Koen (nestofdragons) recently shared a few sketches in another thread of an old low aspect ratio concept, below is one of them. As I have mentioned before, I think a low AR approach makes a lot of sense for a light homebuilt one- or two-seat aircraft: lighter structure, compact size for building and storing, and potentially docile low-speed handling, even if it comes at some cost in power required or top speed. There are many prior examples and influences: Arup, Hoffman, Zimmerman, Vought, Hatfield, Rowe, etc. even if none have ever become popular.
So, let me ask our group...what do you think makes sense for a low AR sport plane? I'll add a few criteria just to keep us talking apples to apples: one or two seats, direct-drive VW power (max 80 hp), able to fit (folded or broken down) in a 20' ISO shipping container (say 2.0 m/6' 7" folded width, 2.0 m/6' 7" folded height, 5.5 m/18' 1" folded length) and with a maximum wing span of 5.5 m/18' 1". That gives a maximum theoretical wing area of 30.25 m2 or 325 sq ft which seems like plenty. Designs could be Part 103 (not likely given the engine), European microlight, or U.S. LSA category.
[EDIT: Also, the aspect ratio (span squared/area) must be 2.0 or less.]
Let the games begin!
So, let me ask our group...what do you think makes sense for a low AR sport plane? I'll add a few criteria just to keep us talking apples to apples: one or two seats, direct-drive VW power (max 80 hp), able to fit (folded or broken down) in a 20' ISO shipping container (say 2.0 m/6' 7" folded width, 2.0 m/6' 7" folded height, 5.5 m/18' 1" folded length) and with a maximum wing span of 5.5 m/18' 1". That gives a maximum theoretical wing area of 30.25 m2 or 325 sq ft which seems like plenty. Designs could be Part 103 (not likely given the engine), European microlight, or U.S. LSA category.
[EDIT: Also, the aspect ratio (span squared/area) must be 2.0 or less.]
Let the games begin!
Last edited:
