 Search Results - Recent posts as of less than a minute ago |
11 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »Showing 1 - 30 (301 results found)
|
|
|
| My understanding from a friend who was building a Whitman Tail Wind is that 4130 is in short supply. He actually abandoned his project after assembling all the wing ribs, because he couldn't get the steel for the fuselage. |
|
|
I'm not doubting what you're saying but then the tubing used must be a lot thicker wall than I suspected. Granted, it does take a lot of stress because of the strut loads.
Thanks
Lynn |
|
|
Lynn, I can't remember the figure, but I do remember that the steel gear is appreciably heavier than the wooden legs. Maybe 8 - 10pounds heavier.
Bruce |
|
|
In considering the components of the MiniMAX I've started, I have considered building steel tubing landing gear instead of the wood "A Frames" and straight-across axle. I don't think the difference in drag on either would be a huge factor but it seems the steel tubing landing gear like is shown on TEAM's website might be tick lighter than the wood "legs" and the axle tube which alone weighs about 5#.
Does anyone have knowledge of the tubing diameter(s) used and wall thickness of the tubing? I'm proficient with TIG and am comfortable that I could build a good landing gear but don't want to go so far as to build it on my guesses of materials used. I would of course use 4130 chrome moly tubing. I would also guess there might be additional structure in the floor of the fuselage with the steel gear since the loads would be more concentrated than with the "hinge" mount of the wood gear.
Any informed input would be appreciated. Thank You!
Lynn |
|
|
I had a few minutes so got looking at my 4' X 12' work table and I'm pleased the lines to lay out the vertical stabilizer and rudder are faint, but still visible on the table top. I'll darken the lines a bit to see them more clearly. I did a quick check of dimensions so at least I don't have to lay it all out again.
Now I need to get some RS stock cut to sizes needed but leaving Monday on an 8 day vacation so work will resume as soon as I'm back.
Lynn |
|
|
Thanks for the additional info and specs. At this point I'll just say, "Maybe, someday" but for now I've decided to keep my life simple and build another ultralight MiniMAX. Just not wanting to add the stress and extra work of a plane that will have to be inspected and registered. I'd prefer not to deal with the FAA now.
Maybe someone having seen the 2-place plane will decide to build one. That would be nice.
Lynn |
|
|
Lynn
The issue of experimentar with description of zenoah powered pauperplane is august 1992.the engine is zenoah G50.He says it flies as good as the Himax.empty weight= 430lbs.pilot=200lbs.fuel=10 gallons. t/o run=300 ft.roc=500'/min.top speed=70mph.55_60mph@5000rpm.stall=30 mph.this is with pilot only.no figures given with passenger ! the vw powere version is described in january 94 issue. GW=555lbs. max=85mph. cruise=70-75mph. t/o run= 600ft. climb=500'/min @55mph. stall=35. fuel=16 gallons. fuselage xtended furthe by 6 inches to balance engine.again no mention about the passenger!prop= 54x28 and 58x27.I think it needs the tandem airbike wing. |
|
|
| Ahh just build 4 more. Mmmm Spare ribs! |
|
|
Well. if I stop building ribs now the last one (24th) is curing in the jig providing I stick with going an ultralight build. Still somewhat considering going out on a limb to build a side-by-side 2 seat plane and then I'd probably need to build 4 more ribs.
Lynn |
|
|
Thanks for the photos of the side-by-side modified HiMAX. Depending on the plans he was working from, 16" wider would likely be a 38" or 40" wide fuselage. Somehow the 18" fuselage stretch doesn't look that noticeable. Wonder if the wing sections were widened any from the normal 139" wings? At 139" each and with a 40" wide fuselage the wingspan would have only been around 26.5'. I would guess at that wingspan wing loading in would have been flirting with 7# per Sq. Ft.. Any mention of empty or gross weight?
Lynn |
|
|
| Indeed it was.Designer Daniel Squire. very little detail about structure in article i have.its dated somewhere in 1993.he does mention its 16 inches wider and 18 inches stretch at the back.engine was Zenoah G50 initially later changed to vw 1835cc. |
|
|
So, was the Pauperplane a side-by-side modified version of the HiMAX?
Lynn |
|
|
Cy V
you may be right.the RW8/RW11 plan set also has the PT2S drawings besides the Ragabond drawings..primary trainer2 ? the PT2S could be said to resemble a Himax.Long ago/ and before appearence of PT2S there was an article in EAA Experimenter magazine by a builder who built a Himax version he called a Pauperplane.it was powered by a VW 1835cc engine.but the video posted above showing the TA3 is amazing.It flies very well.I wonder why it was abandoned?Certainly not because of any design deficiency or lack of performance i am sure. |
|
|
The Ragwing Rag-A-Bond is basically a two-seat Hi-Max. I think it even uses the same wing rib as the Mini-Max.
|
|
|
Looks like the Pottier P130 Cocinelle bears a striking resemblance to the ARV Super2, which flew a few years before the Cocinelle, in 1985.
Both are 2 seat side by side, shoulder wing, forward swept rectangular wing, although the Super2 was all aluminium construction.
I see you can get plans, etc, for the Cocinelle for $55. Worth a look, Lynn?
Bruce |
|
|
A plane with similiar outline was the pottier coccinelle.drawings were available from RSA france about 20 years ago.it had similiar shape to the Cygnet SF2a but was all wood construction.there is some detail on wikipedia under pottier P130 coccinnele.listening closely to the video someone can be heard saying"has the same wing span but wider".the performance appears quite good but looks like only single pilot. |
|
|
Cool video content, even thought the video quality is not great. A MiniMAX fly-in....how cool!
I just wish there was someone with a photographic memory that saw the TA3 MiniMAX in person and remembered some finer points of how the plane was built. Even knowing what the wingspan was would be a good start.
Lynn |
|
|
Such a cool airplane. I think I heard that Team Mini-Max no longer has the rights to the design and the owner does not want to sell. Total shame. Video below. I think there might be another thread somewhere in this site with some more data. I think it had a rotax 582.
TA3 - old team minimax two seater -
https://youtu.be/BBQX5vS4hdA?si=fMjX5WMYswN5wp3v |
|
|
I used an MZ202 engine in my Eros. Very impressed with the engine & the performance it gave.
The engine was built in Canada by Compact Radial, but the business was later sold to the Chinese.
Here is a link to the Australian dealer: https://aerochute.com.au/upcp_product/fiate-mz202-replacement-engine/
With a bit of research you should be able to find the Chinese company, & buy direct from them.
Bruce |
|
|
[face=Arial][/face]I'm about 75% complete on a 1600R and I'm presently working on the engine conversion. I'm going to use a Briggs and Stratton 993CC 37 HP generator engine in a direct drive / hand propped configuration. Installed engine weight should be under 88 lbs including oil and exhaust. See details in this thread:
https://www.homebuiltairplanes.....sation-thread.35455/ |
|
|
| That's been almost 40 years ago, and I've sleepted many times since then, but I believe what I saw was a high wing airplane? |
|
|
I'm trying to figure out what to do for an engine. With Rotax 503 being in short supply, I'm not sure of my options. I'm building the 1650 EROS. So I'm wondering what engine you have and if you're happy with it or wish you had something else. Also, any suggestions?
Thanks,
John C |
|
|
Thanks. I'm curious about a lot of things and the existence of a 2-place, mid-wing MiniMAX really caught my attention. I look forward to any information you can un-earth.
Lynn |
|
|
| I was a parts supplier to TEAM at the time, and delivered the fiberglass parts I made. I got to see the airplane that you mentioned under construction. It was my understanding that Wayne Ison decided that it was going to be heaver then they were hoping for, and therefor it was never completed. I will try to check with someone who I know, who may know more about this airplane. |
|
|
I was watching a video of David from Team MiniMAX being interviewed at Oshkosh. There was a brief mention of a side-by-side 2-place plane that was built back in the 80's at MiniMAX. There's mention starting at about 4:10 in this video.
https://www.google.com/search?.....SiI,st:0
If I caught it correctly there might only be one in existence? Do any of you who might have been around MiniMAX planes since the beginning recall anything about it? It would be interesting to learn more about it.
Lynn
it would be cool |
|
|
Is the use of the light tail limited to the very lightest of the MiniMAX designs, ie:Is it strong enough to use on a heavier MiniMAX? The light tail is more time intensive to build and wonder if that might have been the reason to go to the now "normal" tail that uses the laminated (solid) leading edge and generally heavier material construction as opposed to the light tail built-up tail spars.
Thanks to anyone who has some idea of the engineering analysis of the light tail's capability to work on heavier planes. I had a copy of the whole engineer analysis for the basic 1100 MiniMAX, but I might have passed it along to the gentleman I sold the plane to.
Personally, I enjoyed building the light tail on my 1st build. Good thing I did too as it still flirted with "tail heavy" with the 277 Rotax I used.
Lynn |
|
|
Thanks for the post. Good point about the wing spar cap size, but I do believe the Ragabond plans call for 1/8" shear web instead of the V-MAX 1.5MM, so that would cancel out some of the weight differences. Reason for being drawn to the V-MAX spars is also because of extending the wing by one bay on each side, plus the higher gross weight I expect compared to the V-MAX. The V-MAX spar design seems to better place material and strength in the right areas.
The Ragabond plans also suggest extending the rear of the fuselage by 20" for "heavier engines" and that would suggest engines heavier than a 503 Rotax. That's one of the problems with the Ragabond plans, there are a lot of blanks that need to be filled in rather than there being any firm directions. There's also probably reason to extend the fuselage length to work with a longer wingspan to maintain rudder and elevator authority, but again by just how much?
I need to continue to study the plans side-by-side but since I'm not an engineer it's still a bit of guessing. I also like the MiniMAX tail construction more than the Ragabond design, so I need to compare square footage of the 2 designs. I just want to be sure I'm not building a 2-place yard dart! I have a couple airplane design books so I may have to try working through some of the calculations. My head hurts already.
Lynn |
|
|
Lynn
the ragabond/pt2s wing spar already looks strong enough.1x3/4 spar cap vs 3/4 sq spar cap for v max.there is a top doubler also for both spars plus wood block packing similiar to v max but 15" vs 30" long.both wings look almost similiar.there is video of ragabond flying with jabiru 2200cc engine so looks like vw2180 should be suitable though probably nose heavy.an engine like viking 90 hp mitsubishi based engine may also be considered. |
|
|
BlueMax....thank you so much for your post. I would have a lot of questions for you but I'll just start out with a couple, and I'll say "Thank You" in advance if you have time to reply.
I still haven't decided 100% that I'm going to pursue building a HiMAX on steroids/V-MAX/Ragabond hybrid plane but I was thinking of using the V-MAX wing spar design, compression and anti-drag rib arrangements but adding one wing bay and also increasing the lengths of the center spar reinforcement members between the spar caps. With a 40" wide fuselage I would end up at a 29' wingspan with no wing tips. Is yours the "normal" 26.5' V-MAX wingspan? Do you know an approximate rate of climb you see? You must have been pretty careful building as 405# empty weight sounds great!
I feel I will have to make a build direction decision soon since I'm at wing rib #17 now, so other building will need to follow soon! My other thought is a 103 legal MiniMAX but using a 2A042 military surplus engine. My first MiniMAX beat the Part 103 weight limit with an empty weight of 246# and I'm sure I have enough weight saving ideas to keep it under 254# again even with the slightly heavier 4-stroke, 2-cylinder engine.
Would you perhaps have any photos of your VW engine and it's mounting? Are you driving the prop off of the VW's flywheel or pulley end? I'm guessing the Slick mag is mounted on the firewall side of the engine? About what is the distance from the firewall to the end of the prop pulley? Did you build your own engine or buy one built from ????
I estimate the plane I have in mind would weigh about 800 - 820# gross weight with 8 to 10 gallons of fuel split between 2 wing tanks, and a total weight of my good friend pilot and me as passenger(co-pilot) at 325-ish pounds. I can see it being for short flights around the area of the base airport and the occasional Saturday morning breakfast run to another nearby airport.
Thanks again for posting the info on your plane!
Lynn |
|
|
I fly a Vmax with a 1600cc VW with slick mag. I weigh 180lbs and my plane weighs 405 empty. She has never felt low on power and will make 90mph wide open in level flight at 3500rpm. I dont think you could go wrong with the 1835 or 1915 but with the 1915 you will definitely have to make sure you dont bust the VNE.
Chris |
11 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »Showing 1 - 30 (301 results found)
|
|
