Fly Baby Made of aluminum like a Aerodrome WW-1 Replica?

[RonK]

I like the lines of a Fly Baby, but I also like the way the Aerodrome planes are made and ease of building. I was wondering if a Fly Baby could be made like the Aerodrome plane but maybe a little smaller like Ultralight size with about a 24' to 25' wingspan and about 16' or 17' long fuselage. And have a main wing USA27 airfoil for slow speed and high lift, and a 0009 airfoil on the tail feathers, to reduce drag and help a little with lift.

Maybe use carbon fiber for the ribs, if not carbon fiber, aluminum.

I read all of 'Building a Nieuport 11' by Frank Giger and like the way the Aerodrome planes are put together.

Could the Airframe and wing be made like the Aerodrome Nieuport 11 plane but shaped like the Fly Baby?

I checked out Ron Wanttaja's Fly Baby site and didn't see anything about an aluminum Fly Baby.

Did anyone ever see or hear about an aluminum Flybaby?

The engine will be a Kawasaki 440 for the ultralight version.

Best regards,

RonK

[rwanttaja]

It's much easier to design a biplane than a monoplane. Bracing the wings is a lot simpler when you have two panels with struts between them. The Fly Baby has a rather high percentage of wing failures, and casual modification is fraught with danger. Several of the Fly Baby cases were the result of the builder making a change that SHOULD have improved the wing structure, but had unintended consequences.

I occasionally get emails along the lines of "I want to do **** to a Fly Baby, can you re-run Pete's calculations?" Whatever calculations Pete did on the Fly Baby were probably on a single page, and ended up in a landfill 60 years ago.

With only one major supplier of spruce left, the Fly Baby community has been discussing alternate construction methods. Carlson Aircraft sells aluminum wing spars (http://www.carlsonaircraft.com/spar.html) that could probably be used. However, this snowballs....a whole lot of changes come out of that apparently-simple choice. Metal ribs then seem logical, but how do they attach, how does one handle the cap strips, how does one build the false spar for the aileron, what substitutes for the top bevel on the spars, do you design the ribs with integral capstrips, what do you do for a wingtip, etc.

It's not difficult to make the big decisions...metal C-section spar N x M in dimensions, ribs bent out of 0.020 2024, etc. But there's a lot of fine design detail on the stock wing that must be addressed, and it's tough to do that without intimate knowledge of how the stock wing is built. You can find details on the PB100 Companion Guide for the first EAA construction article:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/PB100/Guide_1.pdf

Skimming through that might give you some indication of the subtleties of the wing design.

The hard part is finding a modifier who will actually BUILD the wing and fly the aircraft. The hardest part is finding a modifier not only willing to build the modified wing and test it in flight, but also share the details with others.

There has been less discussion about alternate fuselage designs, probably because the 3/4" square spruce used in the fuselage is easier to find that 3/4"x6" spar material.

Ironically, of course, the Fly Baby stemmed from the Story Special... which has a steel tube fuselage.

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/story_pete.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[robert l]

Of course I know absolutely nothing about design, calculations or strength of wood compaired to aluminum but I have built the wings and tail grooup for a Zenith CH-701. The spars are aluminum with lighting holes and an aluminum angle for a cap strip. It also has a doubler where the strut attaches. It's pretty simple and doesn't weight that much but how it compaires to a wood and fabric wing, I have no idea. I think someone designed a VP-I out of aluminum many years ago but I don't know any more than that. I guess I could have just kept my mouth shut ! :(
Bob

[CHICAGORANDY]

A nice true aluminum ultralight that WILL 'fly', baby.

http://www.airdromeaeroplanes.com/FokkerE-III%7B3-4scale%7D.html

lol

Not what you may want but sure beats trying to re-invent the wheel.

[Bill Berson]

Aluminum ribs should be lighter. But don't stand on the ribs like Pete did.

[rwanttaja]

Aluminum ribs should be lighter.
I dunno. 0.025" 2024 weighs about 0.36 pounds per square foot, just about the same as 1/8" plywood. The capstrips will add a bit of weight in comparison, of course. But scratch-building a plywood rib is easier than a metal one.


But don't stand on the ribs like Pete did.
You HAVE to wonder how Pete got there. They had to have had a ladder or something next to the wing to let Pete climb up and (gingerly) step onto the wing. But did he come up from the trailing edge and step over the aileron (seems unlikely) or step off BACKWARDS from the leading edge (seems even less likely).
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pete_ribs.jpg

The other thing I wonder is if the words "Hold", "My", and "Beer" preceding the taking of this photo....

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

It could absolutely be done, particularly for the fuselage.

The concern with the wings deformation in flight, which could be answered a couple ways by beefing up the compression struts and with the flying/landing wires. Certainly Robert solved that problem with his Eindecker...and it's actually a pretty big aircraft (the full scale one).

The ribs in the Aerodrome design are just 1/4" tubing on the top and bottom, riveted into the back of the spars with a small gusset. Very light weight. The wings rely on the drag/anti-drag wires within to keep things tight. I spent more time on the jig (an hour) than I did actually putting them on the wing. Bending the tubing to the airfoil did take some time, but there's a big bunch of them.

One would also have to improve the carry-throughs for the the wings, IMHO. This is the most common of the modifications to his plans, btw, with the little "blades" replaced by bit of steel tubing that fits neatly within the spars.

A technique Robert used on the really big planes he designed, like the Sopwith Baby, was to have three aluminum tubes fill the main aluminum spar tube.

[edit]

A word on the "kits" Robert sells. Basically they're the plans and the material list, with the gussets pre-cut. Every tube is over sized, as one must cut, bend, and cope each one. It's pretty much the same as if one purchased just the plans and bought the materials one's self. I did the math on the costs of the materials if I bought them myself versus what Robert charges and it came out as pretty much a wash, with (depending on the vendor) Robert actually being a bit less expensive. He's got the power of wholesale working for him.

[rwanttaja]

It could absolutely be done, particularly for the fuselage.

The concern with the wings deformation in flight, which could be answered a couple ways by beefing up the compression struts and with the flying/landing wires. Certainly Robert solved that problem with his Eindecker...and it's actually a pretty big aircraft (the full scale one).

The problem isn't as much strength as the angle the flying wires attach to the wing.
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/jones1.jpg
The lower the angle, the less effective the cable is in opposing flight loads....and the more tension in the bracing system. The Fly Baby is a low-wing airplane with the flying wires attached to the wheel hub. The Eindekker is a mid-wing airplane, with a more advantageous bracing angle. It requires a king post for the landing wires (the Fly Baby's attach at the upper longeron) but that's a cosmetic issue, not difficult to implement.

The Fly Baby's fuselage sides are vertical, and, in fact, it would be relatively easy to do a mid-wing Fly Baby....
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/morane.jpg
This would greatly increase the effectiveness of the stock bracing system. The king post would actually be installed the same way as the cabane struts for the biplane version. The main drawback would needing to completely revamp the aileron control system, and adding the steps and handles so the pilot can get on top of the wing to get into the cockpit.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

Aeronca ribs are .020" 5052H-32, I think.

[rwanttaja]

Aeronca ribs are .020" 5052H-32, I think.

OK, the 1/8" plywood is about 0.35 lbs/ft^2, and 0.020 5052 is 0.28 lbs/ft^2. Each full rib on a Fly Baby is about 1.6 square feet (including nose, middle, and tail portions). There are 11 of these ribs on a single wing panel (however, some of them are smaller, but we'll count them all as full size). So the 11 1/8"wood ribs on a Fly Baby wing are about 6.25 pounds, and the same ribs with 0.020 5052 are about five pounds even. At this point, the wing panel is about a pound-and-a-quarter lighter.

In addition, the cap strips on each rib are spruce (33 lbs per cubic foot) 1/2" x 1/4" by 55 inches long (approximate). That's 7 cubic inches per cap strip, another 1.5 pounds per wing panel. It's actually a bit less due to the slot.

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/capstrip.jpg

Stock wing panels weigh about 110 pounds, so the weight difference between wood and metal ribs is about six pounds for two. This assumes the metal ribs have a formed flange; if they have a separate cap-strip equivalent, the weight advantage will be diminished by the weight of the added flange and the rivets used to install them.

Balance that, of course, with the ease of fabrication. Fly Baby's wood ribs are zipped out quickly using a bandsaw or router, and the capstrips are just a couple of cuts on the table saw. Scratch-building metal ribs is much more involved, especially if you want to form the flange as part of the rib itself.

It's certainly not impossible, or even that uncommon...lots of RV-3s/4s, T-18s and Midget Mustangs were built. But it's far more time-consuming.

Metal homebuilts really took off when kits with pre-formed components such as ribs became available. There are five times as many "kit-built" EAB RVs on the registry (RV-6, 7, 8, 9, 10) than pre-kit era (RV-3 & 4), and kits were actually available for these, as well.

It's great...if you can afford it.

Ron Wanttaja

[robert l]

[QUOTE]
I dunno. 0.025" 2024 weighs about 0.36 pounds per square foot, just about the same as 1/8" plywood. The capstrips will add a bit of weight in comparison, of course. But scratch-building a plywood rib is easier than a metal one.
[QUOTE]
I don't know Ron W. I followed the plans for the 701 to make my pattern and used a router to cut several at a time, cut the lighting holes with a fly cutter on my drill press then formed the ribs between two wood patterns then used dies to make the flanges. Seemed to go pretty quick at the time. Just seems easier than all those little pieces of wood. But there again, I've never built a wooden rib, so basically, I'm just babbling ! Lol. OK, I see now the ribs are cut from plywood. Sorry ! :confused:
Bob

[RonK]

WOW! Thanks for the replies. They are all great. If I did make a new wing of aluminum I would build three and set up one for a destruction test with sandbags and log all the weight added very carefully (Double check). I would build the fuselage like the Aerodrome Plane but shape it like the Fly Baby's fuselage. I also have all the Flying and Glider Manuals from the EAA store with all the planes people designed in the 20' and 30's. I like the Mid wing version of the Fly Baby and I bet it even flies better. I read the article about how Church built the Mid Wing Heath, from a high wing Parasol, and stoked a little more speed out of it.

Question for Frank Giger, do you know if the designer of the Aerodrome planes ever just put the aluminum tubes diagonal in the wings instead of wires? Like this Crude example: [/|/|/|/] Imagine the top with a horizontal line like the bottom.

I wouldn't try to modify the Fly Baby original plans. Just use the basic lines so it will look like a Fly Baby.

There is a couple of Bi-plane plans in the old Flying and Glider Manuals that I like also may just make one of them.

I had a Skyraider ultralight. It had Aluminum tubes like an Aerodrome plane for the main spar and aluminum diagonals instead of wires for support of the wing and a few verticals like a latter. The ribs were made of 1/4 inch plywood cut with a USA27 airfoil (possibly modified by the designer) and a 48 " chord or so, maybe it 44" or 46". They (the ribs) were epoxied in between the front and rear spars about a foot apart or so.
With this wing, I had a rate of climb of 700 ft a minute, with a 447 Rotax. And I am 6'2" and was about 225 lbs at the time.

I was thinking of using stamped ribs (with verticals and diagonal reinforcement and some horizontal also) about of .020 thick aluminum and attach them like the Aerodrome Plane wing. I also would put a .040 thick u-shaped main spar at the highest lift point on the airfoil and it would be as thick as needed for a USA27 airfoil with a 48" chord. Also, I would have a U-shaped secondary spar .040 right ahead of the ailerons. Plus use whatever diameter round tubing on the leading edge like the Aerodrome plane uses for its main spar, to blend in the USA27 airfoil. Yep, I know overkill on the spars...better than underkill (Spell checker says Underkill is an unknown word...LOL) if you know what I mean!

And like I said everything will be sandbag tested. I will invest in a parachute for the first flight!!! Well, actually all the flights...LOL.

Thanks again for all the replies, I'll think of something but for now I'll have to just have fun in my Quicksilver MX1 with a 440 Kawasaki in it.

Take care all,

RonK

PS...That Aerodrome EIII Fokker looks like the one to get, and the price is probably better than if made one from scratch. I'll check into it. It seems like the manufacturer stands by his product after reading Frank G's build vlog.

[Frank Giger]

Here's how the wings look (less fabric):

http://www.darts-page.com/images/Nieuport/rlw_repair006.jpg

Of course I took them from the end where one can't really see the drag/anti-drag wires - there is one set on the top wing, and two on the upper:

http://www.darts-page.com/images/Nieuport/uwrepair003.jpg

The thing is that these really need to be wires, IMHO.

1) That way one can adjust tension on them to ensure the wing is true. One can do this fairly easily on even a less than perfect build table or jig. Indeed, I set mine with the spars on saw horses.

2) If something bad happens in a wreck, the wires break and limit the damage to the wings. I wound up replacing one spar each on the to damaged wings when I flipped my plane thanks to the wires (but, I say proudly, not at the swag points) because they popped.

I know Robert well enough to where he'll take my call and spend time talking to me when I bump into him (like at Sun and Fun). Indeed, he's used me as his "test dummy." If I can understand an instruction, anyone can. :)

As Ron pointed out, to do it safely, one would have to go to a mid-wing design, which would answer a bunch of questions on controls. Assuming one wanted to use push-pull rods, it would actually be straight forward. Two control horns - one at the stick, and another at the aileron point. A rod comes up from that and goes to a horn attached to the aileron tube, turning vertical motion into rotation - just as it does on my Nieuport.

For cost and ease, one could simply purchase either of the Eindecker kits from Aerodrome, fire up the belt sander and the air compressor, and start building an airplane. Paint it any way you want to!

[RonK]

I'm really liking the Fokker E-III. What's nice is I can order it in sections. The wings on the E-III probably look about the same as yours, pretty simple and strong. Yes, I agree wires would be the best to true things up. Your airfoil looks like a NACA 2412, or close to it.

Well, of course, I have to talk to my wife (Basically beg and plead.) before I started getting the kit in sections.

Any pointers on how to handle the wife?

Thanks for the info,

RonK

[DaleB]

Any pointers on how to handle the wife?
If Mama happy, everybody happy. If Mama ain't happy, ain't NObody happy.

That's all the advice I have for you, buddy.

[rwanttaja]

Question for Frank Giger, do you know if the designer of the Aerodrome planes ever just put the aluminum tubes diagonal in the wings instead of wires? Like this Crude example: [/|/|/|/] Imagine the top with a horizontal line like the bottom.

Call up the PB100 Companion Guide for the first Fly Baby construction article, and go to page 40 ("Non-Cable Internal Bracing"):

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/PB100/Guide_1.pdf

There I discuss some alternate methods, and the advantages and drawbacks of each. It's aimed towards Fly Baby builders, but the same advice carries to other designs. As Frank mentioned, the alternates using solid tubes have an issue with trammelling (getting the orientation exactly right).


I wouldn't try to modify the Fly Baby original plans. Just use the basic lines so it will look like a Fly Baby.

Dingdingdingdingding.... winner!

Pete didn't so much "engineer" the Fly Baby as he worked in details of successful aircraft of the sort of configuration he was planning. To quote Pete in EAA SPORT AVIATION (December 1962):

The wood construction was retained for simplicity and low cost and the aerodynamic layout was based on the two Story "Specials" then operating in Seattle in order to match their flying qualities, which were very definitely superior to others in the area.

The Storys were thoroughly conservative and conventional airplanes with a distinguished pedigree. Their immediate predecessor was George Beaugardus' "Little Gee Bee", which Tom Story of Portland, Oreg., had built just before World War II as a development of Les Long's famous Longster "Wimpy".

Note that the Fly Baby has engendered at least one ultralight "clone": The Ultrababy. It's a 75% scale Fly Baby designed for a half-VW.
http://www.ultraligero.net/aviones/modelos/imagenes/ultra_baby.jpg

It's all wood, though...not what you're looking for. Converting an existing design to an all-new material is not easy.

Here's something similar: I got into electronics as a teenager. This was in early in the "solid state" era, when transistors were replacing vacuum tubes. I did a lot of fiddling with them.

A friend came to me one day, with a small table-type radio. He wanted me to unplug the vacuum tubes and plug in transistors, instead, so he could make it portable. It was difficult to explain, in terms he'd understand, why that just couldn't be done.

You sometimes see the same thing in homebuilt aircraft. People think they can take a 3/4" square spruce longeron and replace it with a 3/4" aluminum tube. But even if the strength is the same, the method used to attach components to each other is entirely different. And the interfaces are the key.

You mentioned extensive ground testing, and that's good. However, keep in mind that the testing should be of the aircraft, not just the wings. Keeping the wings on my Fly Baby depends on the bracing cables, turnbuckles, steel-tube compression struts, 1/8" steel anchors for the bracing wires, the wing spars, the 1/8" steel plates that attach the wings to fuselage bulkheads of stations 3 and 5 (which consist of spruce and plywood components of various sizes, the landing gear legs, and the main gear wheel axle.

About 40 years ago, the first Fly Baby in Finland underwent full Part 23 load testing (they didn't have an Experimental category in Finland). Here's how they did the positive G loading (from an English translation of the test report):
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/finnish_diagram.jpg
So the testing isn't all that simple. (If, for some reason, you want to read the whole report: http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/Finnish_Load_Report.pdf)

I don't want to discourage you from designing your own airplane...after all, that's what EAA is all about. But if you're just looking for a plane to fly that fits your budget (like 99% of EAA homebuilt fans) you'd be better off with something off the shelf. The Aerodrome Eindekker sounds pretty good.

Ron "How about a nice game of chess" Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

On Airdrome airfoils, Robert likes the Cub/Champ airfoils, as they are very pilot friendly.

This is usually one of the first things folks change, going to a more historically accurate thinner one. I went with what he suggested.

When Robert says that a first time builder can make one of his planes in the space of a single car garage using simple household tools, he isn't lying. I cheated by getting an air powered rivet gun - no way I was going to put all of those in by hand!

I would also strongly suggest spending a couple days in Holden, MO, at his shop for a builder's assist. If one hasn't ever done this sort of work it's school where one gets to take home and use the product!

A couple words about Robert Baslee's builder assist:

1) It can be pricey (for me, anyhow). He's upfront about his rate, which is daily. However, it is totally worth it.

2) It is builder assist. The work pace is entirely on the builder. Want to stand around talking theory instead of slinging rivets? Fine by Robert. He'll gently remind one why they are there and point out the things that need done, but if you ain't working, they ain't working. Don't worry - you will never work faster than they can. His builder's assist is affectionately known as the House of Pain. If one is over their head, they'll go into school mode and demonstrate. But a lot can get done in short order when at the master's knee. Heck, my Nieuport was fuselage, tail feathers, and on gear done in four days with just me, him, and his helper Jim.

3) One is paying for his time and shop time. It's not by person. Bring a decent helper! Or, as I know has happened, bring a whole team of experienced builders and pretty much complete an aircraft in five days.

4) While safety is King in his shop, there are some OSHA cringe worthy things that happen in every build. I doubt he'll turn someone away for wearing flip-flops into his shop, but think ahead. He'll point out safety glasses and gloves for one to use, but since the waiver is thick, doesn't gripe too much about it. Then again, working with aluminum tubes, gussets, and pop rivets is pretty low threat.

[FlyingRon]

Oh, I thought you were talking about a replica of a (Langley) Aerodrome. I'm not sure I want to fly one of those.

[Frank Giger]

I'm really liking the Fokker E-III. What's nice is I can order it in sections. The wings on the E-III probably look about the same as yours, pretty simple and strong. Yes, I agree wires would be the best to true things up. Your airfoil looks like a NACA 2412, or close to it.

Well, of course, I have to talk to my wife (Basically beg and plead.) before I started getting the kit in sections.

Any pointers on how to handle the wife?

Thanks for the info,

RonK

Buy the "ruder" kit. If one can make the rudder, one can make the entire aircraft, as all the skills and techniques are distilled into that one piece.

Do me a favor if you do order it - when Robert asks where you found out, mention the EAA forums and the good folks here.

[rwanttaja]

Buy the "ruder" kit.
Isn't that reserved for either Bill or Floats? :-)

Ron "Getting into trouble early this week" Wanttaja

[robert l]

RonK,
And I am 6'2" and was about 225 lbs at the time
PS...That Aerodrome EIII Fokker looks like the one to get, and the price is probably better than if made one from scratch. I'll check into it. It seems like the manufacturer stands by his product after reading Frank G's build vlog.

I tried a 3/4 Eiendecker on for size a few years ago and there is a (I think) rear spar tube carry through just behind the seat. It was somewhat uncomfortable and the cock pit was a little tight. I'm 6 ft and 200 lbs. but I really like the E III. At 6' 2" it might be a little tight for you also. But, you may bot be as old and stiff as I am !!! :(
Bob

[RonK]

If Mama happy, everybody happy. If Mama ain't happy, ain't NObody happy.

That's all the advice I have for you, buddy.

I hear you.

[RonK]

Call up the PB100 Companion Guide for the first Fly Baby construction article, and go to page 40 ("Non-Cable Internal Bracing"):

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/PB100/Guide_1.pdf

There I discuss some alternate methods, and the advantages and drawbacks of each. It's aimed towards Fly Baby builders, but the same advice carries to other designs. As Frank mentioned, the alternates using solid tubes have an issue with trammelling (getting the orientation exactly right).



Dingdingdingdingding.... winner!

Pete didn't so much "engineer" the Fly Baby as he worked in details of successful aircraft of the sort of configuration he was planning. To quote Pete in EAA SPORT AVIATION (December 1962):

The wood construction was retained for simplicity and low cost and the aerodynamic layout was based on the two Story "Specials" then operating in Seattle in order to match their flying qualities, which were very definitely superior to others in the area.

The Storys were thoroughly conservative and conventional airplanes with a distinguished pedigree. Their immediate predecessor was George Beaugardus' "Little Gee Bee", which Tom Story of Portland, Oreg., had built just before World War II as a development of Les Long's famous Longster "Wimpy".

Note that the Fly Baby has engendered at least one ultralight "clone": The Ultrababy. It's a 75% scale Fly Baby designed for a half-VW.
http://www.ultraligero.net/aviones/modelos/imagenes/ultra_baby.jpg

It's all wood, though...not what you're looking for. Converting an existing design to an all-new material is not easy.

Here's something similar: I got into electronics as a teenager. This was in early in the "solid state" era, when transistors were replacing vacuum tubes. I did a lot of fiddling with them.

A friend came to me one day, with a small table-type radio. He wanted me to unplug the vacuum tubes and plug in transistors, instead, so he could make it portable. It was difficult to explain, in terms he'd understand, why that just couldn't be done.

You sometimes see the same thing in homebuilt aircraft. People think they can take a 3/4" square spruce longeron and replace it with a 3/4" aluminum tube. But even if the strength is the same, the method used to attach components to each other is entirely different. And the interfaces are the key.

You mentioned extensive ground testing, and that's good. However, keep in mind that the testing should be of the aircraft, not just the wings. Keeping the wings on my Fly Baby depends on the bracing cables, turnbuckles, steel-tube compression struts, 1/8" steel anchors for the bracing wires, the wing spars, the 1/8" steel plates that attach the wings to fuselage bulkheads of stations 3 and 5 (which consist of spruce and plywood components of various sizes, the landing gear legs, and the main gear wheel axle.

About 40 years ago, the first Fly Baby in Finland underwent full Part 23 load testing (they didn't have an Experimental category in Finland). Here's how they did the positive G loading (from an English translation of the test report):
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/finnish_diagram.jpg
So the testing isn't all that simple. (If, for some reason, you want to read the whole report: http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/Finnish_Load_Report.pdf)

I don't want to discourage you from designing your own airplane...after all, that's what EAA is all about. But if you're just looking for a plane to fly that fits your budget (like 99% of EAA homebuilt fans) you'd be better off with something off the shelf. The Aerodrome Eindekker sounds pretty good.

Ron "How about a nice game of chess" Wanttaja

I happen to have the Plans for the Ultralight Fly Baby. The only problem is wood is getting pretty expensive these days. I don't mind wood, but seeing the way Aerodrome planes are made that would be the way to go.
My test would be along the lines that you posted, Thank You.

RonK

[RonK]

On Airdrome airfoils, Robert likes the Cub/Champ airfoils, as they are very pilot friendly.

This is usually one of the first things folks change, going to a more historically accurate thinner one. I went with what he suggested.

When Robert says that a first time builder can make one of his planes in the space of a single car garage using simple household tools, he isn't lying. I cheated by getting an air powered rivet gun - no way I was going to put all of those in by hand!

I would also strongly suggest spending a couple days in Holden, MO, at his shop for a builder's assist. If one hasn't ever done this sort of work it's school where one gets to take home and use the product!

A couple words about Robert Baslee's builder assist:

1) It can be pricey (for me, anyhow). He's upfront about his rate, which is daily. However, it is totally worth it.

2) It is builder assist. The work pace is entirely on the builder. Want to stand around talking theory instead of slinging rivets? Fine by Robert. He'll gently remind one why they are there and point out the things that need done, but if you ain't working, they ain't working. Don't worry - you will never work faster than they can. His builder's assist is affectionately known as the House of Pain. If one is over their head, they'll go into school mode and demonstrate. But a lot can get done in short order when at the master's knee. Heck, my Nieuport was fuselage, tail feathers, and on gear done in four days with just me, him, and his helper Jim.

3) One is paying for his time and shop time. It's not by person. Bring a decent helper! Or, as I know has happened, bring a whole team of experienced builders and pretty much complete an aircraft in five days.

4) While safety is King in his shop, there are some OSHA cringe worthy things that happen in every build. I doubt he'll turn someone away for wearing flip-flops into his shop, but think ahead. He'll point out safety glasses and gloves for one to use, but since the waiver is thick, doesn't gripe too much about it. Then again, working with aluminum tubes, gussets, and pop rivets pretty low threat.


I would get an air rivet gun too. But I won't be going to the builder assist, I live in Arizona.

[RonK]

Oh, I thought you were talking about a replica of a (Langley) Aerodrome. I'm not sure I want to fly one of those.

Yea it didn't get very far off the launch ramp.

[RonK]

Buy the "ruder" kit. If one can make the rudder, one can make the entire aircraft, as all the skills and techniques are distilled into that one piece.

Do me a favor if you do order it - when Robert asks where you found out, mention the EAA forums and the good folks here.

I may get the rudder kit soon, I almost have my wife convinced to let me get started. And I will mention you all at the EAA.

[RonK]

RonK,
And I am 6'2" and was about 225 lbs at the time
PS...That Aerodrome EIII Fokker looks like the one to get, and the price is probably better than if made one from scratch. I'll check into it. It seems like the manufacturer stands by his product after reading Frank G's build vlog.

I tried a 3/4 Eiendecker on for size a few years ago and there is a (I think) rear spar tube carry through just behind the seat. It was somewhat uncomfortable and the cock pit was a little tight. I'm 6 ft and 200 lbs. but I really like the E III. At 6' 2" it might be a little tight for you also. But, you may bot be as old and stiff as I am !!! :(
Bob

I'm 62, I'm not stiff but getting there. I plan on getting down to 185 to 190 lbs. I'm 227 lbs right now. I was 234 a week ago.
I'll ask Robert about the size issue before I get the rudder kit.



Thank You for the heads up,

RonK

[robert l]

I'm 62, I'm not stiff but getting there. I plan on getting down to 185 to 190 lbs. I'm 227 lbs right now. I was 234 a week ago.
I'll ask Robert about the size issue before I get the rudder kit.



Thank You for the heads up,

RonK

You're welcome, and please let me know what Robert says. I really like the E III. I think I would like to have a full VW or the Verner radial.
Bob

[RonK]

You're welcome, and please let me know what Robert says. I really like the E III. I think I would like to have a full VW or the Verner radial.
Bob

That would be a screamer with either of those!

I'll tell you what Robert says, I may call him sometime this week. His phone is probably off for the Holiday today.

[RonK]

I may have to change the title to go with the Aerodrome EIII subject...LOL

[robert l]

I came across some info and pictures of a "VP-I" all aluminum ultralight, although it looks akin to a MimiMax. It's called a CA-2 and Hummel Aviation used to sell plans for it but don't anymore. I don't know why. Anyway, I actually found a couple of videos on YouTube of two different ones flying and they looked pretty good, I don't think either of them had the performance of the MiniMax though, so I don't know if sacrificing performance just to build with aluminum would be worth it. I've never built (anything flyable) with wood but I do like using aluminum. About 1990 or so I had a Nomad Honcho and it would hit 48 mph WOT, and with a 36 ft. wing span any little breeze was bad. Even with an ultralight, I still want to be able to fly somewhere and not just in the pattern!
Bob

[RonK]

I have been writing Aerodrome and it should be Airdrome...Duh!?!:rollseyes:

[RonK]

I came across some info and pictures of a "VP-I" all aluminum ultralight, although it looks akin to a MimiMax. It's called a CA-2 and Hummel Aviation used to sell plans for it but don't anymore. I don't know why. Anyway, I actually found a couple of videos on YouTube of two different ones flying and they looked pretty good, I don't think either of them had the performance of the MiniMax though, so I don't know if sacrificing performance just to build with aluminum would be worth it. I've never built (anything flyable) with wood but I do like using aluminum. About 1990 or so I had a Nomad Honcho and it would hit 48 mph WOT, and with a 36 ft. wing span any little breeze was bad. Even with an ultralight, I still want to be able to fly somewhere and not just in the pattern!
Bob

He has only three planes he sells now, the Hummel Bird, Ultracruiser and H-5 (A beefed-up Ultracruiser.)

Here's the Website: http://flyhummel.com/

The Ultracruiser is the Ultralight he has a kit for and plans cost around $14,000.

[Frank Giger]

That would be a screamer with either of those!

I'll tell you what Robert says, I may call him sometime this week. His phone is probably off for the Holiday today.

Okay, so Robert is out in the middle of nowhere, so if you call and don't get an answer, wait a few minutes and call again. He might have walked into a black hole of phone service.

[robert l]

Okay, so Robert is out in the middle of nowhere, so if you call and don't get an answer, wait a few minutes and call again. He might have walked into a black hole of phone service.

That happens within the confines of my house ! Technology ! Well, at least we aren't on a party line !

[RonK]

I have the same problem, 1 minute I have 4 bars the next NO SERVICE. I'm probably more out in the boonies than Robert.

[RonK]

Frank G I saw your IL-2 Videos on your EntropyUnlimited youtube channel. I use to fly in that IL-2 video game online I was with VF-17 for a while. I was VF-17_DWolf, ( Short for Desert Wolf. ) I remember you in that game. Are you still playing the upgraded Patch versions?

I have IL-2_CUP, but they have one better than that now.

Lately, I've been spending to much time playing World of Warships. I'm slowing down playing it so I can get more done around the house and fix my truck!

PS...I checked out where Roberts Airdrome is, on Google Maps, I am more in the Boonies than him for sure!

[FlyingRon]

I have been writing Aerodrome and it should be Airdrome...Duh!?!:rollseyes:

Airdrome "Aeroplanes" probably was the confusion.

[Frank Giger]

We're going far afield from the original thread, but my flight simming has dropped off quite a bit.

When the modders got their hands on IL-2: 1946, multiplayer just went down the toilet - I spent more time chasing down mods to ensure compatibility than I did flying!

I fire up Rise of Flight now and then, mostly to shoot touch and goes and fly around when the weather means bad real life flying. Oddly enough, the SPAD is a really good analogy for a 7AC Champ, and the Nieuport acts pretty much like my Nieuport (except I dodn't have to blip the engine).

Do me a big favor and leave a comment on my videos if you watch them; the only way they'll get better is if I know what I'm doing wrong.

[edit]

On travelling to Holden, MO, for the builder's assist - I did the math and the gas back and forth in the truck wasn't much more than shipping. Having a fuselage in the bed of the truck and all the spars and stuff strapped on top of it got me some odd looks all the way back from Alabama.

Also, I've seen the full scale version of the EIII when I was at Gardener a few years back - it's a large aircraft! Powered by a VW, of course.

[RonK]

Airdrome "Aeroplanes" probably was the confusion.

Yep, that's what did it.

[RonK]

We're going far afield from the original thread, but my flight simming has dropped off quite a bit.

When the modders got their hands on IL-2: 1946, multiplayer just went down the toilet - I spent more time chasing down mods to ensure compatibility than I did flying!

I fire up Rise of Flight now and then, mostly to shoot touch and goes and fly around when the weather means bad real life flying. Oddly enough, the SPAD is a really good analogy for a 7AC Champ, and the Nieuport acts pretty much like my Nieuport (except I dodn't have to blip the engine).

Do me a big favor and leave a comment on my videos if you watch them; the only way they'll get better is if I know what I'm doing wrong.

[edit]

On travelling to Holden, MO, for the builder's assist - I did the math and the gas back and forth in the truck wasn't much more than shipping. Having a fuselage in the bed of the truck and all the spars and stuff strapped on top of it got me some odd looks all the way back from Alabama.

Also, I've seen the full scale version of the EIII when I was at Gardener a few years back - it's a large aircraft! Powered by a VW, of course.

OK, getting back to the Airplane discussion, when I watch your video's I will comment on them. My youtube name will be my full real name. I'll like to stay with the Ultralight version so I won't have to deal with the FAA, and DARS...etc. I wonder if a guy made the full-scale version of the E-III with a VW engine, wouldn't his performance be about the same as an Ultralight version with a 40 HP engine?

Hope you made through the Hurricane OK.

Best regards,

RonK

[RonK]

I called Robert today and talked about the E-III Eindecker. If your 6'2" like I am, you can adjust the seat to fit your size when you make the airplane. I mentioned Frank Giger and the EAA Forum subject we got going. He remembers you, Frank.

If you buy the plane in the separate kits, ie...the rudder kit#1 for $125.00 you get the rudder parts and just the plans for the rudder, and the fuselage kit, you get all the fuselage parts and the plans for it....etc.

So if everything goes well for me I may get the E-III soon.

[robert l]

"
I called Robert today and talked about the E-III Eindecker. If your 6'2" like I am, you can adjust the seat to fit your size when you make the airplane."


RonK, on the seat adjustment, is that for the 3/4 (ultralight) E-III or the full scale one ?
Bob

[RonK]

"
I called Robert today and talked about the E-III Eindecker. If your 6'2" like I am, you can adjust the seat to fit your size when you make the airplane."



RonK, on the seat adjustment, is that for the 3/4 (ultralight) E-III or the full scale one ?
Bob









It's the 3/4 E-III. I didn't see a full-scale E-III or Frank G's Nieuport 11 either.

[Frank Giger]

It's on the price sheet. :)