*The Moon and Stars have aligned....The Sun and Earth is in Sync...Hot dang...!!! We have a new Afford-A-Plane vid up in this b....h...Woot !!!... Woot...Let's gooooo !!!!*
Being retired i do miss Airplane Building/Assembly, Modification/Repair, as well as Experimental Testing and Certification. Most of my experience was in Large commercial Jets, also involved with Private Passenger Turbines, and Prop aircraft.
Hi Jon. I am waiting patiently for the tip where you cover the wings. I've had an idea about the covering of the wing. The biggest probrem I have is the strut attachment. The solution as I see it would be to glue a large patch inside the wing and then attech the lower covering. Once the lower covering is installed and the internal patch glued down to the lower covering fabric, the slit is then made for the attachment. Last of all a large external patch is glued on to the lower fabric, and a slit made for the attachment to pass through the fabric and is installed on to the spar. The top covering of the wing is much the same as the tail feathers, so I'm not too concerned about this. I hope to hear from you about the twittering above soon. You have way more expierence than I have, and therefore your opinions are greatly valued. Thanks for a great series.
I can't wait to see that thing going. I'm have a hard time waiting for each episode. I'm planning to build an A-plane soon. "Let's get back to building!"
Had a feeling it was the Polini when you showed the box in a previous video, lol. Now I understand why you chose the Polini. Makes perfect sense. The only flaw I can see with the A-plane design is that it doesn't have folding wings. Most people who can't afford a certified aircraft can't afford a hangar either, and a lot of us don't live out in the country where we can just walk outside and fly away. Is there any way you could design folding wings so we can trailer our A-planes to a field or airport? That would make it just about a perfect little airplane.
Hi Jon Another great video. Regarding the weight. I see that adding a BRS allows the max allowable weight for Part 103 to increase to 278lbs. I think a BRS should be required especially as Part 103 is for unskilled unlicensed enthusiastic pilots. A lightweight BRS system could allow room for a larger more powerful engine whilst remaining Part 103 legal. Is is something you have considered Slangevar Craig
The BRS softpack chute that would work for ULs (600 Softpack) weighs 18 pounds, and the weight allowance for a chute is 24 pounds. You gain 6 pounds to play with - which "might" allow a bigger engine. Belite used to advocate for a hand-tossed parachute (which sounds like really bad idea from a practical perspective) that weighed around 6 pounds, thus allowing them to use the 18 pounds for a larger engine. There are options for those who want to wrangle around with the FAA definitions.
Not a good solution, IMO. The Softpack is more like 20 lbs once it is actually installed (cannot forget mounting hardware) so to spend thousands of $$ for maybe 4lbs savings is questionable. The hand-tossed parachute solutions are more of a ploy to beat the weight rules. Plus - controversial topic here: BRS chutes can only be used in strictly limited scenarios - most accidents happen at T/O and landing - near the ground - the chute cannot be deployed safely unless you are several hundred feet up. Spend the thousands $$ instead on training and maintenance and gain real safety! IMO
Think BRS should be on all small planes however I agree that if it’s just to save 4lbs then it’s not worth it. Hand thrown chutes are really meant for the paragliding and paramotor communities: not for fixed wing aircraft.
Please look into the Smartcarb. They have a carburetor for the 303. I don't know about the 202 but if they do, it's good for a significant power increase. My intention has been to use the Polini since I decided to build an A-plane. Since mine is going to be experimental, I think about using the Polini 303 with a Smartcarb and an Ivoprop. I believe the engine is underrated because of paramotor limitations. We'll see.
Yeah would be interesting to see the weight difference between the bolts and maybe large stainless pull rivets in areas you likely would never take apart. Not sure you can get 5lbs for the bigger engine though
The only question I have for the Polini engine is the thrust force in the gear reduction unit. All I have seen it installed on is the powered parachute market. The thrust is for a pusher prop, and for my needs and yours, we need a tractor prop, and hence, the thrust force pulls on the PSRU. Will it handle forces in that direction?
Reasonable question! Have not found anything in the manufact specs that limits direction of thrust. Also, I know of several tractor ultralights using them this way (not Aplanes and not the 202 model).
@@HomebuiltHELP I was not referring to the wing struts, but the "cockpit" tubes with the compound bends. I have watched all videos including 36 , but haven't found any info on bending those tubes.
@@allanmontile8210 Thank you. I rewatched and he stated the weight at 10:40 while talking at the bench, instead of while weighing the engine later in the video.
LTVoyager I just noticed that, thanks. Was not me! I believe the original author of the message can issue a delete - then everything underneath goes with it. Else, RUclips can remove controversial comments - but I don't think that was it. Well, the topic will certainly come up again, no doubt!
@@HomebuiltHELP That is surprising as I thought he raised a good point and generated some good discussion. Oh well, I definitely won’t put much effort into replies to other commenters as I hate investing time for naught. Must be he was just trolling. Build on!
I hope this is a rare occurrence - but you have me wondering! Also, comments with links (urls) in them will magically not get posted (to prevent spammers). I can override that but then I have to review everything with a link (and then its on my head if bad stuff gets thru)
The weight of the engine frame probably just about offsets the weight of the prop. And your comment about keeping weight as light as possible applies to the pilot as well as the airplane. 😁
Engine mounts? Carve rubber with a Stanley Surform. Thrust washers are leather cut out. Think nothing of cutting out or punching 2-300 washers to mount a motor.
Man I'm glad you're safe and healthy and I hope you had a good winter.
*The Moon and Stars have aligned....The Sun and Earth is in Sync...Hot dang...!!! We have a new Afford-A-Plane vid up in this b....h...Woot !!!... Woot...Let's gooooo !!!!*
Being retired i do miss Airplane Building/Assembly, Modification/Repair, as well as Experimental Testing and Certification.
Most of my experience was in Large commercial Jets, also involved with Private Passenger Turbines, and Prop aircraft.
Hi Jon. I am waiting patiently for the tip where you cover the wings.
I've had an idea about the covering of the wing.
The biggest probrem I have is the strut attachment.
The solution as I see it would be to glue a large patch inside the wing and then attech the lower covering. Once the lower covering is installed and the internal patch glued down to the lower covering fabric, the slit is then made for the attachment.
Last of all a large external patch is glued on to the lower fabric, and a slit made for the attachment to pass through the fabric and is installed on to the spar.
The top covering of the wing is much the same as the tail feathers, so I'm not too concerned about this.
I hope to hear from you about the twittering above soon. You have way more expierence than I have, and therefore your opinions are greatly valued.
Thanks for a great series.
I can't wait to see that thing going. I'm have a hard time waiting for each episode. I'm planning to build an A-plane soon. "Let's get back to building!"
Good to see you back in the frozen north, thought it had to be Polini!
Wooooooo! Were back!
Had a feeling it was the Polini when you showed the box in a previous video, lol. Now I understand why you chose the Polini. Makes perfect sense. The only flaw I can see with the A-plane design is that it doesn't have folding wings. Most people who can't afford a certified aircraft can't afford a hangar either, and a lot of us don't live out in the country where we can just walk outside and fly away. Is there any way you could design folding wings so we can trailer our A-planes to a field or airport? That would make it just about a perfect little airplane.
Is the Polini gearbox OK for tractor (pull)?
Hi Jon
Another great video.
Regarding the weight. I see that adding a BRS allows the max allowable weight for Part 103 to increase to 278lbs. I think a BRS should be required especially as Part 103 is for unskilled unlicensed enthusiastic pilots. A lightweight BRS system could allow room for a larger more powerful engine whilst remaining Part 103 legal.
Is is something you have considered
Slangevar
Craig
The BRS softpack chute that would work for ULs (600 Softpack) weighs 18 pounds, and the weight allowance for a chute is 24 pounds. You gain 6 pounds to play with - which "might" allow a bigger engine. Belite used to advocate for a hand-tossed parachute (which sounds like really bad idea from a practical perspective) that weighed around 6 pounds, thus allowing them to use the 18 pounds for a larger engine. There are options for those who want to wrangle around with the FAA definitions.
Not a good solution, IMO. The Softpack is more like 20 lbs once it is actually installed (cannot forget mounting hardware) so to spend thousands of $$ for maybe 4lbs savings is questionable. The hand-tossed parachute solutions are more of a ploy to beat the weight rules. Plus - controversial topic here: BRS chutes can only be used in strictly limited scenarios - most accidents happen at T/O and landing - near the ground - the chute cannot be deployed safely unless you are several hundred feet up. Spend the thousands $$ instead on training and maintenance and gain real safety! IMO
Think BRS should be on all small planes however I agree that if it’s just to save 4lbs then it’s not worth it. Hand thrown chutes are really meant for the paragliding and paramotor communities: not for fixed wing aircraft.
Please look into the Smartcarb. They have a carburetor for the 303. I don't know about the 202 but if they do, it's good for a significant power increase.
My intention has been to use the Polini since I decided to build an A-plane. Since mine is going to be experimental, I think about using the Polini 303 with a Smartcarb and an Ivoprop. I believe the engine is underrated because of paramotor limitations. We'll see.
I've been wondering if you would save weight if you could weld instead of bolt the plane together?
Yeah would be interesting to see the weight difference between the bolts and maybe large stainless pull rivets in areas you likely would never take apart. Not sure you can get 5lbs for the bigger engine though
Finally back I see!
6:45 mark. You have about enough for a huge rubber band for power!
Thanks for the info.
Maybe hirth f 33 is a very good engine ,dual ignition and light weight?
120lb fuselage... thats a tough one to swallow
The only question I have for the Polini engine is the thrust force in the gear reduction unit. All I have seen it installed on is the powered parachute market. The thrust is for a pusher prop, and for my needs and yours, we need a tractor prop, and hence, the thrust force pulls on the PSRU. Will it handle forces in that direction?
Reasonable question! Have not found anything in the manufact specs that limits direction of thrust. Also, I know of several tractor ultralights using them this way (not Aplanes and not the 202 model).
I might be getting ahead of the build but I don't be see the mounting brackets on the airframe for the JATO bottles. ?...
I was admiring the bends in the downstruts . Could you direct me to the video of how you bent them?
The wing strut fittings were shown in Part 27 & 28 No skipping of videos! LOL
@@HomebuiltHELP I must have missed it. Thanks
@@HomebuiltHELP I was not referring to the wing struts, but the "cockpit" tubes with the compound bends. I have watched all videos including 36 , but haven't found any info on bending those tubes.
@@fredraney5214 Watched All the videos - really! Then what about 33 - maybe took a nap during that one!
Part 33 is what I was looking for. Thank you for your help. I see it isn't rocket science...
Did he say the installed weight of the engine? I don’t think I heard him say it.
yes, 44 pounds
@@allanmontile8210 Thank you. I rewatched and he stated the weight at 10:40 while talking at the bench, instead of while weighing the engine later in the video.
Has anyone figured out how much all the bolts and nuts weigh? What if every other one was a big rivet?
If you used 1/4 inch rivets instead of 1/4 inch bolts the weight would be maybe 5 to ten pounds lighter.
It appears the comment thread about rivets as compared to bolts has disappeared. Interesting…
LTVoyager I just noticed that, thanks. Was not me! I believe the original author of the message can issue a delete - then everything underneath goes with it. Else, RUclips can remove controversial comments - but I don't think that was it. Well, the topic will certainly come up again, no doubt!
@@HomebuiltHELP That is surprising as I thought he raised a good point and generated some good discussion. Oh well, I definitely won’t put much effort into replies to other commenters as I hate investing time for naught. Must be he was just trolling. Build on!
I hope this is a rare occurrence - but you have me wondering! Also, comments with links (urls) in them will magically not get posted (to prevent spammers). I can override that but then I have to review everything with a link (and then its on my head if bad stuff gets thru)
The weight of the engine frame probably just about offsets the weight of the prop. And your comment about keeping weight as light as possible applies to the pilot as well as the airplane. 😁
I fly 202 on my backpack paramotor. It's like Escort with V-8 lol
Please add any comments in the future about your experiences with the 202. Good to hear from someone with experience!
Ooo... goodee
Engine mounts? Carve rubber with a Stanley Surform. Thrust washers are leather cut out. Think nothing of cutting out or punching 2-300 washers to mount a motor.
Fitchel Sachs 303 Wankel. Don't use the 295. Wankels are 4 cycles. A Culver wooden prop is quiet, light, safe, and replaceable.
I did not see any undercarriage in the calculations.
Tiny turbine, geared.