Ultralight and Homebuilt aircaft

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Hobbies, Crafts, & Houses > Ultralight and Homebuilt aircaft

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

babyeatingpsychopath posted:

I'm going to be falling into a big pile of money soon, and figured I might as well build an airplane now that I've got ASEL. Old issues of EAA have planes in them, and I've got a parts list going for a fully skinned fuselage and wings for about $1500 for a two-seat low-wing aircraft. Engine and avionics are obviously a big extra cost on top of that.

I guess I'm asking for a sanity check. Is building this thing really just as easy as meticulously following the prints to the limits of precision and not accepting any shortcuts?

The alternative is renting, and that makes phone sex addiction seem cheap in comparison.

What is your fabrication experience? Building an airplane from prints isn't exactly like snapping together a model...

# ¿ May 30, 2013 08:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 17:08

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Sir Cornelius posted:

Royal Danish Airforce used them as trainers for 26 goddamn years. They retired in 1976 to be replaced by Saab T-17 Supporters, so they've been used to train for everything from Supermarine Spitfires over Republic F-84 Thunderjets and F-100 Super Sabres to Saab 35 Drakens. 2.400 Danish airforce pilots got their education through the Chipmunk.

16 of the fuckers were sold off for civilian use from Flyvestation V�rl�se in 1976 for about $5K each. 10 year old me still hates my dad for not buying me one.

I think there's at least 2 or 3 flyable left in Denmark. I definitely know that OY-FLV is still airworthy.

Buying a retired military primary trainer is akin to buying a retired rental car, except it has also been literally bounced off the ground several thousand times. And it's probably been puked in even more.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2013 13:43

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Blistex posted:

This guy is building a 1:1 scale BF-109 and says the engine is going to be a Mazda.

I honestly don't know where he's getting that HP figure since Mazda's most powerful commercially available engine was the 13B-REW in the RX-7 wich generated 280 HP, and was already twin-turbocharged. The only engines over that HP were experimental and for concept cars that never materialized and their LeMans offering which was a 4-Rotor 700HP monster.

On paper they look nice due to their injection, HP, weight, and size, but I think you're probably correct about the added complexity and weight of the gearbox. Otherwise you'd see everyone zipping around in comparatively cheap Mazda engines instead of Rotax and others.

That thing looks like what you'd get if you asked a scale modeler with zero engineering knowledge to build an airplane.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2014 02:57

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

HIGH QUALITY PINE.

:commissar:

# ¿ Feb 27, 2014 15:11

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

The original Ercoupe used a rudder interconnect to the roll axis of the yoke for turn coordination. Along with a limited-deflection elevator, it was billed as "inherently spin proof."

# ¿ Dec 19, 2014 01:50

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

helno posted:

Until the window is repaired there wont be much flying going on.

It is frowned upon to patch a certified plane with duct tape.

Is this thread not familiar with speed tape? This is basically what it's for.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2015 01:02

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Finally, a fuel tank that makes your wedding tackle part of the crash structure!

(I'm jealous, and redirecting my jealousy to sarcasm.)

# ¿ Nov 7, 2016 18:46

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

All the problems of multiple engines, with none of the power reserve!

It's probably ok though, because I don't think he has the power even with both motors to leave ground effect.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2017 14:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 17:08

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

uli2000 posted:

I have a question that is slightly related, and since I'm too cheap to pony up for search this was the first aircraft related thread I found.

Ask and ye shall receive.

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3821398&perpage=40&pagenumber=20

Nerobro posted:

The places weight could be saved are numerous. He's still a totally legal ultralight. Wtih none of the "funny business" that many of the other ultralights do. LIke.. Belite and the removable fairings. Or the other electric ultralights having 5 gallons (volume) of battery...

Not arguing his part 103 legality; I just think he has a very poor sense of self preservation.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2017 21:36

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Hobbies, Crafts, & Houses > Ultralight and Homebuilt aircaft