Rienk
Well-Known Member
Sorry about the poll being first - it was supposed to be after this first post. Please read this and then respond to the poll. Thanks, RA
Intro
One of my passions (beside designing or building things) is to see young people get involved in flying. It is obvious that to do so, we need to make entry into the sport easier.
To accomplish this, I believe that there are several factors; low cost "beginner" airplanes that are safe and fun to fly; low cost operation and easy transportation; as well as flight training and mentoring. While this is not about the latter, I will reiterate that we need to pass on our legacy and enjoyment of flying to the next generation (such as LEAP, Young Eagles, etc). This subject deserves many threads of its own.
Though I am thrilled with the development of the LSA category, most of the aircraft being "produced" are still much too expensive for beginning pilots; flight schools are not yet jumping in with both feet, and consequently, there are not enough "used" aircraft available for the less well heeled pilots to acquire.
Part of the LSA objective seems to have been to fill the low end gap, and remove the problem of 'heavy' ultralights, while also allowing a means to build aircraft that can provide primary instruction for those interested in starting with 103UL flight... but this is not happening.
I believe that Leanord Milholand's 'Legal Eagle' and 'Double Eagle' together form a good example of how to possibly offer low cost flying to individuals with an ultralight (LE) while having a trainer available (DE) that will give truly compatible flight training. But since neither are 'production' aircraft, I do not believe they will have the momentum to make the significant change envisioned (to reach the "Tipping Point", a book that I recommend for this topic).
Concept
I am convinced that what is needed is a concerted effort from a group of like minded people to collaborate on the design of two new aircraft, with similar flight characteristics and building materials.
Thus, I am putting out the challenge to this group to help develop such a pair of aircraft. Though it will probably be a commercial venture, it will likely not be very profitable, so any involvement would have to be primarily for “love of the game” more than for any dreams of financial windfall. This would primarily be a “Pay it Forward” project. Nonetheless, I would suggest that every serious contributor would at least have a chance of recouping their investment of expertise or resources, and thus will put together some sort of “point” system of payback. But let’s not put the cart before the horse…
Ideas
The following list are my ideas of what might be a good design solution, simply to get the conversation going (these are top of mind, so not necessarily in any particular order).
• Looks like a "real" airplane (market acceptance).
• Four stroke engine (I favor the Generac, which is used quite successfully in several other UL designs, as well as mini Air and Mud boats).
• Both Taildragger and Tricycle options (with the same airframe).
• Tube and Fabric design. I would like to explore welded aluminum tube.
• All flying Rudder (better cross wind capability… just an idea).
• Composite Wing.
• Scooter tires and wheels (large for rough ground, and wider than bicycle tires for side loads).
• Long engine mount for base engine, so that other (larger) power plants can be considered for LSA use/upgrade.
• Completely fabric covered for aerodynamic cleanliness and comfort (all weather flying).
• Good Wingtips (at least as an option).
• Electric start (don’t want even the likelihood of kids hurting themselves hand propping).
• Basic electronic instrumentation (something like MGL’s Flight 2 and Engine 1)
• Electronic accessory pod (quick connect for radio, gps and/or moving map).
• Door option (if they’re not required for flight, they don’t count against empty weight; nice for LSA upgrade).
Wrap up
I’m sure there are a lot more things that could be considered, either as additional or replacement design goals. This is only my wish list.
If this ends up being a collaborative project, the team will have to decide what is best, what is feasible, and then what is viable.
Anyone interested in taking this on? I have no idea what is a realistic time frame for a group effort like this, but it would be awesome to have a POC or prototype by Oshkosh next year!?!
For those who are interested in being formally involved, please contact me by PM or on this forum.
Even if you are just casually interested (or just heckling from the bleachers), any and all feedback and constructive criticism to this concept (or the initial list above) would be greatly appreciated.
Intro
One of my passions (beside designing or building things) is to see young people get involved in flying. It is obvious that to do so, we need to make entry into the sport easier.
To accomplish this, I believe that there are several factors; low cost "beginner" airplanes that are safe and fun to fly; low cost operation and easy transportation; as well as flight training and mentoring. While this is not about the latter, I will reiterate that we need to pass on our legacy and enjoyment of flying to the next generation (such as LEAP, Young Eagles, etc). This subject deserves many threads of its own.
Though I am thrilled with the development of the LSA category, most of the aircraft being "produced" are still much too expensive for beginning pilots; flight schools are not yet jumping in with both feet, and consequently, there are not enough "used" aircraft available for the less well heeled pilots to acquire.
Part of the LSA objective seems to have been to fill the low end gap, and remove the problem of 'heavy' ultralights, while also allowing a means to build aircraft that can provide primary instruction for those interested in starting with 103UL flight... but this is not happening.
I believe that Leanord Milholand's 'Legal Eagle' and 'Double Eagle' together form a good example of how to possibly offer low cost flying to individuals with an ultralight (LE) while having a trainer available (DE) that will give truly compatible flight training. But since neither are 'production' aircraft, I do not believe they will have the momentum to make the significant change envisioned (to reach the "Tipping Point", a book that I recommend for this topic).
Concept
I am convinced that what is needed is a concerted effort from a group of like minded people to collaborate on the design of two new aircraft, with similar flight characteristics and building materials.
Thus, I am putting out the challenge to this group to help develop such a pair of aircraft. Though it will probably be a commercial venture, it will likely not be very profitable, so any involvement would have to be primarily for “love of the game” more than for any dreams of financial windfall. This would primarily be a “Pay it Forward” project. Nonetheless, I would suggest that every serious contributor would at least have a chance of recouping their investment of expertise or resources, and thus will put together some sort of “point” system of payback. But let’s not put the cart before the horse…
Ideas
The following list are my ideas of what might be a good design solution, simply to get the conversation going (these are top of mind, so not necessarily in any particular order).
• Looks like a "real" airplane (market acceptance).
• Four stroke engine (I favor the Generac, which is used quite successfully in several other UL designs, as well as mini Air and Mud boats).
• Both Taildragger and Tricycle options (with the same airframe).
• Tube and Fabric design. I would like to explore welded aluminum tube.
The weight is significantly less than steel, allowing for thicker walls and/or larger diameters. I know that TIG welding will ruin the temper, but it seems that if we designed with T-0 for the joints, and T-6 for the rest of the tubes (which are basically concerned about compression and buckling), then it shouldn't be a problem.
• Probably High Wing easy roll over protection, and lighter weight by using struts.
Ease of entry and egress (lot more appeal if you don’t have to be a contortionist to get in – sit and turn).
I believe that folding wings and/or trailerability is a necessary feature, so either removable wings (a la gliders) or folding.
• Removable Horizontal tail (bolted on, with fail safe elevator connections. Elevator aft of rudder).Ease of entry and egress (lot more appeal if you don’t have to be a contortionist to get in – sit and turn).
I believe that folding wings and/or trailerability is a necessary feature, so either removable wings (a la gliders) or folding.
• All flying Rudder (better cross wind capability… just an idea).
• Composite Wing.
Plywood or fiberglass cored D-section, CF spar caps (I'm not sure about web), maybe wood or plastic (injection molded) ribs, and everything cloth covered. With fiberglass for the first 40+% of the airfoil, a laminar section could be used, vortex generators mounted, and then lightweight fabric on the rest (where it doesn't matter). The weight may not be any more than other types of wings, and potentially allows for much smaller wing.
• Large slotted Flaps (with hinge points down and back, to mimic Fowler).• Scooter tires and wheels (large for rough ground, and wider than bicycle tires for side loads).
• Long engine mount for base engine, so that other (larger) power plants can be considered for LSA use/upgrade.
• Completely fabric covered for aerodynamic cleanliness and comfort (all weather flying).
If the design is too clean for max UL speed, have other drag increasing options (again, for LSA speed capabilities later).
• Ballistic parachute standard (safety, but also 'extra' empty weight margin it allows).• Good Wingtips (at least as an option).
• Electric start (don’t want even the likelihood of kids hurting themselves hand propping).
• Basic electronic instrumentation (something like MGL’s Flight 2 and Engine 1)
• Electronic accessory pod (quick connect for radio, gps and/or moving map).
• Door option (if they’re not required for flight, they don’t count against empty weight; nice for LSA upgrade).
Wrap up
I’m sure there are a lot more things that could be considered, either as additional or replacement design goals. This is only my wish list.
If this ends up being a collaborative project, the team will have to decide what is best, what is feasible, and then what is viable.
Anyone interested in taking this on? I have no idea what is a realistic time frame for a group effort like this, but it would be awesome to have a POC or prototype by Oshkosh next year!?!
For those who are interested in being formally involved, please contact me by PM or on this forum.
Even if you are just casually interested (or just heckling from the bleachers), any and all feedback and constructive criticism to this concept (or the initial list above) would be greatly appreciated.
Last edited:
