Congrats Ben on both this and the other presentation regarding the Helo fly-bar function. So glad you are still planning to continue with your interesting experiments. Ref the flybar, I believe it serves several functions. One to act as a servo mechanism to relieve the control forces needed to change the pitch of the main blades. Secondly, as you suggest there is also a 'gyro' effect helping in part to stabilise the main disc. The tail feathers on the flying boat need to be large to be effective at low power/speed manoeuvring. Awkward to mount but need to align with the thrust centre line for sure. The clearance under the bottom of the fin could be a problem and here a small water ski (skid) might help to reduce the problem at nose-high angles. To land on a hard surface might tear the back end off. The suggested A/A of 5 to 6 degrees sounds about right to me. I think these 'water wings' on the flying boat get more lift from the Ram Effect under the wing rather than the aerodynamic lift from the aerofoil section. The low tension single surface plastic sheet wing seems to work pretty well. It's simple to construct, transport and store. It is light weight, effectively impervious to water ingress and easy to both construct, modify and repair. I know your many followers appreciate the time and effort you take to make your videos. Clear, concise, well informed, very easy to follow and we look forward to further clips. Happy Christmas and all the very best for the New Year from Ray
Brilliant comment Ray, thanks so much. A single skin wing is definitely on the cards. I also like Rudy Heeman's wings, very similar construction to a single skin wing but it's a full airfoil. th-cam.com/video/pEm5tloP0Uw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-0UEsBfoLTiVrYrl Agree with everything you have said.
Great comment Ray, I agree with what you say about the need for large tail surfaces I think one of the reasons I like the twin rudder T tail solution is that you get more area for less height and it doesn't impact upon the area of the elevator as much as the cross tail and with a bit of wire bracing it could still be light and strong. That said I feel confident what Ben has already built will definitely work :)
Oh wow! Well first off it has to be the Dixey Double Dipper right? !! Mate, you are the epitome of the bloke in the shed giving a go with intelligence, common sense and experience over an engineering degree and not afraid of the risks - risk aware, not risk averse. I love it - bravo sir!
You're making great progress Ben! I am very curious to see how it turns out! With regard to the pitch angle: most wings stall around 13 degrees angle of attack. I assume you will already set the wings on some angle by construction, say 2~3 degrees, this means that if you allow for 10 degrees of pitch angle you have enough free travel to stall the wing. Therefore, I think the 8 degrees you mention should be quite ok. For the tail construction, have a look at the HB-21 motor glider (it has guide wires if you look carefully). perhaps some good source for inspiration.
My instincts suggest a wing incidence angle of 5 or 6 degrees as a starting point seeing as this WIG and not a normal aircraft as I've seen numerous other successful designs with quite a high wing incidence angle. Also I don't think the stall angle will be quite as critical as a normal plane because most of the lift will be derived from under the wing unlike a plane out of ground effect. Another feature I would consider is having the ailerons as flaperons with a lever on a ratchet which could not only help it rise out of the water at lower air speeds but could also be used to fine tune the wing incidence in flight. Might also be handy to change the pitching moment of the wings in flight for different heights and speeds too. Also wing sections with a higher thickness ratio and rounder noses tend to have higher stall angles 16 or 17 degrees as well as generating more lift which would prove handy at lower air speeds with the added benefit of having greater second moment of area which makes them easier to make strong and light, something to consider perhaps. One more thing I would add into the design is for the wing incidence angle to be ground adjustable so that you can move the clamps on the front spar up and down and have it pivot on the rear spar until you find the prefered angle like you would on a test bed and once you know what angle is best by test flying it you can then make a more permanent solution for the front clamps :)
I would have definitely chosen a catamaran if this Polaris fib didn't appear on marketplace. I would have built something like this. th-cam.com/video/M77amKgBWOY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=15Ay9hNpuPoKvMql I haven't done the calculations to weight but the rib by itself weighs 75kg. I would have thought that would be achievable with aluminium catamaran floats. I might even build them at a later date.
Yeah, either of Freezatron's designs look good to me. I think your tail design may have prop clearance issues. We'll just have to see. Lovin' your stuff man. Can't wait to more vids soon. Cheers Ben.
Cheers for the kind words Simon but upon reflection I would change the booms a bit to include the lower supports that Ben has added on the lower stern plate among other changes but these were just quick concept sketches outlining my broader thinking, I haven't done any serious maths for these just going on what looks about right etc. :) I think the tail design I favour most is the twin rudder T tail as it has plenty of area, get's the elevator nice and high and with a cross strut at the & wire bracing should be light and strong without having to incure the structural panelties of a single rudder T tail. This is something I've seen on a number of smaller ekranoplans. I like the inverted V tail for it's simplicity of construction and inherent strength with a cross strut on bottom plus the other nice thing is that with yaw inputs you will get a slight proverse roll efect but I worry it might not have enough area without having a silly chord length plus they would mixers to combine the elevator and rudder functions.
@@freezatron Yeah, I love watching Ben's projects. Always very interesting craft, even though he's new to this TH-cam lark, he's got me hooked in watching his stuff. 👍👍👍👍👍👍
I'll get right on it, Ben. From last look see dynamic stability looked reasonable. I keep meaning to record a video to explain what I'm actually doing...
Cheers for the kind words Ben, I hope those sketches are of some vague use to you :) Btw you can work out the weight of the tail booms ahead of time... wall thickness times circumference times length times the density and for a 25 mm diameter tube with a wall thickness of 1.6 mm equals 125grams per metre and for a 75mm diameter tube of the same wall thickness it will be three times heavier at 375 grams per metre assuming a density of 2.5 grams per cubic centimetres :) Anyhow, apologies but one thing that concerns me is the moment area of the hinge plates might be a bit small, particularly as they only have a single row of rivets which could easily work loose over time. They might seem firm at the moment but I worry they could become a serious problem in the future, I'll email you another sketch illustrating what I mean and what I would change if that's cool with you bud :) Great to see the progress you've made though, begining to take shape :)
Thanks for the drawings, they are great ! I too thought the hinge design and size looked weak, I copied them exactly from the affordaplane plans so decided they should be ok. However my tail is bigger than the affordaplane so maybe they are undersized. It would be good to do some real testing of the tail, mount the tail to the trailer and drive at 50-60mph and test it all.
@@Ben-Dixey Yeah I'm familiar with the affordaplane, I suspect I might even be subscribed to his channel too :) Testing is always good and I am open to being wrong here but whilst it might survive such a vigorous test my concern is how well it stands up to fatigue. I remember from reading through the CAA's CAP documents for ultralights that components such as hinges are required to have a minimum 600% safety factor. With a single row of rivets you have a linear moment, if you were to make the spreader plate wider so you could have two rows of rivets you would have a triangular moment, so to speak which would be much stronger and much less susceptable to fatgiue. Also having watched your video you've changed my mind about how I might tackle the tail booms, may I do a couple more sketches for you illustrating my thoughts ?
@@freezatron Of course, that would be great. I completely understand the weak hinge worry, it's not a design I would have gone for if I hadn't seen it used and proven. Perhaps I was wrong to have copied it.
@@Ben-Dixey Ok cool, I'll do some sketches and you can see what you think. I might be wrong too and worrying about nothing but given how crucial such a detail those hinges are I figured it was worth at least discussing and exploring :)
Hi Ben.....what are you actually constructing is it one of these things that fly a couple of feet above the water surface or a full blown flying air craft ?
Ben, it's a shame you you didn't pursue the conventional coax helicopter project on the lines of those Chinese ones, with your caperbilitys and facility's it would have been a piece of cake !
Still on the cards Peter, I wanted to have some fun flying around in something with less mechanical complexity. The helicopter was great but unless you have built an exceptional machine you spend much more time fixing it than flying it. I still want a working helicopter and it will happen again.
G'day, Hmmmnnn..., And what, pray do tell Will your National Airworthiness & Airspace Regulators have to say, Regarding this project ? Here in Oz, The Hang Gliding Association can administer Powered Weight-shift Trikes, Fitted with Wings, be they Rogallo, Ram-Air Parafoils, or of Conventionally constructed Aerofoil - it's the Weight-Shift Control which is The critical bit in forming the Loophole. Otherwise, given Aerodynamic Control, then unless it's Foot-launched, the HGFA can't touch it... And since the MAFA (Minimum Aircraft Flyers Association) was replaced by the AUF (Australian Ultralight Federation), which has been duly replaced by the RAAA (Recreational Aircraft Association of Australia) which covers ALL Other 1 or 2 seat small light Aircraft - except for General Aviation Sailplanes. You appear to be literally attempting to build a Hybridised Homebuilt Fish/Fowl...; Which will run afoul Of every beancounting Beaureacrat who even hears a rumour of it's existance in your Back shed...(!) ? Apart from that, Aeroplanes and Boats are very enticing to think about, but they're a LOT trickier to make a success of than to contemplate the fun-side... If you can take a joke (?), then you might enjoy, "Grand Aeronautical Theory Of Elbarsoles, Arselbows, & Even Elbarseyeballs...!". which is stashed in my "Personal Aeroplanology..." Playlist... I once undid my Seatbelt, and fell inverted onto the underside of the Wing, concussed from hitting the Fence, to discover that my Ankle was broken, and thus having to hop away from the "Fireball" which too many Biggles books had conditioned me to expect when Aeroplanes crash...; I hopped away at least 15 yards, before realising that 3 litres of 2-Stroke Fuel wouldn't make much of a Fireball..., and sat down to regard my mess. Hopping away in a Potato Patch, with a broken Ankle & Concussion, after breaking an Aeroplane is unpleasant, but it was do-able... I'm not sure I would have done anywhere near so well if I'd been upside-down in the Water, sinking strapped into a broken wreck..., with the same Concussion and busted Ankle... A lot of people who prang Flying Machines on Water seem to drown before they wake up sufficiently to unstrap, and extract themself from the Wreckage, before swimming to the Surface and being able to breathe... It might be a point worth considering... Such is life. Happy Solstice Festival...! Stay safe, ;-p Ciao !
@@licencetoswill G'day, Yeah, the accent sounds British...; I was illustrating the Byzantine nature of the Bureaucracy required to be surmounted in order to acquire sufficient Paperwork as to be permitted to lawfully play with a Flying Machine in a Public to Place. If any Nation exists where there are no Bureaucrats paid to regulate Twiddly Little Flying Machines, then I'd love to hear about it. Last I heard, the British Civil Aviation Authority are at least as Anally-retentive a bunch of Control Freaks as are the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority... Queen Victoria's Bureaucracy "Threw a Pup" in 1901, And the Strain of Suburban Rule-Enforcers has bred pretty true in both Locations. I merely asked what he thought his local Regulators were likely to say about the Project. Such is life, Have a good one... Ciao !
Hi, thanks for the comment, as it stands my build is going to be a ground effect flying boat. Ground effect vehicles are classified as boats and are governed only by maritime law. That's true in the uk and Australia. This is James Greenberger flying his ground effect vehicle in Perth. youtube.com/@Ground-Effect?si=DVWibmzpvtwisoyC I believe there is a maximum operating height of 20m for ground effect vehicles. I take your point about the dangers of doing this stuff. Better get it right.
@@WarblesOnALot No flies on Ben, he's exactly right, Ekranoplans are technically boats although I thought the height limit was 20 feet not 20 metres but then again I got that figure from my dad 40 years ago so it's obviously out of date :D To add to that there is the sub 70 category in the UK where you design and build single aircraft under 70kg's without certification and the US they have something similar called Part 103 ultralight regs where you have a weight limit of 254 lb's and a max speed of 55 knots. In both cases they can be flown without the requirement for a license. As for the rest of the world, I don't imagine many of the third world countries even have a aviation regulartory body :)
@@freezatron G'day, Thanks...! So, the idea is to line up the 70 Kg Loophole with the idea that it's a Boat...? Pharoah enuf...(!). 70 Kg sounds a bit light, though as an empty weight it should work. I used to own and fly the 3rd pre-production Prototype of what became the Mk-1 Skycraft Scout, which the Dep't Of transport examined in 1976 & wrote Air Navigation Order 95.10 around it. Gazetted in August 1976, it was the first Law anywhere allowing people to build and fly uncertified Airframes without any Licence. But by the 1980s all the rejects from General Aviation (too old, too broke, too fat, too unhealthy....) started hanging around Ultralight Airfields and lobbying for Fatter, Bigger, Two Seats, Faster, Further, Heavier, more More MORE Expensive.... And Those Ambulatory Dildos got their way. True Ultralights Morphed into Little Airplanes (Because they couldn't spell AEROPLANE...). Two Seaters were originally only for Training.... And all the old fat unfit broke Ex-Military GA Rejects then demanded Licences & Radios & Certification & Regulation..., All so that they could get HULL INSURANCE On their "Ultralights", Because then they could Borrow money to buy them.& Use them as an Asset to borrow against them... And the wannabe "Professional Ultralight Salesmen" thought all that shit was Lovely. When I bought a road-registered electric Motocross Bike a couple of months ago, I started considering a spare Battery, and a spare Motor & Speed-Controller to hold as ready-use Spare Parts..., and then I looked at my VJ-24w Ultralight Motorglider - and started thinking about electrifying it. It was a 95.10 Ultralight, but, apparently, when the AUF became the RAAA, about a decade ago they shitcanned ANO-95.10 altogether and unless they meet ANO-95.25 standards then all the old Ultralights are illegalised... And there are Pricks buggarising about with "Ultralight" 7/8 Scale 2-seat 3.5-litre Rover V-8 powered Spitfires with Retractable Undercarriage and 250 mph top speeds... So, it's a good thing that Electric Aeroplanes are silent. Duck-Egg Blue underneath & Gumleaf-Green on top makes spotting difficult... What the Karen's don't hear They don't look for, & what they don't see they can't report and whinge about... So, We'll see how Naughty one feels like being. But my old Scout has been chained up in a Museum since about 1995, and to be honest - adapting to Global Warming is taking up so much of my time & money that the Electric Volmer Jensen VJ-24w is probably never going to happen... But I'm mightily pissed off to hear that the Beaurocrats in Canberra killed ANO-95.10. with their "RAAA -Raahh-raaahhh !" Brigade. To see the old Scout, search YT for "National Transportation Museum ; Visiting My First Aeroplane...!", and the original Potato-Cam version, showing the Paper-trail is "The 8-hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft !" My impression is that Personal Computers with Fright Stimulator Pogroms Killed the Ultralight Movement as much as did the cashed-up fat unfit Ex-Military Rejects from General Aviation. On the one hand youngsters no longer bicycle to the Airport to watch the Take offs & Landings, begging work as Tarmac Terriers to pay for Flying Lessons any more..., they prefer to think they fly Concords and Spitfires and Camels and F-35s around their Bedrooms, while saving up for a Quadcopter with FPV...; while the Rejects from GA All want to pay To pretend that their Ultralight Plastic Parrot (Jabiru) Is every bit as good as the GA Cessna 152 Tied down beside it on the Apron of the Aerodrome. I preferred it when the Heavy Metal Fraternity liked to laugh at us for playing with Ultralights...; because once the bastards figured out how much fun we were having they wanted to join in, but as soon as they stopped the teasing they couldn't help themselves from destroying the entire Movement. Grrrrr ! It's a Hobbyhorse of mine. Such is life. Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
Single reverse delta wing is historically most efficient. The mudskipper is the best DIY design ever built and is successful because of very low weight and near perfect CG.
Agreed with both statements. Reverse delta wing is a good choice but I wasn't sure how easy it would be to make transportable by road. Something to think about for another attempt. The mudskipper works great and James is a great guy, he's been helping a lot with my project.
Great project looking to seeing more
Congrats Ben on both this and the other presentation regarding the Helo fly-bar function. So glad you are still planning to continue with your interesting experiments. Ref the flybar, I believe it serves several functions. One to act as a servo mechanism to relieve the control forces needed to change the pitch of the main blades. Secondly, as you suggest there is also a 'gyro' effect helping in part to stabilise the main disc.
The tail feathers on the flying boat need to be large to be effective at low power/speed manoeuvring. Awkward to mount but need to align with the thrust centre line for sure. The clearance under the bottom of the fin could be a problem and here a small water ski (skid) might help to reduce the problem at nose-high angles. To land on a hard surface might tear the back end off. The suggested A/A of 5 to 6 degrees sounds about right to me.
I think these 'water wings' on the flying boat get more lift from the Ram Effect under the wing rather than the aerodynamic lift from the aerofoil section. The low tension single surface plastic sheet wing seems to work pretty well. It's simple to construct, transport and store. It is light weight, effectively impervious to water ingress and easy to both construct, modify and repair.
I know your many followers appreciate the time and effort you take to make your videos. Clear, concise, well informed, very easy to follow and we look forward to further clips.
Happy Christmas and all the very best for the New Year from Ray
Brilliant comment Ray, thanks so much.
A single skin wing is definitely on the cards. I also like Rudy Heeman's wings, very similar construction to a single skin wing but it's a full airfoil.
th-cam.com/video/pEm5tloP0Uw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-0UEsBfoLTiVrYrl
Agree with everything you have said.
Great comment Ray, I agree with what you say about the need for large tail surfaces I think one of the reasons I like the twin rudder T tail solution is that you get more area for less height and it doesn't impact upon the area of the elevator as much as the cross tail and with a bit of wire bracing it could still be light and strong.
That said I feel confident what Ben has already built will definitely work :)
Oh wow! Well first off it has to be the Dixey Double Dipper right? !! Mate, you are the epitome of the bloke in the shed giving a go with intelligence, common sense and experience over an engineering degree and not afraid of the risks - risk aware, not risk averse. I love it - bravo sir!
Thanks very much Helished. Like the name double dipper. 👍 👌😊
You're making great progress Ben! I am very curious to see how it turns out! With regard to the pitch angle: most wings stall around 13 degrees angle of attack. I assume you will already set the wings on some angle by construction, say 2~3 degrees, this means that if you allow for 10 degrees of pitch angle you have enough free travel to stall the wing. Therefore, I think the 8 degrees you mention should be quite ok. For the tail construction, have a look at the HB-21 motor glider (it has guide wires if you look carefully). perhaps some good source for inspiration.
My instincts suggest a wing incidence angle of 5 or 6 degrees as a starting point seeing as this WIG and not a normal aircraft as I've seen numerous other successful designs with quite a high wing incidence angle. Also I don't think the stall angle will be quite as critical as a normal plane because most of the lift will be derived from under the wing unlike a plane out of ground effect. Another feature I would consider is having the ailerons as flaperons with a lever on a ratchet which could not only help it rise out of the water at lower air speeds but could also be used to fine tune the wing incidence in flight. Might also be handy to change the pitching moment of the wings in flight for different heights and speeds too.
Also wing sections with a higher thickness ratio and rounder noses tend to have higher stall angles 16 or 17 degrees as well as generating more lift which would prove handy at lower air speeds with the added benefit of having greater second moment of area which makes them easier to make strong and light, something to consider perhaps.
One more thing I would add into the design is for the wing incidence angle to be ground adjustable so that you can move the clamps on the front spar up and down and have it pivot on the rear spar until you find the prefered angle like you would on a test bed and once you know what angle is best by test flying it you can then make a more permanent solution for the front clamps :)
So excited to see your new project. I would recommend Catamaran if possible.
I would have definitely chosen a catamaran if this Polaris fib didn't appear on marketplace. I would have built something like this.
th-cam.com/video/M77amKgBWOY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=15Ay9hNpuPoKvMql
I haven't done the calculations to weight but the rib by itself weighs 75kg. I would have thought that would be achievable with aluminium catamaran floats. I might even build them at a later date.
Nice and wonderful work sir.... You always nail it Good work done. May God bless you
Much appreciated comment 😊
@@Ben-Dixey you are welcome sir... Am also working on mine... I will send you some pictures when am done
Yes please send pictures or any info. 👍
Yeah, either of Freezatron's designs look good to me. I think your tail design may have prop clearance issues. We'll just have to see. Lovin' your stuff man. Can't wait to more vids soon. Cheers Ben.
Cheers for the kind words Simon but upon reflection I would change the booms a bit to include the lower supports that Ben has added on the lower stern plate among other changes but these were just quick concept sketches outlining my broader thinking, I haven't done any serious maths for these just going on what looks about right etc. :)
I think the tail design I favour most is the twin rudder T tail as it has plenty of area, get's the elevator nice and high and with a cross strut at the & wire bracing should be light and strong without having to incure the structural panelties of a single rudder T tail. This is something I've seen on a number of smaller ekranoplans.
I like the inverted V tail for it's simplicity of construction and inherent strength with a cross strut on bottom plus the other nice thing is that with yaw inputs you will get a slight proverse roll efect but I worry it might not have enough area without having a silly chord length plus they would mixers to combine the elevator and rudder functions.
@@freezatron Yeah, I love watching Ben's projects. Always very interesting craft, even though he's new to this TH-cam lark, he's got me hooked in watching his stuff. 👍👍👍👍👍👍
@@simonwatson5299 he's got a nice brand of enthusiasm :)
I really want to see him succeed given all the effort he puts in !!
I'll get right on it, Ben. From last look see dynamic stability looked reasonable. I keep meaning to record a video to explain what I'm actually doing...
Thanks Martin 👍😊
Cheers for the kind words Ben, I hope those sketches are of some vague use to you :)
Btw you can work out the weight of the tail booms ahead of time...
wall thickness times circumference times length times the density and for a 25 mm diameter tube with a wall thickness of 1.6 mm equals 125grams per metre and for a 75mm diameter tube of the same wall thickness it will be three times heavier at 375 grams per metre assuming a density of 2.5 grams per cubic centimetres :)
Anyhow, apologies but one thing that concerns me is the moment area of the hinge plates might be a bit small, particularly as they only have a single row of rivets which could easily work loose over time. They might seem firm at the moment but I worry they could become a serious problem in the future, I'll email you another sketch illustrating what I mean and what I would change if that's cool with you bud :)
Great to see the progress you've made though, begining to take shape :)
Thanks for the drawings, they are great !
I too thought the hinge design and size looked weak, I copied them exactly from the affordaplane plans so decided they should be ok. However my tail is bigger than the affordaplane so maybe they are undersized. It would be good to do some real testing of the tail, mount the tail to the trailer and drive at 50-60mph and test it all.
@@Ben-Dixey Yeah I'm familiar with the affordaplane, I suspect I might even be subscribed to his channel too :)
Testing is always good and I am open to being wrong here but whilst it might survive such a vigorous test my concern is how well it stands up to fatigue. I remember from reading through the CAA's CAP documents for ultralights that components such as hinges are required to have a minimum 600% safety factor. With a single row of rivets you have a linear moment, if you were to make the spreader plate wider so you could have two rows of rivets you would have a triangular moment, so to speak which would be much stronger and much less susceptable to fatgiue.
Also having watched your video you've changed my mind about how I might tackle the tail booms, may I do a couple more sketches for you illustrating my thoughts ?
@@freezatron Of course, that would be great. I completely understand the weak hinge worry, it's not a design I would have gone for if I hadn't seen it used and proven. Perhaps I was wrong to have copied it.
@@Ben-Dixey Ok cool, I'll do some sketches and you can see what you think.
I might be wrong too and worrying about nothing but given how crucial such a detail those hinges are I figured it was worth at least discussing and exploring :)
Really enjoying this project.
Also i'm forced to write "red Alfa" due to what's in the background
Thanks 👍 yeah the red Alfa project is on my car channel.
youtube.com/@bensclassicbodywork?si=oIsebsVGB2mMTQ5Z
Hi Ben.....what are you actually constructing is it one of these things that fly a couple of feet above the water surface or a full blown flying air craft ?
Hi Peter, it's a wing in ground effect flying boat. Operational height will only be a few feet.
Going to be a big thing time you've finished Ben.
Yes, not like the little helicopter, space to store it is going to be a problem. Don't want it out in the weather, will have to think about that.
Ben, it's a shame you you didn't pursue the conventional coax helicopter project on the lines of those Chinese ones, with your caperbilitys and facility's it would have been a piece of cake !
Still on the cards Peter, I wanted to have some fun flying around in something with less mechanical complexity. The helicopter was great but unless you have built an exceptional machine you spend much more time fixing it than flying it.
I still want a working helicopter and it will happen again.
G'day,
Hmmmnnn...,
And what, pray do tell
Will your National
Airworthiness & Airspace Regulators have to say,
Regarding this project ?
Here in Oz,
The Hang Gliding Association can administer
Powered Weight-shift Trikes,
Fitted with Wings, be they Rogallo, Ram-Air Parafoils, or of Conventionally constructed Aerofoil - it's the
Weight-Shift Control which is
The critical bit in forming the
Loophole.
Otherwise, given
Aerodynamic Control, then unless it's Foot-launched, the
HGFA can't touch it...
And since the
MAFA (Minimum Aircraft Flyers Association) was replaced by the AUF (Australian Ultralight Federation), which has been duly replaced by the RAAA
(Recreational Aircraft Association of Australia) which covers
ALL Other 1 or 2 seat small light Aircraft - except for General Aviation Sailplanes.
You appear to be literally attempting to build a
Hybridised Homebuilt
Fish/Fowl...;
Which will run afoul
Of every beancounting
Beaureacrat who even hears a rumour of it's existance in your
Back shed...(!) ?
Apart from that,
Aeroplanes and Boats are very enticing to think about, but they're a LOT trickier to make a success of than to contemplate the fun-side...
If you can take a joke (?), then you might enjoy,
"Grand Aeronautical Theory Of Elbarsoles, Arselbows, & Even Elbarseyeballs...!".
which is stashed in my
"Personal Aeroplanology..."
Playlist...
I once undid my Seatbelt, and fell inverted onto the underside of the Wing, concussed from hitting the Fence, to discover that my Ankle was broken, and thus having to hop away from the "Fireball" which too many Biggles books had conditioned me to expect when Aeroplanes crash...; I hopped away at least 15 yards, before realising that 3 litres of 2-Stroke Fuel wouldn't make much of a Fireball..., and sat down to regard my mess.
Hopping away in a Potato Patch, with a broken Ankle & Concussion, after breaking an Aeroplane is unpleasant, but it was do-able...
I'm not sure I would have done anywhere near so well if I'd been upside-down in the Water, sinking strapped into a broken wreck..., with the same Concussion and busted Ankle...
A lot of people who prang
Flying Machines on Water seem to drown before they wake up sufficiently to unstrap, and extract themself from the Wreckage, before swimming to the Surface and being able to breathe...
It might be a point worth considering...
Such is life.
Happy Solstice Festival...!
Stay safe,
;-p
Ciao !
He's not in australia.
@@licencetoswill
G'day,
Yeah, the accent sounds British...; I was illustrating the Byzantine nature of the Bureaucracy required to be surmounted in order to acquire sufficient Paperwork as to be permitted to lawfully play with a Flying Machine in a Public to Place.
If any Nation exists where there are no
Bureaucrats paid to regulate
Twiddly Little Flying Machines, then I'd love to hear about it.
Last I heard, the British Civil Aviation Authority are at least as Anally-retentive a bunch of Control Freaks as are the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority...
Queen Victoria's Bureaucracy
"Threw a Pup" in 1901,
And the Strain of Suburban
Rule-Enforcers has bred pretty true in both Locations.
I merely asked what he thought his local Regulators were likely to say about the Project.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Ciao !
Hi, thanks for the comment, as it stands my build is going to be a ground effect flying boat. Ground effect vehicles are classified as boats and are governed only by maritime law. That's true in the uk and Australia.
This is James Greenberger flying his ground effect vehicle in Perth.
youtube.com/@Ground-Effect?si=DVWibmzpvtwisoyC
I believe there is a maximum operating height of 20m for ground effect vehicles.
I take your point about the dangers of doing this stuff. Better get it right.
@@WarblesOnALot No flies on Ben, he's exactly right, Ekranoplans are technically boats although I thought the height limit was 20 feet not 20 metres but then again I got that figure from my dad 40 years ago so it's obviously out of date :D
To add to that there is the sub 70 category in the UK where you design and build single aircraft under 70kg's without certification and the US they have something similar called Part 103 ultralight regs where you have a weight limit of 254 lb's and a max speed of 55 knots. In both cases they can be flown without the requirement for a license.
As for the rest of the world, I don't imagine many of the third world countries even have a aviation regulartory body :)
@@freezatron
G'day,
Thanks...!
So, the idea is to line up the 70 Kg Loophole with the idea that it's a Boat...?
Pharoah enuf...(!).
70 Kg sounds a bit light, though as an empty weight it should work.
I used to own and fly the 3rd pre-production Prototype of what became the Mk-1 Skycraft Scout, which the Dep't Of transport examined in 1976 & wrote Air Navigation Order 95.10 around it.
Gazetted in August 1976, it was the first Law anywhere allowing people to build and fly uncertified Airframes without any Licence.
But by the 1980s all the rejects from General Aviation (too old, too broke, too fat, too unhealthy....) started hanging around Ultralight Airfields and lobbying for Fatter, Bigger, Two Seats, Faster, Further, Heavier, more More MORE Expensive....
And
Those
Ambulatory Dildos got their way.
True Ultralights
Morphed into
Little Airplanes
(Because they couldn't spell
AEROPLANE...).
Two Seaters were originally only for
Training....
And all the old fat unfit broke Ex-Military
GA Rejects then demanded
Licences & Radios & Certification & Regulation...,
All so that they could get
HULL
INSURANCE
On their "Ultralights",
Because then they could
Borrow money to buy them.&
Use them as an Asset to borrow against them...
And the wannabe
"Professional Ultralight Salesmen" thought all that shit was
Lovely.
When I bought a road-registered electric Motocross Bike a couple of months ago, I started considering a spare Battery, and a spare Motor & Speed-Controller to hold as ready-use Spare Parts..., and then I looked at my VJ-24w Ultralight Motorglider - and started thinking about electrifying it.
It was a 95.10 Ultralight, but, apparently, when the AUF became the RAAA, about a decade ago they shitcanned ANO-95.10 altogether and unless they meet ANO-95.25 standards then all the old Ultralights are illegalised...
And there are Pricks buggarising about with
"Ultralight" 7/8 Scale 2-seat 3.5-litre Rover V-8 powered Spitfires with Retractable Undercarriage and 250 mph top speeds...
So, it's a good thing that
Electric Aeroplanes are silent.
Duck-Egg Blue underneath &
Gumleaf-Green on top makes spotting difficult...
What the Karen's don't hear
They don't look for, & what they don't see they can't report and whinge about...
So,
We'll see how
Naughty one feels like being.
But my old Scout has been chained up in a Museum since about 1995, and to be honest - adapting to Global Warming is taking up so much of my time & money that the Electric Volmer Jensen VJ-24w is probably never going to happen...
But I'm mightily pissed off to hear that the Beaurocrats in Canberra killed ANO-95.10. with their
"RAAA -Raahh-raaahhh !"
Brigade.
To see the old Scout, search YT for
"National Transportation Museum ; Visiting My First Aeroplane...!",
and the original Potato-Cam version, showing the Paper-trail is
"The 8-hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft !"
My impression is that
Personal Computers with
Fright Stimulator Pogroms
Killed the
Ultralight Movement as much as did the cashed-up fat unfit Ex-Military Rejects from General Aviation.
On the one hand youngsters no longer bicycle to the Airport to watch the Take offs & Landings, begging work as Tarmac Terriers to pay for Flying Lessons any more..., they prefer to think they fly Concords and Spitfires and Camels and F-35s around their Bedrooms, while saving up for a Quadcopter with FPV...; while the Rejects from GA
All want to pay
To pretend that their
Ultralight Plastic Parrot (Jabiru)
Is every bit as good as the GA Cessna 152
Tied down beside it on the
Apron of the Aerodrome.
I preferred it when the Heavy Metal Fraternity liked to laugh at us for playing with Ultralights...; because once the bastards figured out how much fun we were having they wanted to join in, but as soon as they stopped the teasing they couldn't help themselves from destroying the entire Movement.
Grrrrr !
It's a Hobbyhorse of mine.
Such is life.
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Single reverse delta wing is historically most efficient. The mudskipper is the best DIY design ever built and is successful because of very low weight and near perfect CG.
Agreed with both statements.
Reverse delta wing is a good choice but I wasn't sure how easy it would be to make transportable by road. Something to think about for another attempt. The mudskipper works great and James is a great guy, he's been helping a lot with my project.