Isn't that a FlyBaby in Budd Davisson's article on biplanes? There's no caption (nor does it even mention Fly Babies in the article).
Printable View
Isn't that a FlyBaby in Budd Davisson's article on biplanes? There's no caption (nor does it even mention Fly Babies in the article).
If you're referring to the first biplane (page 56), that's a Starduster I. A Pitts on page 57, and, I believe, a Hatz on page 58. All the rest are identified, and yes, none are Fly Babies.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingRon
The problem is, while a builder can construct a Fly Baby based on the original EAA articles, Pete never published the biplane addendum in Sport Aviation. Over the years, the biplane addendum was a $15 additional charge that, I think, most buyers didn't opt for (seeing as how it was a 25% price jump for a set of plan).
And, of course, plans are not currently sold.
Budd contacted me several months back when I expect he was working on the article, and I gave him the full skinny. Not surprised he didn't include the Fly Baby biplane in the article, due to the difficulty of finding the plans for the wings.
In any case, as far as EAA and Fly Baby biplanes are concerned, you can't BEAT this video EAA made of Kurt Gubert's airplane....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caWVZ-smROQ
Oh, and for those who aren't aware, you CAN build a (monoplane) Fly Baby from the original EAA articles:
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/PB100/index.html
Ron Wanttaja
Not a Starduster 1 it’s a V-star. It’s also shown on page 63. From the above view it’s hard to tell the difference.