. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8cKgzMvn8I
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Looks like a great day to fly, looking forward to seeing more videos. Where are the throttle controls on your aeroplane? I assume that you have seperate throttles rather than just one control interconnected.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
It has a pair of throttle levers on the left hand side. They look like they are from a lawnmower or something but they do the job. Here is a short inflight video it will take a while to be ready. http://youtu.be/7-aibc4Q_RQ helno fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Aug 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Here's a question I haven't seen addressed at all: It's only "sorta" crazy talk. There's a lot to consider though. Piston speed directly relates to engine life. Most motorcycles (the Hayabusa included) run with some fairly high piston speeds. While the base motor might make the power, and do it light enough, it's durability is in question. Second, sustained power levels. Motorcycle engines, for the most part, are designed for intermittent power. You'd need to look at adding an oil cooler, and potentially piston squirters. You'd also need to consider cylinder head heat soak. If the cylinder head can't extract the heat, you'll end up melting exhaust valves. Changing the gears isn't a very useful trick. At most you'd need two. changing prop pitch is the air going equivalent. To give an idea of why it's not so useful. If an airplane is sitting still, on the ground, and at full throttle, you can expect only a 200rpm drop versus cruise rpm. Also, with changing gears, pilot workload is an issue. So you don't want to do anything that's gonna stress a guy out while flying. More features is not more better! Propellers are heavy. And they're springy. This means the forces that come back from the propeller are difficult to manage. (This is also why wood props are popular. They self dampen somewhat.) Each gear interface, is a place where all the loads of the engine are placed on some very small gear teeth. This leads to a catastrophic failure mode. Namely munched gearbox! The single plug ignition is "something" of a concern. But there are plenty of airplanes out there there fly with single plugs. Including all auto conversions. You can set up redundant ignitions without redundant plugs. It wouldn't bother me much. The fuel injection system is a problem. The Hayabusa computer doesn't know what to do with changing altitude. Put in a new controller. Older bikes, with CV carbs are at an advantage there. CV carbs are altitude compensating! Which means you remove a control for the pilot. The Rotax 912 has CV carbs, so that's even certifiable. After a lot of thought on the subject. I concluded that the only way to use a motorcycle engine in an airplane, was to cut off the gearbox. You get several advantages there. First, lower base weight. (though you'll need to add a reduction gear...) Second, you can use a belt type reduction unit, which addresses the resonance issues. Third, you end up with an excuse to build a proper sump, potentially with a lot of cooling area, removing the need for separate oil cooler piping and the associated points of failure. The motors from motorcycles that most easily convert to airplane use are the bmw boxer twins, the honda flat fours and sixes, and harleys. All of those motors are separate crank and gearbox engines. And most of them run conventional car speeds. So you're not really finding more power. I suppose you could fly on a MotoGuzzi... but I have something deeply against using italian motors for anything that's life dependent. All of that said..... You have the same concerns with a car engine. And car engines fly all the time too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
helno posted:Probably not used simply because it is just not an aircraft engine. People really like there archaic fixed ignition timing and ice prone carbs. I really think it's more of that's what got grandfathered/certified in the past, and getting something certified(yes I realize it doesn't need to be but I think having a certified engine vs non certified let alone proven aircraft powerplant, verse something being adapted to the roll swings many consumers toward the proven design*,) let alone TSO'd these days is crazy expensive for the manufacture. Nerobro posted:I suppose you could fly on a MotoGuzzi... but I have something deeply against using italian motors for anything that's life dependent. HAHA, hand made with Italian passion to explode with Italian passion. *Which is kinda funny that so many experimental builders are not actually experimenting, but I understand where they are coming from. Yes I realize that many guys are experimenting as well, and I'm not trying to dig anyone at all who has the balls/whatever to build their own airplane, tried and true design or drawing it up yourself. Ferris Bueller fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:*Which is kinda funny that so many experimental builders are not actually experimenting, but I understand where they are coming from. Yes I realize that many guys are experimenting as well, and I'm not trying to dig anyone at all who has the balls/whatever to build their own airplane, tried and true design or drawing it up yourself. I have had this argument with myself a few times. And.. after hanging out on enough builder forums, I've determined that even though you fly a "RV6" or "A Hummelbird" or whatever.. the chances of your plane matching the performance of another plane are so slim that you might as well be flying a one off. That's what makes a certified plane so expensive. Building the planes to the EXACT SAME STANDARD so that the same numbers can be used from plane to plane. the RV's get close... But most homebuilts tend to be different in some significant fashion from the plans, or even the kit. Sadly, most builders don't thoroughly test their planes to properly determine what their flight envelope really is. I'm currently on the KRnet, and the DA-2 mailing lists. I was kicked off the Affordaplane mailing list. ;-)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:I have had this argument with myself a few times. And.. after hanging out on enough builder forums, I've determined that even though you fly a "RV6" or "A Hummelbird" or whatever.. the chances of your plane matching the performance of another plane are so slim that you might as well be flying a one off. Sure, and I've seen that argument as well, and frankly it's one I can accept. For the most part, apart from the few guys like Rutan, the truly experimental stuff has waned away in my opinion, or at least the sun has set on the golden years of amateur experimental aviation. However having a robust experiment segment in the GA sector is nothing but a good thing, which I still think advances the field of understanding, albeit at a slower pace. After flying fleet aircraft, both FAR part 23 and 25 certified aircraft, I think I can safely say even the big manufacturers struggle with this as well, again though point taken. While I have dreams of an Acrosport or Skybolt one day, they still are dreams, so my interest is there, just not the knowledge of building a proven design and getting it close to the intended flight envelope. I'll have to be Mr. Patient on that as well and try to beat back Mr Instant Gratification if I do build a plane, though I've read through enough accident reports, that I have no interest in becoming one of the, didn't test enough statistics. Ferris Bueller fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jul 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
If I had the time and the patience to home build, I think I'd perhaps go for an RV-8 . A friend of mine has one and it is an impressive beast, when he's going places 180knots for about 8us gal/hr is quite something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Well after struggling for a while to get the file size down enough to get this up on youtube here is some inflight footage. http://youtu.be/7-aibc4Q_RQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Excellent video, and good job on the landing. Out of interest, what is the maximum crosswind for it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 11:35
|
|
|
Right now crosswinds are not an issue because the wheat has been cut so I have a huge square I can land on. I wont go if there is more than a 5 mph crosswind. Only because taxiing becomes very difficult and I dont want to drag a wingtip.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Here is a much longer inflight video. Part 1 http://youtu.be/B_RlLG8kWP8 Part 2 http://youtu.be/9eZqv63hGAk helno fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Aug 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:It's only "sorta" crazy talk. There's a lot to consider though. Thanks for the input, and let's consider. I just found a hayabusa crate motor ship weight very quickly, I wasn't intending to use one. I was thinking an older oil-cooled with external cooler and CV carbs. I've got this bandit 1200 right here.... Tuning/detuning the motor so it has useful power at less than redline is ideal. I know I can jank around with cams and heads and get a stupid-peaky torque spike right around 6k on a 10k redline, producing roughly 113HP. That sound perfect for a light plane. Super peaky, centered someplace where you're not flogging the motor all the time. As far as changing gears, it wasn't like having to bang up through gears to get on the interstate, more like you trim the gearbox to only have two (very wide and beefy) gears; one for takeoff, one for cruise. But if your motor's peaky anyway, there's not much point. Then, you can just get a single-speed gearbox (layshaft, mainshaft, and countershaft permanently engaged, with arbitrarily large gears). Or, like you say, get a two-unit design and lose the gearbox entirely. Prop speeds are only about 2k-3k rpm, right? A 2:1 sprocket/chain size is enough of a "reduction gearbox." You could even go with one of those grotesque Harley 3" primary belts to get some of the damping you need. This is another reason why having a motorcycle engine seems ideal: they're already designed with an output sprocket/belt in mind, and their bottom ends are designed around bumps and thuds given by chains already. So, to recap: Start with some 140hp oil/air-cooled motorcycle engine. CV carbs, with "enrichener" choke system. ECU(if any) that only does ignition advance based on throttle position. Tune it with heads and cams to have a narrow powerband around 100hp in the middle of its rev range. Get this rev speed to be in the 1:1 - 3:1 range with the prop you want, and mount a nice cushiony thrust bearing to the firewall, then drive that with chain/belt/whatnot from your engine. Since you're in the middle of rev range and below peak HP, leave the gearbox (if any) as it is; it'll probably be fine. Leave it in 4th or whatever, and don't connect the shifter to anything. Leave the clutch, maybe with some kind of emergency handle so you can let your prop windmill when your engine detonates. Also, since you're in the middle of the rev range, you should never have to worry about overspeeding your engine, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
helno, just watched your longer videos, looks like a great day to be flying. Do you carry the bag as luggage for your land away flights? The landing again was a cracker, do you find it easier to land as you're closer to the wheels and the ground than a typical spam can? babyeatingpsychopath, that sounds like an interesting project, especially for something light and quick, with weight restrictions. how would you handle mixture control for altitude? I wouldn't have thought shock loads through the prop should be a big concern, because one hopes that it would just spin around without coming into significant resistance, and if it does then that probably means a fair bit of prop damage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 11:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
I carry that little bag for my documents, radio and a bit of 2 stroke oil. Being so close the wheels makes flare a pretty simple thing. Touchdown is incredibly light as it is and being able to so accurately judge how high you are helps alot. I'm still getting the videos ready but I shot a bunch of footage at the Ultralight pilots association flying this weekend. Won another flight in a door prize, this time it was a fleet finch. I flew down the the UPAC flyin and made it half way home before the winds got to strong. going 44 miles with a 20 mph ground speed is a losing proposition. Hopefully I will be able to pick it up tonight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 21:26
|
|