Yahoo groups: Lite_Trike_Builders Shut down February 2006 1 From: "captain_jims " Date: Sun Feb 16, 2003 4:33am Subject: Welcome captain_jims Offline Send Email Welcome to the Lite Trike Builders group. This group is intended for serious discussion of the issues related to building and flying a Trike meeting the FAR103 Ultralight requirements. Let's let our discussion range over all the topics and questions that any builder or flyer would have including engine choices, propellers, trike structure (steel or aluminum), and the wing selection. I would like to see each new member spend a few minutes putting together an introduction to the group so we all know the level of experience and interest that exists. I will start. I am building a welded steel tubing Trike, powered by a Tecumse 13hp SnowKing engine. I have a Vision Mark IV-19 wing that will be fitted to the Trike. Current status: the trike has been all tack welded together, preparing to test mount the engine, check cg, and then proceed to final welding. Target flight is late spring. Jim 2 From: "captain_jims " Date: Sat Mar 1, 2003 2:31pm Subject: Files captain_jims Offline Send Email I just started a folder in the Files section called Jim's trike. I have placed drawings and photos in that folder for the lite trike that I am building now. The latest photo shows the trike on the wheels. Jim 3 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:23pm Subject: An update captain_jims Offline Send Email Finished tack welding the last structural elements in place. Installed the front strut. That completes all the tubing required for the structure. Next step is to finish weld the entire structure. As soon as I get that complete, I will reassemble the complete trike outside and get some more photos. Jim 4 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:48am Subject: Delta Trike captain_jims Offline Send Email I created a new folder in the files section called Delta Trike. I placed a mockup photo of a fairly conventional trike. This is NOT my work. I used the photo since it was the closest I could find to cleanup to represent the Delta Trike at this early stage. My design of a Delta Trike is nearly complete. I am ordering materials now. It is my intention to build the Delta side-by-side with the space- frame trike shown in the folder Jim's Trike. They will be built to the same dimensions overall, use the same wheels, power, prop, and wing. This should make an interesting comparison. The key difference in performance will be that the seating in the Delta is higher off the ground, but the same with respect to the wing. So the ground handling will likely be different, but the air handling will be quite similar since the weight is within a few lbs of the same. Jim 5 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:11am Subject: General update on space frame Trike captain_jims Offline Send Email Nearly complete on welding of spaceframe trike structure. Expect to begin assembly for engine and taxi testing within the next few days. The welding time on this design is far too great to build replicas. However, the trike structure has come in at 28 lbs. Just below target of 30#. Two critical tests for this Trike: 1. Prop thrust - expect 85# - 90# static thrust 2. Steering - simplified steering system must be proven. 3. Stability during taxiing - Low profile and narrow rear wheel base. Jim 7 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2003 0:40pm Subject: Glad to be here mitchcouch Offline Send Email Hello everyone, I am glad to find a site like this. I am a hang glider pilot who dreams of getting into light trikes so I can fly from my property. I have a pilots license and have experience in Power flight, sailplanes, ultralights, paragliders, and hot air balloons. Anyone with plans can email me and I'll be checking everyone's progress on this site. Maybe someday we can fly together. Mitchell Couch 8 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2003 1:20pm Subject: Re: Glad to be here captain_jims Offline Send Email Welcome aboard, I too am licensed in SEL, sailplane, balloons, some hang glider experience, and have built one 2 place experimental, not ultralight. You will note that there is a generic set of plans in the files section in a zip file. It is aluminum tube construction. I am in the process of building a lite trike with a unique structure. Drawings and photos in the Jim's Trike folder. The welding is now 99% complete and I am in the assembly for test stage. Will use a single cylinder 4 cycle engine. I have a second design just finalized that I call the Delta Trike. It is pretty conventional in design and is all steel contruction, 4130. Just buying the tubing now and have other parts in hand for it. What part of the world are you from? Central Illinois here. Look forward to your participation as we grow. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mitchcouch" wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I am glad to find a site like this. I am a hang glider pilot who > dreams of getting into light trikes so I can fly from my property. I > have a pilots license and have experience in Power flight, > sailplanes, ultralights, paragliders, and hot air balloons. Anyone > with plans can email me and I'll be checking everyone's progress on > this site. Maybe someday we can fly together. > > Mitchell Couch 9 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2003 4:20pm Subject: Re: Glad to be here mitchcouch Offline Send Email I am from Central California near Fresno. It is real flat here in the valley and the wind doesn't get above 5-10 in the afternoons; perfect from triking. I will look at your plans. Keep the site up to date on how you are doing. 10 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2003 4:28pm Subject: plans mitchcouch Offline Send Email Do you have plans of the one you are building now or the one you will build? The one that you have on file I have seen before on the internet but it seems hard for me to read. Gosh, it seems so hard to find plans for one. I have looked and talked to so many people. Also, how much do you think it is costing you to build the whole thing. Mitchell 11 From: Jim Date: Fri Apr 4, 2003 5:40pm Subject: Re: plans captain_jims Offline Send Email I have attached a marked up photo of the simplest trike I know of. The base box dimension is 12". This give you a scale for everything on the trike. The cost of the trike is the sum of the cost of: 1. Wing 2. Engine 3. Prop 4. Wheels 5. Instruments(if any) 6. The trike structure. The only one known is #6 since everything else is your choice. The structure will cost $250-$300 in materials. A good frame will weigh 30 lbs and an overweight one will weight 40+ lbs. I tried to do some different things with my spaceframe design such as get the pilot lower, no cantilevered structure, etc. I have a 28 lb frame. I would not do it again, and I would not recommend the design. A lot of cutting and welding, but I wanted to be different. The total trike will weight 80-100 lbs. First, find a wing that is rated for your hookin + 100 lbs + a little reserve. You have about 6-8 choices. Dream, Falcon, etc. The engine is the biggest price variable. For a soaring trike to climb at 250-300 fpm, you need 18-22hp with a wood prop. A prop will cost about $200-$250. that is 2 blade wood which is plenty for the small engine. A conservative path would be to buy the Tukan plans and scale them down a little bit. One option. However, by studying some trikes is to copy the attached photo. Probably 2" od alum tube for the bottom and mast, 1.25" tube for everything else. I plan to use the standard hang loop to hang the trike. I don't want a rigid joint. There are some good aircraft material suppliers in CA but I recommend Wicks. www.wicks.com. They have everything. Here is a simple way to view the trike. It is just a bunch a aircraft parts flying in close formation. It is also a lot like dad's hammer. I have replace the handle twice and the head once, but it is still his hammer. What I mean by this philosophy is that you can just come close on the first try. The major elements dont change, but with a trike you can replace the entire frame for a few bucks, so you don't need to get it right the first time. I have given you a lot to think about, but it is hard to go wrong with a trike as long as you have a good wing. I will post this on the site too. Did not think I would go on so long. But you can see that once you get past the "need to be exact" thinking, a trike is the easiest aircraft to build and improve. Forgot to say that I do have a complete set of drawings for the Delta trike, but until I build the first ones, I have not decided if I want to part with them. But all the advice you want is free. Later on we can discuss the thrust issue, but if you are in that power range it is hard to go wrong. Jim --- mitchcouch wrote: > Do you have plans of the one you are building now or > the one you will > build? The one that you have on file I have seen > before on the > internet but it seems hard for me to read. Gosh, it > seems so hard to > find plans for one. I have looked and talked to so > many people. > > Also, how much do you think it is costing you to > build the whole > thing. > > Mitchell > > Attachment: (image/pjpeg^) trikedeltaaterra-sq-mod-bw.jpg [not stored] 12 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2003 3:11am Subject: Hang attachment captain_jims Offline Send Email I have studied the various hang attachment designs and have also concluded that this is the toughest part of the trike design. Some allow limited rotation, some do not. The last thing I want is the weak point of the trike to be holding me to the glider. Therefore, after evaluating all the alternatives, I have concluded that the hang strap with all its inherent flexibility and strength is the best choice. I run the strap on the trike down the mast to the meat of the trike structure in the engine mount area. As a backup, I put a flex steel cable over the wing keel and attach it to both sides of the mast. It is for peace of mind only and does not carry load. If you take a good look at the latest .mwv file referenced on the UltraLight Trike site, you will see the trike shake and twist the hang point to the stops. That shows in a hurry what is wrong with the mechanical joint. The Nanolight trike site has a drawing of a limited swivel hang joint. Too many parts for me. More parts = more chance of failure. Jim 13 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2003 3:20am Subject: Engine selection captain_jims Offline Send Email For a lite trike with soaring in mind, the thrust requirement is about 100 lbs. 14-15 hp will generate 100# thrust with a 2 blade wood prop. So, where are the 14-15 hp engines. The easy answer is all around you. All the 4 cycle manufacturers offer 12-13 hp single cylinder horizontal shaft engines. I have a 13 hp Tecumseh, weight 46 lbs. The small engine kart business has available a large variety of power increase items. With a piston change, and carb change, my 13 hp Tecumseh will reach 16 hp with little effort and no rpm increase. There are also cam and valve options available. I have one propssal that will take it to 30 hp, but that is pushing everything plus a lot of $. So, at 3600 rpm, direct drive a 48" prop for a static thrust of 110# and a takeoff thrust of 100#. I will amplify on the thrust/drag of a trike in a later post. Jim 14 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2003 6:23am Subject: Hang attachment - continued captain_jims Offline Send Email Forgot to include the important detail of what happens to the wing keel on the ground. The top of the mast has a .50" tube formed into a U shape with a 5" dia. When the trike is flying, the strap stretches and lifts out of this "cradle". Upon landing, the keel settles into this cradle. This allows complete flexibility with no stressed metal parts in flight and also allows easy assembly of the wing to the trike. After the first setup and a little testing, the amount of pretension to allow the wing to lift slightly (.5"-1.0") is easily reset for each reassembly. I will be posting some photos in a few days that will detail this cradle. Jim 15 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Sat Apr 5, 2003 7:13pm Subject: thanks for the info mitchcouch Offline Send Email Like you said the wing attachment is the most critical, in my mind. I just worry that with the trike attached by the hang strap you will also have yaw to deal with; is that o.k. for a lite trike with all of the other things to worry about. I think that I am going to try and copy the simplest design out there. I saw on the parts site you suggested the 6061 T6 tubing. It doesn't look too expensive. I am just wondering what kind of wheels to use. There are so many to choose from. Now, being that I just want to get into the air to soar, I am going to build that simplest thing out there, yet safe enough to not make my children orphans. I just wonder if I should go with a straight back axle for simplicity or an upsidedown V shape like most have. There are a lot of used engines out there in the 15-25 horsepower range. Maybe $500 to 1000 range. Think that is too expensive for a lite trike? Talk to you soon. 16 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 2:45am Subject: Yaw and the hang block captain_jims Offline Send Email We can do all the analysis on yaw, but the simplest comparison is the Mosquito powered hang glider harness at the power levels we are considering. Their are a whole group of powered harnesses, I just pickout the Mosquito since it is well known. It uses the hang strap. I have some close up videos shot from the wing tip and the yaw load on the pilot is not an issue. I saw the drawings on the Nanolight site of the limited yaw block. If you think you want to build that, let me know and I will post a design review. I think it is nothing short of dangerous. Too many failure points. Remember, this was designed by the same builder whose prop fell off during takeoff at 12 hours due to fatigue(?????). Let's do a very simple yaw force analysis. Assume absolutely the worst case that would never occur. 100 lb thrust sideways at the prop. This force is 1.5 ft behind the hang point for a rotating moment of 150 lb-ft. Put your hands on the bar at a 4 ft spread. Apply 40 pull with one and 40 push with the other. That is 160 lb-ft moment. Scale that down to realistic numbers, 15 lb-ft yaw moment = 4 lb force on the bar. I can tolerate 4 lbs compared to the complexity of a multipart hang block assembly. And that is only for climb. The yaw moment is less for cruise and non-existant for soaring. Your call, but give me simple any day. Jim 17 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 11:42am Subject: Re: Yaw and the hang block mitchcouch Offline Send Email WOW, I did see the scale drawing of the hang attachment on pflindon.com and that scares me. There is so much to it that it blows my mind. I am thinking that you have been right all along, simple is best. That way there is less to go wrong. I did see the trike delta on fly products. Now that looks more like a simpler hang attachment. It looks like a curved one piece over the keel attachment. Question: how long is your nylon attachment if it goes all the way down near the engine mount? I am going to start designing my trike and I'll let you know when it is on paper. I will email it to you first to see what you think and then if it is good. Maybe I won't look that stupid when I design my first one. Mitchell 18 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 0:05pm Subject: Re: Yaw and the hang block captain_jims Offline Send Email My hang strap is two piece. The upper strap comes down the mast about 8" to a carabiner. The carabiner is in a metal loop that attaches to a two strap assembly. The end of each leg of the y attaches to my structure on either side of the motor/seat mount. All this will make more sense if you look at my structural drawing and see that the mast is two pieces that come together below the wing cradle. I wanted to get some photos for you today, but it just started sleeting. I need to set it up outside to get good photos. On the simple trike of fly products, it needs one design change to make the rear axles work properly. Plan to use the 3 brace cables, but the lower tube of the trike needs a jog upward behind the seat so that the tube is in the center of the two axles and the vertical mast. Fly Products had to do a little gimmick with an extended lower tube to get it to work since their angles were not right. If this is not clear, I can send a sketch. | ! / \ I don't know if that text sketch above will post right. But, the lower end of the mast is the center and the axles need to be 120 degrees apart and therefor 120 degrees from the mast. This is the best mechanical advantage for the cables that run from mast-axle-axle- mast. That is the key change from the Fly Products trike that I will be making in my simplified trike. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mitchcouch" wrote: > WOW, > > I did see the scale drawing of the hang attachment on pflindon.com > and that scares me. There is so much to it that it blows my mind. I > am thinking that you have been right all along, simple is best. That > way there is less to go wrong. > > I did see the trike delta on fly products. Now that looks more like > a simpler hang attachment. It looks like a curved one piece over the > keel attachment. > > Question: how long is your nylon attachment if it goes all the way > down near the engine mount? > > I am going to start designing my trike and I'll let you know when it > is on paper. I will email it to you first to see what you think and > then if it is good. Maybe I won't look that stupid when I design my > first one. > > Mitchell 19 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 9:35pm Subject: thank you mitchcouch Offline Send Email Cap. Jim, Thank you for all of the great advice that you give. I hope this site will grow and gain more members. There are a lot of people out there that want to build their own trike but never get around to doing it. Question: Where can one get some good wheels? Also, how about the axles for the wheels. I noticed on your prop diagram you didn't have any reduc drive. Can you get away without one? Mitchell 20 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 9:34am Subject: Re: thank you captain_jims Offline Send Email I buy my wheels at at Farm store called "TSC" or Tractor supply company. They are lightweight galvanized steel wheel for wheelbarrows. However, they are better than the normal wheelbarrow wheels. The use a 5/8 id ball bearing and are very well made. A 13" od wheel and tire is $10.00. They have a web site. I do not use a redrive on the small 4 cycle engine. Since the 4 cycle runs 3600 rpm, the tip speed which is really the controlling factor is less than a 2 place aircraft where typically a 74" prop is turned at 2700 rpm for takeoff. This will work up to about 20 hp. Above that, the prop diameter is large enough to cause tip speed problems. Go to the Beres & Hirsch Propeller site. They have a lot of experience with props for direct drive 4 cycle engines. Their props are absolutely works of art. That's where that hub drawing came from. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mitchcouch" wrote: > Cap. Jim, > > Thank you for all of the great advice that you give. > > I hope this site will grow and gain more members. There are a lot of > people out there that want to build their own trike but never get > around to doing it. > > Question: Where can one get some good wheels? Also, how about the > axles for the wheels. > > I noticed on your prop diagram you didn't have any reduc drive. Can > you get away without one? > > Mitchell 21 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:12pm Subject: many parts easy to find mitchcouch Offline Send Email I have noticed that many parts can be found in local locations. I was at Home Depot and saw that I could by the metal wire bracing for the trike. It comes in stainless steal and you can by it coated if needed. That brings up a question; should the wire be plastic coated or not? Also, wheels are easily abtainable like capt jim pointed out. The aluminum tubing is easily ordered online. What was thickness should be used? My big thing is just finding an engine to use. I would like to go four stroke so as to avoid a re-drive and do a direct prop attatchment. I just worry the engine will be too heavy and it would be nice to find a good used one to keep the weight down. Keep writing all and let's see some pictures. Happy flying. Mitchell 22 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:43pm Subject: Re: many parts easy to find captain_jims Offline Send Email The cable should be stainless 7 x 19 NOT coated with plastic. It looks nicer coated, but an start of a failure cannot be seen. Be sure to use Nicopress connectors if you use the swage type. The hardware store variety that is crimped by hammering are not good enough. Wick's has the nicopress for reference. Note: the galvanized is normally 7 x 7 cable that is stiffer and not as strong as the 7 x 19. See Wicks for reference on the differences. On the tubing, the most commonly used wall thickness is 1/8" (same as 3 mm). Microsoar, on the Nanolight site, gave a breakdown of all the tube sizes recently as used on his trike. I think that is a pretty good summary. It was around early March so you will not have too much searching. On the 4 cycle engine, join the 4 cycle group on Yahoo and you will get some input there. Here are some facts. My Tecumseh OHSK130 which is a 13 hp Overhead valve engine weighed 64 lbs when I lifted it out of the shipping box. When I finished stripping off all the pieces not required it weighed 46 lbs. A 2 cycle including redrive is close to 30 lbs. Remember that they must have a large exhaust system. You always need to compare system to system weight. So, for the simpler 4 cycle the price is 16 lbs out of a total trike and wing weight of 160 lbs. The prop is lighter and cheaper since you will only need 45-48" prop. The Lawn Mower Racing Group has a lot of leads on how to get a little more power out of a 4 cycle. I am confident that the parts I need to get my 13 hp to 16 hp are readily available at no weight penalty. Follow eBay. Always new engines out there at good prices. I would not buy a used one from there, but new, in the crate at 60% of list is typical. On the last item of pictures, I am doing a trial full assembly for limited testing. Hope to have photos of the complete trike posted. The darn HoneyDo jar is slowing me down now that good weather is here. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mitchcouch" wrote: > I have noticed that many parts can be found in local locations. I > was at Home Depot and saw that I could by the metal wire bracing for > the trike. It comes in stainless steal and you can by it coated if > needed. That brings up a question; should the wire be plastic coated > or not? > > Also, wheels are easily abtainable like capt jim pointed out. The > aluminum tubing is easily ordered online. What was thickness should > be used? > > My big thing is just finding an engine to use. I would like to go > four stroke so as to avoid a re-drive and do a direct prop > attatchment. I just worry the engine will be too heavy and it would > be nice to find a good used one to keep the weight down. > > Keep writing all and let's see some pictures. > > Happy flying. > > Mitchell 23 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 2:26am Subject: Re: many parts easy to find captain_jims Offline Send Email The posting on the Nanolight site is #1582 that lists all the material sizes in aluminum for that lite trike. I use 4130 steel tubing, so I do not have first hand experience with aluminum tubing sizes that are appropriate. That is not to say that either steel or aluminum is the better choice, but I prefer to weld on fittings vs bolt on. I have the skill and equipment to weld 4130 but not aluminum. I did some analytical modeling to compare the sizes as listed in the article references above if 4130 were used instead of the aluminum specified. I compared sizes and weights when deflection or stress relative to yield controlled. On some elements stress is the limiting factor, on others deflection is the limiting factor. Since tubes come in only certain sizes, I went larger with steel when there was not a comparable size available. I found a 5-10% penalty for the steel frame. This is 2-3 lbs out of 30 lbs for the frame or out of 160 lbs for the trike. I did not include the weight of fittings and bolts, so the actual difference is probably very small. So, the bottom line is that the choice of material is determined by what tools and skills the builder has. I read about builders who want to use mild steel tubing. It has 50% of the yield strength of 4130 and is harder to weld. Also, it does not have telescoping sizes available. It is a very poor choice. The cut and fit labor is the siginificant cost in time. I strongly recommend that the best materials be used. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mitchcouch" wrote: > I have noticed that many parts can be found in local locations. I > was at Home Depot and saw that I could by the metal wire bracing for > the trike. It comes in stainless steal and you can by it coated if > needed. That brings up a question; should the wire be plastic coated > or not? > > Also, wheels are easily abtainable like capt jim pointed out. The > aluminum tubing is easily ordered online. What was thickness should > be used? > > My big thing is just finding an engine to use. I would like to go > four stroke so as to avoid a re-drive and do a direct prop > attatchment. I just worry the engine will be too heavy and it would > be nice to find a good used one to keep the weight down. > > Keep writing all and let's see some pictures. > > Happy flying. > > Mitchell 24 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:10am Subject: Re: many parts easy to find captain_jims Offline Send Email When shopping for wheels, besides the obvious items like load capacity and size, be sure that the wheels have ball bearings. The wheels I use are a higher quality wheel assembly that includes the ball bearings. Some farm store wheels use a sleeve bearing only. These will not take the 20+mph speed even though they have sufficient load rating. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mitchcouch" wrote: > I have noticed that many parts can be found in local locations. I > was at Home Depot and saw that I could by the metal wire bracing for > the trike. It comes in stainless steal and you can by it coated if > needed. That brings up a question; should the wire be plastic coated > or not? > > Also, wheels are easily abtainable like capt jim pointed out. The > aluminum tubing is easily ordered online. What was thickness should > be used? > > My big thing is just finding an engine to use. I would like to go > four stroke so as to avoid a re-drive and do a direct prop > attatchment. I just worry the engine will be too heavy and it would > be nice to find a good used one to keep the weight down. > > Keep writing all and let's see some pictures. > > Happy flying. > > Mitchell 25 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:39pm Subject: thinking of the seat mitchcouch Offline Send Email I was thinking of the seat and I will probably go with a plywood seat with foam and a cover. Nothing like keeping the weight down and the price at the same time; unless there is an inexpensive fiberglass seat that is for sale. 26 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:50am Subject: Re: thinking of the seat captain_jims Offline Send Email There are fibreglass go-kart seats available with or without padding. Give serious consideration to a sling seat. You are likely already using a seat frame. The sling seat will hang from the seat frame. It can be built from 1" wide nylon strap that is readily available. Run the nylon both fore-aft and side-side and weave it. You will be amazed by the comfort. Back to the plywood, make a mockup of the seat and sit on it for a couple of hours while watching tv or something equivalent. One run of this and you will be convinced that the plywood feels like a concrete block. Bottom line: Either a shaped fibreglass seat or a sling seat is light weight and MUCH easier on the posterior. Remember, a multi-hour soaring flight is the objective. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mitchcouch" wrote: > I was thinking of the seat and I will probably go with a plywood seat > with foam and a cover. Nothing like keeping the weight down and the > price at the same time; unless there is an inexpensive fiberglass > seat that is for sale. 28 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:42pm Subject: engine questions again mitchcouch Offline Send Email It seems almost too good that a small 13-15 hp 4 stroke engine will work good. I see that the one you are using only cost around $600 or so. It seems that I can build the trike with engine for only about $1000 minus the wing. I am almost done with my design. I will let you know when I am done. Question: where do you buy the nylon staps for the seat? Is it real easy to find? Mitchell 29 From: Jim Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 5:57am Subject: Re: engine questions again captain_jims Offline Send Email There are several examples of trikes with the 16hp Solo engine w/redrive flying. The powered hang glider harness, the Mosquito, uses a 13-14 hp chain saw engine with redrive. I have found enough examples to be convinced. However here are some numbers: 14 hp at 3600 rpm direct drive will generate 85-90# thrust. A trike requires 45# to maintain level flight. The extra will allow approx 250 fpm climb. Many folks want skyrocket climb of 800 fpm+. That's when you need 24 hp. The Skycycle fits here as an example. The nylon strap 3/4" wide is an Ace hardward item at about $.28/ ft. You will need 60-100 ft. Jim --- mitchcouch wrote: > It seems almost too good that a small 13-15 hp 4 > stroke engine will > work good. I see that the one you are using only > cost around $600 or > so. It seems that I can build the trike with engine > for only about > $1000 minus the wing. > > I am almost done with my design. I will let you > know when I am > done. Question: where do you buy the nylon staps > for the seat? Is > it real easy to find? > > Mitchell > > __________________________________________________ The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com 30 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:50pm Subject: dare I ask mitchcouch Offline Send Email My friend wants to build a small powered paraglider on wheels. I told him I didn't want to post this question on this site since it is reserved for trike builders. His question is do you know if maybe a small 12 or 14 hp 4 stroke might produce enough thrust to get him into the air. He figures him and the engine with the trike might weight around 300-320. 31 From: Jim Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:12am Subject: Re: dare I ask captain_jims Offline Send Email Let's walk thru the numbers and see what the result is: Assume 14 hp would produce 90# thrust: The paraglider has a glide ratio of about 4:1. So the shorthand calculation of thrust required for level flight is the weight/glide ratio. In this case that is 320/4 or 80#. That leaves 10# thrust for climb. Not enough. There is no reserve for anything. Likely would lift off in ground effect and stay within a few ft of the ground. The PPG usually use a 16 hp solo engine. That will give them 110-115# thrust. Their weight with just a back pack and limited pilot weight is 230#. Now lets go thru the same calculations. 230/4= 57# required for level flight. Reserve of about 53#. This will give them a climb rate about equal to their sink rate power off. Not a bad balance. What you can see is that with the low glide ratio of the chute, weight is a costly penalty and uses up the available thrust quickly. On my trike, I use a 2/3 double surface wing for a glide ratio of 10:1. A single surface hang-glider wing has about 8:1. This reduces my thrust requirement for level flight from 400/8= 50# to 400/10=40#. While that does not seem like a lot, it give me reserve thrust of 90#-40#=50#. A single surface wing is 90#-50#=40#. So I have 25% more thrust for climb. I have gone thru the numbers quickly here, but weight hurts quickly, glide ratio is very important. The drag of the pilot and the cart is not a big issue. Of the average 45# thrust for level flight, 30# of that drag is from the wing and 15# is from the pilot and trike. The other groups have been talking about streamlining the trike, but that only comes off the 15# and the weight gain will offset the drag reduction. You will probably have questions on this, so don't hesitate. Note a friend of mine has a PPC/trike combination. His number work out like this, That's why he has 40 hp Jim --- mitchcouch wrote: > My friend wants to build a small powered paraglider > on wheels. I > told him I didn't want to post this question on this > site since it is > reserved for trike builders. His question is do you > know if maybe a > small 12 or 14 hp 4 stroke might produce enough > thrust to get him > into the air. He figures him and the engine with > the trike might > weight around 300-320. > > __________________________________________________ The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com 32 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:18am Subject: Here are some calculations mitchcouch Offline Send Email If I weigh 200# (with clothes and a full breakfast), engine about 70, wing about 50 and the trike about 40, that equals 360#. With a 13 hp engine producing about 6.2# of thrust per hp., then that equals around 81.90# of thrust. A small single surface glider with a glide ratio of 8 to 1 will be the wing. So, 360#/8 equals 45# of thrust needed for level flight. That leaves about +35# of reserve. How does one determine if that is enough for climb; and if so then how much climb can be calculated? I was using a small 13 hp because they seem to be so plentiful and inexpensive. The larger the engine the more hp. Also, I love the idea of a 4 stoke so that I don't have to worry about the redrive. I am thinking that with only 35# of reserve then I might get about 200 ft/per min climb, which is fine since all I want to do is get to altitude to soar. I am glad I found this site to post all of my questions. Mitchell 33 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 0:18pm Subject: Re: Here are some calculations captain_jims Offline Send Email Mitch, you are asking all the right questions. Glad you asked this one, it is the next logical question in calculating performance. Let's assume that the 8:1 glide angle is obtained at 30mph. That is pretty typical, maybe slightly slower. 30 mph = 2640 feet per minute, ie 1/2 mile per minute. 2640/8 = 330 fpm sink at 30 mph and 8:1 glide ratio. We have already determined that 45# thrust is required for level flight, that is the same as saying 45# is required to offset 330 fpm sink. Assume just for a moment that you had 90# thrust total, so you had another 45# available. That would allow 330fpm net climb rate. But you dont have 45#, you have about 35# so a simple ratio will determine the climb rate 35/45 x 330= 256 fpm. Voila, just about right on your target. Now you can put this in a spread sheet like Excel and play with weight, glide ratio, thrust, and see the interaction on net climb. The bottom line is that at 13 hp, we do not have much reserve so weight gain, and wing performance cannot be allowed to move against us. Fortunately, there are parts available to boost the 13 hp to 16 hp pretty easily if need be. That would make for another 20# of thrust and add more than 50% to climb. So that becomes our backup plan. No weight gain from those parts, since they are things like a piston with increased compression, a cam, cam springs, etc. All replacement parts, not add-on. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mitchcouch" wrote: > If I weigh 200# (with clothes and a full breakfast), engine about 70, > wing about 50 and the trike about 40, that equals 360#. > > With a 13 hp engine producing about 6.2# of thrust per hp., then that > equals around 81.90# of thrust. > > A small single surface glider with a glide ratio of 8 to 1 will be > the wing. > > So, 360#/8 equals 45# of thrust needed for level flight. That leaves > about +35# of reserve. > > How does one determine if that is enough for climb; and if so then > how much climb can be calculated? > > I was using a small 13 hp because they seem to be so plentiful and > inexpensive. The larger the engine the more hp. Also, I love the > idea of a 4 stoke so that I don't have to worry about the redrive. > > I am thinking that with only 35# of reserve then I might get about > 200 ft/per min climb, which is fine since all I want to do is get to > altitude to soar. > > I am glad I found this site to post all of my questions. > > Mitchell 34 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 6:08pm Subject: hello again mitchcouch Offline Send Email Long time since anyone wrote. How is everything coming along? I was wondering, how do you increase the hp from 13 to 16? I saw you said something about spark plugs and carbs. Let me know. Also, let me know how everything is doing. It sure is sunny over here in California. Mitchell 35 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:02am Subject: Re: hello again - progress captain_jims Offline Send Email I am getting close to testing without the wing. The details like the controls, etc. But I should be taxi testing in May. There are numerous suppliers of hp increase parts. Do a search in Google for "kart" and "performance". Write to several of them, I got several proposals using a new piston, new carb, cam, etc that could get to 30 hp. I do not have a specific recommendation for a supplier. Warm weather has arrived and I have been working on my boat. That has distracted me, but once it is launched it won't take so much time. On May 8, I will be at Wicks to pickup some aluminum tube to reinforce my wing by internal sleeving the keel and cross-tubes. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mitchcouch" wrote: > Long time since anyone wrote. How is everything coming along? > > I was wondering, how do you increase the hp from 13 to 16? I saw you > said something about spark plugs and carbs. Let me know. > > Also, let me know how everything is doing. It sure is sunny over > here in California. > > Mitchell 36 From: "ivanjetwing" Date: Sat May 10, 2003 6:54pm Subject: skeeter lite trike kits? ivanjetwing Offline Send Email check out this website www.alaskatriking.com they have a very nice lite trike kit called the skeeter for $950. 37 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun May 11, 2003 2:58am Subject: Re: skeeter lite trike kits? captain_jims Offline Send Email They sold one of these complete with Yamaha Engine and UP Axis 13 wing for $3750 on eBay in March. The listing is still available to review. They were asking $5000 on other sites for this unit before the auction. Must have been anxious to sell since they dropped the price at the end of the auction for the high bidder. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItem&item=2405606446&category=26428 Nice simple design. From the description on their new site, it looks more like an assembled trike frame than a "kit". I would guess that you could save about $500 if you bought the tubing and seat and did a little drilling. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "ivanjetwing" wrote: > check out this website www.alaskatriking.com they have a very nice > lite trike kit called the skeeter for $950. 38 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:32am Subject: Lite Trike Soaring & Drag reduction - an opinion captain_jims Offline Send Email This is an analysis that I have been wanting to post for some time. What can be done to allow the lite trike to be a better soaring glider? As used below, Trike means carriage plus flex wing. Some have proposed various drag reduction methods for the Trike including wheel pants, pods, faired struts, etc. The numbers presented below will suggest that Trike carriage drag reduction will have little effect. For our comparison we will start with a lite Trike of 400# wt and a glide ratio of 9:1. This calculates to a drag force of 44# at 30 mph level flight. Now to help us analyze this, we will bring in a Mitchell Wing. This is an open trike, rear engine, with a reflexed rigid wing, ie, no tail. Glide ratio of 16:1 for a drag force of 25# at 30 mph. Now, by using both pieces of data, we can quickly determine that the following three numbers: Trike Carriage Drag force - 16# Flex wing drag force - 28# Rigid wing drag force - 9# Conclusions: 1. If the Trike carriage were streamlined to 0 drag, the Mitchell Wing would still have less drag than the Trike. 2. The flex wing drag is the controlling issue. 3. The typical Trike sink of 300 fpm could be reduced to about 160 fpm by replacing the flex wing with a rigid wing. 4. Assuming that the trike carriage drag could be reduced in half at no weight penalty, the sink rate of the Trike would still be 240 fpm. Little gain for a lot of pain. Rigid wing hang gliders have been fitted to the Skycycle. I would like to see the performance data if anyone comes across any. However, I have concluded that a rigid wing is the key to soaring a lite trike. The second advantage is that I can build a strut braced reflexed rigid wing, but I cannot build a flex wing. Next winter's project has been defined. Jim 39 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun May 18, 2003 4:34am Subject: Visited Wicks captain_jims Offline Send Email On May 16, I stopped by Wicks on the way home from St Louis. Nice clean operation. They have a small showroom with one of everything they sell on display in wall racks. Very helpful, and quick service. I know this sounds like a commercial, but I have been to other suppliers and this was the cleanest, neatest operation I have seen. Just wanted to share that observation. I picked up the last odds and ends that I need to complete my trike. 4130 tube of odd sizes and 7x19 cable to double my wing wires. Jim 40 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri May 23, 2003 7:33pm Subject: Bolted Joint Design Criteria captain_jims Offline Send Email There has been substantial discussion on this group and others about the function of a bolt. I will take a few minutes to outline the requirements for a properly designed bolted joint and compare that to a pin and a dowell since there is so much confusion. You will see that there are very few properly designed bolted joints in ultralight aircraft once you understand the full set of requirements. Requirements for a properly designed bolted joint: 1. A bolt (obvious, but listed for completeness), optionally a nut. 2. An abuttment. The two members that the bolt passes thru and holds together make up the abuttment. 3. No gap between the two parts of the abuttment when the bolt is tightened finger tight. 4. Elastic elongation of the bolt, usually measured by the torque applied during the tightening process. Torque is an indirect measurement of the tightness since the elastic elongation is the criteria and but torque is easier to measure but sensitive to thread friction. 5. No relative motion at the interface of the abuttment due to external forces. This is the common missed criteria that leads to loose and broken bolts. 6. The abuttment should be three times the area of the bolt. Another commonly missed criteria when weight of the structure is an issue. 7. Note: if these criteria are met, bending strength of a bolt is never an issue. Failure modes: 1. If abuttment motion occurs, the bolt will fatigue due to bending stress at one of two locations. Those are the body side of the head or the first thread. An abuttment motion failure is biased to the head area. 2. If the abuttment is not closed when finger tightened, the cyclic stress in the bolt is significantly elevated in range. This range increase directly affects the same two regions as listed in item 1. This failure is biased to the thread area. 3. The failure at one of these two locations is normally first since both locations are stress concentrators. 4. Abuttment motion will cause slight wear in the abuttment interface which will lead to a loose bolt. The cyclic stress range is elevated in a loose bolt. Loose here being defined as not feeling loose, but will have lowered measured bolt torque. The tight fit bolt: 1. Often a bolt is fitted to a reamed hole in an attempt to eliminate the motion at the abuttment interface. 2. This design effectively converts the bolt to a dowell or pin and is an attempt to makeup for a poor bolted joint design. A bolt should not be used in such an environment since very small motions can cause fatigue stress failures of the bolt as in item 2 above. When to use a pin: If the structure does not allow a proper design of the bolted joint, a pin will tolerate substantial motion at the abuttment since its head to body geometry is not such a high stress concentrator and there is no thread stress concentration. Bending strength of a pin is a common issue. When to use a dowell: If positional location must be maintained without the tension of the bolt, then a force fit dowell is appropriate. External means must be applied to insure retention. Nut retention techniques: 1. All known nut retention techniques do NOT keep the bolt tight. Bolts do not initially loosen due to nut rotation, but rather as indicated above, loosen due to interface motion. 2. Nut retention techniques such as, cotter pins, plastic inserts, tie wire, locktite, etc all act to retain a loose nut. This simply provides more time to catch the bolted joint in the process of failing. If a nut is found loose, you can be sure that the bolt has absorbed fatigue stress cycles and should be replaced. Jim 41 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Thu May 29, 2003 4:41pm Subject: propellers mitchcouch Offline Send Email after doing a lot of research on propellers I believe that I have absolutely confused myself. I have talked to a lot of people who say to put a redrive on the engine to increase the hp. My big question comes to this: do you want to turn the largest diameter prop that you can get away with? Do you want a lot of pitch in the prop? With a 13 hp engine I am thinking a 42 x 16 is the best prop. On the other hand, with a redrive you can turn a 45 x 20 (beres and hirsch web site) Also, could you resend the direct drive diagram for the engine? Questions, Questions, and more Questions!! Mitchell Couch 42 From: "johnshaman2000" Date: Sat May 31, 2003 11:09am Subject: mast/boom angles johnshaman2000 Offline Send Email hi there, I was wondering if any of the groups members could give me some insight into how to set the angle of the boom and mast. thanks john 43 From: "johnshaman2000" Date: Sat May 31, 2003 11:24am Subject: more mast boom stuff johnshaman2000 Offline Send Email hi, after more thought i guess a better question is what determines thsi angle ? i am assuming the location of the hangpoint comes through the point of CG along the boom. am i way off base here or am i getting warm ? thanks john 44 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat May 31, 2003 6:35pm Subject: Re: more mast boom stuff captain_jims Offline Send Email You are on the right track here. Assume a worse case that you are gliding down with engine off for a landing. You want the rear wheels to always touch first, never the front wheel first. The way to test for this is to hang the carriage itself from the shop ceiling with you in the seat, no fuel, engine off and be sure that the front wheel is about 4" higher that the rear wheels. Now, recognizing that the Hang Point is the critical factor, the shape of the structure to position that Hang Point on the carriage is unimportant. The structure can have anyone of many shapes. Generally, this point of a lite trike will be above the pilots tail bone. This give a starting point, but the hang test is the final analysis. I am confident that it could be calculated, but you would still want to do the hang test. Therefore, on a new design, or homebuilt, you always want to have the capability to change the length of the front strut to move the hang point during this test. Note that this location also insures that the front wheel will lift off first. Hope this helps. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "johnshaman2000" wrote: > hi, > > after more thought i guess a better question is what determines thsi > angle ? i am assuming the location of the hangpoint comes through the > point of CG along the boom. am i way off base here or am i getting > warm ? > > thanks > > john 45 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:33am Subject: Re: more mast boom stuff mitchcouch Offline Send Email Also, after talking to guy in Florida that built two trikes, make sure the front wheel doesn't come up too high, like capt jim said, four inches is good. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > You are on the right track here. > > Assume a worse case that you are gliding down with engine off for a > landing. You want the rear wheels to always touch first, never the > front wheel first. > > The way to test for this is to hang the carriage itself from the shop > ceiling with you in the seat, no fuel, engine off and be sure that > the front wheel is about 4" higher that the rear wheels. > > Now, recognizing that the Hang Point is the critical factor, the > shape of the structure to position that Hang Point on the carriage is > unimportant. The structure can have anyone of many shapes. > > Generally, this point of a lite trike will be above the pilots tail > bone. This give a starting point, but the hang test is the final > analysis. I am confident that it could be calculated, but you would > still want to do the hang test. Therefore, on a new design, or > homebuilt, you always want to have the capability to change the > length of the front strut to move the hang point during this test. > > Note that this location also insures that the front wheel will lift > off first. > > Hope this helps. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "johnshaman2000" > wrote: > > hi, > > > > after more thought i guess a better question is what determines > thsi > > angle ? i am assuming the location of the hangpoint comes through > the > > point of CG along the boom. am i way off base here or am i getting > > warm ? > > > > thanks > > > > john 46 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:34am Subject: throttle for 13 hp tecumseh mitchcouch Offline Send Email how does one set up the tecumseh for a throttle. After talking to the tecumseh people they said it is a difficult thing to do. Jim, did you figure that out yet? Mitchell 47 From: Jim Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:44am Subject: Re: throttle for 13 hp tecumseh captain_jims Offline Send Email I don't understand how they could call it difficult. I bought a remote throttle and cable assembly. I ran the cable along the frame to the engine, clamped it where the original manual throttle bolted on and put the cable into the original governor link. There was already a hole in that link at the right place. I plan to use the governor for early tests. Then I will run the cable direct to the throttle plate. I will let the testing tell which is best. If I can go direct to the throttle plate it will let me remove the entire governor assembly which is a few lbs. Lots of internal parts. I have the wheels off right now for installation of the axles. Using 5/8 od x .125 4130 tube. When the wheels are back on, I will be shooting some photos and I will get this one for you. Jim --- mitchcouch wrote: > how does one set up the tecumseh for a throttle. > After talking to > the tecumseh people they said it is a difficult > thing to do. Jim, > did you figure that out yet? > > Mitchell > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com 48 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 7:40pm Subject: aircraft spruce and specialty mitchcouch Offline Send Email Just got the new catalog in from Aircraft Spruce and Specialty Co. It was free if you call them. I am not trying to do any advertising for any particular company, just wanted to get the word out. I really think that I am going to go with an all aluminum frame. It will really keep the weight down (75% less) and is cheaper. The only thing is what is the strenght difference? Will I have to use a thicker piece of aluminum and thus increase the weight and price? Something to concider. 49 From: Jim Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 4:18am Subject: Re: steel vs alum captain_jims Offline Send Email I did some analysis a while back on a steel vs aluminum frame. Here are the general conclusions: 1. For equal bending strength in the lengths that are of interest here you can use 1.75" od steel instead of 2" od alum and .06 wall thickness steel vs .125 wall thickness aluminum. 2. The steel structure will actually weigh about 10% more at equivalent strength. 3. Forming is easier with steel. 4. Both can be sleeved to put the strength where it needs to be. 5. The steel structure is about 10%-15% more $$. In a past message I referenced an email on the Nano site by number in which the writer gave the tube diameters and wall thicknesses he was using in aluminum. Looks like a good starting place. Jim --- mitchcouch wrote: > Just got the new catalog in from Aircraft Spruce and > Specialty Co. > It was free if you call them. I am not trying to do > any advertising > for any particular company, just wanted to get the > word out. > > I really think that I am going to go with an all > aluminum frame. It > will really keep the weight down (75% less) and is > cheaper. The only > thing is what is the strenght difference? Will I > have to use a > thicker piece of aluminum and thus increase the > weight and price? > Something to concider. > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com 50 From: "johnshaman2000" Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 3:08pm Subject: wings in lite trikes johnshaman2000 Offline Send Email hi, i am interested in using the willswing falcon 225 for use with a lite trike. anyone have any experience using this wing ? and also how much mods were needed to make it usable thanks john 51 From: Jim Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Re: wings in lite trikes captain_jims Offline Send Email That wing is a tandem wing rated for two people isn't it? If so, the max hookin weight would have a max around 450-500 lbs. Should not need any mods with that kind of rating. My trike and pilot weight will be 330# which would well within the rating. My biggest concern would be ground handling with that large of a wing. I would think that you would want to have a fairly wide spread on the rear wheels. The other concern would be the setup with that big of a wing, just hard to get on the trike. Jim --- johnshaman2000 wrote: > hi, > > i am interested in using the willswing falcon 225 > for use with a lite > trike. anyone have any experience using this wing ? > and also how much > mods were needed to make it usable > > thanks > > john > > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com 52 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 7:20pm Subject: Re: wings in lite trikes mitchcouch Offline Send Email I think that wing would work also but again think of the ground handling like Jim said. My father flew a Dream 220 (as a hang glider pilot) and had a bad takeoff due to ground handling resulting in a crash at launch. The dream and Falcon would work great. I was thinking of getting a Mark IV 19. I flew the 17 for years as a hang glider pilot and loved the handling and easy flare for landing. If anyone else knows of any double surface that would work let me know. Mitchell Couch --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Jim wrote: > That wing is a tandem wing rated for two people isn't > it? If so, the max hookin weight would have a max > around 450-500 lbs. > > Should not need any mods with that kind of rating. My > trike and pilot weight will be 330# which would well > within the rating. > > My biggest concern would be ground handling with that > large of a wing. I would think that you would want to > have a fairly wide spread on the rear wheels. > > The other concern would be the setup with that big of > a wing, just hard to get on the trike. > > Jim > --- johnshaman2000 wrote: > > hi, > > > > i am interested in using the willswing falcon 225 > > for use with a lite > > trike. anyone have any experience using this wing ? > > and also how much > > mods were needed to make it usable > > > > thanks > > > > john > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). > http://calendar.yahoo.com 53 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 7:43pm Subject: Final Decision!!! mitchcouch Offline Send Email Well, I have finally figured out my design, cost, and weight of the trike I want to build. Here are some numbers. Trike 50# Engine (13hp Tecumseh) 50# Myself 190# Fuel 12# That gives a hook in weight of roughtly 300# I think that I can build the trike for roughly $250 and the engine will cost around 500$. Here is the road block I run into: (conservative numbers) 320 pound trike with a 7 to 1 glide ratio; the trike needs 46# of thrust to stay level. At 13hp at 6# of thrust per hp, that gives me a total of 78# of thrust. I am left with a reserve of 32#. Would that even get me off the ground? Would my climb be about 100 feet per minute? My whole decision to do this would be based on whether or not I feel that the trike could fly. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Mitchell Couch 54 From: Jim Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 2:19am Subject: Re: Final Decision!!! captain_jims Offline Send Email I agree with all of your numbers as being conservative but realistic. I would hope you code do better that 7:1 glide, since that is not soarable. But lets use your numbers and generate the two that are missing. First, if you have reserve of thrust over drag, it will fly. That is not the issue. The 7:1 glide at 30 mph is about 375 fpm rate of descent. 2640/7. The question then is: what is the available rate of climb Since 46# of thrust overcomes 375 fpm descent, a ratio of 32/46 * 375 = 250 fpm climb is available. Everytime I calculate this, I come up with 200-250 fpm climb available. I learned to fly in a Piper Cub that only had 350-400 fpm climb with 2 passengers. It was not a rocket, but it was not unsafe either. Another way to view the overall situation is that there are several 2 cycle 16 hp w/redrive units flying. The 16 hp engines have a very sensitive power curve so they are probably not a full 16 hp and some is lost thru the redrive. They get by with little reserver. I think the numbers support this. It will be a marginal climber at 200-250 fpm. 16 hp Solo engines are available. The 2 cyliner 4 cycle engines are my next preferred choice if the single cylinder does not work. I have also considered a pair of 8 hp 4 cycle engines driving a single prop. The 8 hp are available in all aluminum. Just some ramblings, Jim --- mitchcouch wrote: > Well, I have finally figured out my design, cost, > and weight of the > trike I want to build. Here are some numbers. > > Trike 50# > Engine (13hp Tecumseh) 50# > Myself 190# > Fuel 12# > > That gives a hook in weight of roughtly 300# > > I think that I can build the trike for roughly $250 > and the engine > will cost around 500$. > > Here is the road block I run into: > > (conservative numbers) > > 320 pound trike with a 7 to 1 glide ratio; the trike > needs 46# of > thrust to stay level. At 13hp at 6# of thrust per > hp, that gives me > a total of 78# of thrust. I am left with a reserve > of 32#. > > Would that even get me off the ground? Would my > climb be about 100 > feet per minute? My whole decision to do this would > be based on > whether or not I feel that the trike could fly. > > Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. > > Mitchell Couch > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com 55 From: "johnshaman2000" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: wings in lite trikes johnshaman2000 Offline Send Email hi the willswing website (http://www.willswing.com) states the hookin for the falson 225 at 185-300. im 220 lbs 6'2 so i think i will be ok may be cutting it ti close, the falcon tandem has a hookin at 185 - 500. currently i have a zenoah motor (22hp) which is 50 lbs but i am thinkin about using a radne motor. rick --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Jim wrote: > That wing is a tandem wing rated for two people isn't > it? If so, the max hookin weight would have a max > around 450-500 lbs. > > Should not need any mods with that kind of rating. My > trike and pilot weight will be 330# which would well > within the rating. > > My biggest concern would be ground handling with that > large of a wing. I would think that you would want to > have a fairly wide spread on the rear wheels. > > The other concern would be the setup with that big of > a wing, just hard to get on the trike. > > Jim > --- johnshaman2000 wrote: > > hi, > > > > i am interested in using the willswing falcon 225 > > for use with a lite > > trike. anyone have any experience using this wing ? > > and also how much > > mods were needed to make it usable > > > > thanks > > > > john > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). > http://calendar.yahoo.com 56 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:03am Subject: Re: wings in lite trikes mitchcouch Offline Send Email they put the max hook in at 300 because they will never condone a tandem setup. At the Point of the Mountain, Utah I saw two pilots hook in both weighing 200 pounds each and they stayed up with the rest of us. It is a strong and durable glider. A lot of tandem pilots prefer the Dream over the Falcon-really it is a love'em or hate em relationship. Mitchell Couch --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "johnshaman2000" wrote: > hi > > the willswing website (http://www.willswing.com) states the hookin for the falson 225 at 185-300. im > 220 lbs 6'2 so i think i will be ok may be cutting it ti close, the falcon tandem has a hookin at 185 - > 500. currently i have a zenoah motor (22hp) which is 50 lbs but i am thinkin about using a radne > motor. > > rick > > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Jim wrote: > > That wing is a tandem wing rated for two people isn't > > it? If so, the max hookin weight would have a max > > around 450-500 lbs. > > > > Should not need any mods with that kind of rating. My > > trike and pilot weight will be 330# which would well > > within the rating. > > > > My biggest concern would be ground handling with that > > large of a wing. I would think that you would want to > > have a fairly wide spread on the rear wheels. > > > > The other concern would be the setup with that big of > > a wing, just hard to get on the trike. > > > > Jim > > --- johnshaman2000 wrote: > > > hi, > > > > > > i am interested in using the willswing falcon 225 > > > for use with a lite > > > trike. anyone have any experience using this wing ? > > > and also how much > > > mods were needed to make it usable > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > john > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). > > http://calendar.yahoo.com 57 From: "rickframil" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 10:49am Subject: falcon 225 photos rickframil Offline Send Email i think i goofed anyway i posted some epics of the falcon 225 i am considering on purchasing. any feedback from forum members would be great. john 58 From: "captain_jims" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 1:37pm Subject: Re: falcon 225 photos captain_jims Offline Send Email I created a folder "Falcon 225" and put all the photos together in there. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "rickframil" wrote: > i think i goofed anyway i posted some epics of the falcon 225 i > am considering on purchasing. any feedback from forum > members would be great. > > john 59 From: "mitchcouch" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 2:29pm Subject: Re: falcon 225 photos mitchcouch Offline Send Email Nice looking glider. What are they selling for? (gosh, I forgot what a huge glider the Falcon was) --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "rickframil" wrote: > i think i goofed anyway i posted some epics of the falcon 225 i > am considering on purchasing. any feedback from forum > members would be great. > > john 60 From: "johnshaman2000" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 10:26am Subject: falcon 225 pics johnshaman2000 Offline Send Email hi posted pics in the photos section of the falcon 225 that i am considering. john 61 From: "zipperzoey" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 10:01am Subject: lite trike wings cont... zipperzoey Offline Send Email what about using the airborne sting 175 ? 62 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 6:57am Subject: Glider Marketplace captain_jims Offline Send Email http://topaflyers.com/kites/ads/hang.ads.html This site has moved. This is the new URL. There is a constant updating of gliders for sale. In addition, there is a link on that page to a database of gliders with some specs and commentary. Jim 63 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:14pm Subject: A differnent direction for a wing captain_jims Offline Send Email After substantial consideration of the hang glider wing for the lite- trike, I have abandoned the idea. I just sold my wing on eBay. The trike is just a few hours from completion and it will continue for taxi tests this years. However, I have concluded that a rigid wing is the only way I am going to see the soaring performance that I want. No matter how I cranked the numbers, I kept seeing 350-400 fpm as a minimum sink rate. That is clearly too high with the poor penetration of the hang glider wing. So, out goes the flex wing, in comes a comparable sized rigid wing. I will be working on the design of this wing and will share the design concept. I expect it to be wire or strut braced. I don't want to add the weight of a pure cantilevered wing. The second issue was the marginal load capacity of the hang glider wing. I was going to have a trike take off weight of 330 lbs with a wing rated load of 265 lbs. Sleeving of the structure was near impossible since it was already double and triple wall. With the rigid wing I will have two spars and small increases in diameter and wall thickness will allow a 400 lb load capacity with only minor increase in weight. As an aside, I wanted to get flying this year, so I purchased a Sabre 340 trike. It has about 32 hp and plenty of load capacity for my 235 lbs. It is still and ultralight and I have removed the second seat so that I am a legal Part 103. Will it soar? Only in the best of conditions, but at least I have the load capacity to tolerate the strong thermal activity to allow soaring. Jim 64 From: "rickframil" Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 8:43am Subject: which is stronger sleeved or not? rickframil Offline Send Email Ok, Which is stronger ? .058 sleeved with .058 or just single tube .125 Thanks Rick 65 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 8:56am Subject: Re: which is stronger sleeved or not? captain_jims Offline Send Email Sleeving is always an interesting question. There are several cases. Your question is the simplest and most straight forward. If the total equivalent wall ends up the same for the entire length, the single tube is better for several reasons. The one most often missed is that there will be immediately, a micro-motion between the two tubes. This will cause corrosion, also known as fretting, that will create crack prone surfaces. For welder, the sleeved tube is difficult to weld so the joint will be questionable. For bolted joints, the hole must be reamed more accurately so that the bolt load is transferred to both tubes. Not as critical as the weld issue, since the one tube will yield slightly at the bolt hole to share the load. Folks often think only about the ultimate load capability immediately after assembly, but the difference in the two tubes will grow to be more important as stress cycles accumulate and fatigue and corrosion are the important factors. Hope this helps. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "rickframil" wrote: > Ok, > > Which is stronger ? .058 sleeved with .058 or just single tube .125 > > Thanks > > Rick 66 From: "rickframil" Date: Sat Nov 8, 2003 7:37am Subject: Building the Huntwing rickframil Offline Send Email Hi, I was also wondering if anyone has built this trike here in the USA. http://www.huntwing.co.uk Rick 67 From: "rickframil" Date: Sat Nov 8, 2003 6:38pm Subject: Huntwing Parts List rickframil Offline Send Email Hi, In case anyone is interested i uploaded in to the files sections a excel spredasheet that catalogs all the parts in the Huntwing. Rick 68 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Nov 8, 2003 8:15pm Subject: Re: Huntwing Parts List captain_jims Offline Send Email Thanks, Glad to seee that the file is now available. It will be a handy reference for the parts list I am assembling. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "rickframil" wrote: > Hi, > > In case anyone is interested i uploaded in to the files sections a > excel spredasheet that catalogs all the parts in the Huntwing. > > Rick 69 From: "captain_jims" Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:25am Subject: A question for all captain_jims Offline Send Email I have a question about where we should take this group. That is what direction should we go. There are several trike sites that I follow, but they seem to come up short for me. I wonder what the members of this group would like to explore. My interest lies in light trikes in the most generic sense. Not the overweight imports although they are fun to fly. I own a flying Sabre, have a nearly complete very light single place trike, and am actively building a 2 place experimental trike. I have hesitated to use this group to discuss experimental trikes since they are not ultralights, but if we want a two place, it will not be an ultralight by definition. But the name is lite trike builders. If the interest is there, lets share our trike building interests. Even those not building, chime in. What interests you? I would like to see this group become the center of trike construction discussions for trikes in the weight range of 180-350 lbs ready to fly. No commercial discussion by manufacturers please. Now, I have stated my opinion. I am more than willing to expound on my two place design since it is somewhat different as a side-by-side. But, before I do, I would like to hear your opinion of where we should go. Plase jump in here. Jim 70 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 6:45pm Subject: Re: An easier question for all captain_jims Offline Send Email Perhaps I put out too difficult of a question. Let's try an easier one and get this discussion going. Which members are actively building a trike? Which members would like to build a trike in the near future? And I will provide the answers for myself to prime the pump. I am actively building a 2 place side-by-side trike, 55 hp Kawasaki 440D engine, wood prop, and Sabre SS 16 wing. This will be licensed experimental. I have a glider license and will fly it as a powered glider. I also have a single place very lite trike about 20 hours from completion. It has taken a back seat to the one above. Now, I invite all to chime in. Lets see where our common thread is. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > I have a question about where we should take this group. That is what > direction should we go. There are several trike sites that I follow, > but they seem to come up short for me. I wonder what the members of > this group would like to explore. > > My interest lies in light trikes in the most generic sense. Not the > overweight imports although they are fun to fly. I own a flying > Sabre, have a nearly complete very light single place trike, and am > actively building a 2 place experimental trike. I have hesitated to > use this group to discuss experimental trikes since they are not > ultralights, but if we want a two place, it will not be an ultralight > by definition. > > But the name is lite trike builders. If the interest is there, lets > share our trike building interests. Even those not building, chime > in. What interests you? I would like to see this group become the > center of trike construction discussions for trikes in the weight > range of 180-350 lbs ready to fly. No commercial discussion by > manufacturers please. > > Now, I have stated my opinion. I am more than willing to expound on > my two place design since it is somewhat different as a side-by- side. > But, before I do, I would like to hear your opinion of where we > should go. Plase jump in here. > > Jim 71 From: "jag200147265" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:36pm Subject: Interested Builder jag200147265 Offline Send Email Ok captain_Jim, I'll board the wagon with you on building lite trikes. Triking is all new to me since for the past 6 years I,ve been dealing with helicopters and after these 6 years I'm burn't out and now making the switch. To many moving parts and repair work, but I've built a dream come ture and accompished what I sat out to do. I'm now building a trike of my design after much study and two months into the project. After completeing this project I might be interested in drawing plans since almost none is available. But for now my biggest interest is to build and FLY!!! My question to all at this time is a wing. What wing would be suitable for me? I have no air time as of yet, but neither did the Wright brothers. I'm interested in a used wing, single surface, something with a low stall, maybe in the lines of a butterfly wing. I'll post more later..........Thanks......John. 72 From: "captain_jims" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:55pm Subject: Re: Interested Builder captain_jims Offline Send Email Well John, lets talk about wings. The first issue to look at given your description of how you want to fly is the total weight of trike and you. If under 275#, you have a choice a a number of hang glider wings. If over 275#, there are still several tandem wings readily available, and if over 400# then you are into the trike wings, but the Sabre 16 wing has a good reputation for the characteristics you have listed. There are about 600 Sabre Wings out there and you see them for sale as the owners step up to double surface wings. The Sabre wing is known for its light touch, ease of handling, and gentle stall. So, before I go on further, we need to look at the ready to fly weight of your trike carriage and you. Note: The Skycycle out of Chattanooga has been sold to fly under about 6-8 different hang glider wings and it has about 22-24 hp. And finally, I am curious what engine you are looking at. That often ends up controlling the weight as the second most significant influence after your weight. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jag200147265" wrote: > Ok captain_Jim, I'll board the wagon with you on building lite > trikes. Triking is all new to me since for the past 6 years I,ve > been dealing with helicopters and after these 6 years I'm burn't out > and now making the switch. To many moving parts and repair work, but > I've built a dream come ture and accompished what I sat out to do. > I'm now building a trike of my design after much study and two > months into the project. After completeing this project I might be > interested in drawing plans since almost none is available. But for > now my biggest interest is to build and FLY!!! My question to all at > this time is a wing. What wing would be suitable for me? I have no > air time as of yet, but neither did the Wright brothers. I'm > interested in a used wing, single surface, something with a low > stall, maybe in the lines of a butterfly wing. I'll post more > later..........Thanks......John. 73 From: "jag200147265" Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:29pm Subject: Interested Builder jag200147265 Offline Send Email Jim I have posted some pictures of my project. Folding mask,fully adjustable engine mount. Total weight of trike w/447 rotax and prop is 175pounds. 2-1 reduction with 27-54 prop. So fuel 6 1/2 gal. tank and 140 pound me, 357pounds,,, so now the wing, what would be your choice? And have you ever heard of a wing with the name of UP,32 ft.?? I believe its a hang glider wing... JOHN.. 74 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:49pm Subject: Re: Interested Builder captain_jims Offline Send Email You have several serious issues listed here. The 2-1 reduction. Usually bad news due to the interaction with the prop input. Anything just above or below 2:1 is usually ok. 6.5 gal tank. Only 5 gal is allowed under part 103. Those are the ultralight regs. The 357 lbs would be your hook in weight. A normal large hang glider has a max hook in of 275 lbs. Looks like you will definitely need a tandem Hang glider wing. That would be cheaper by far than one of the light trike wings. Probably $2000 vs. $3500 used. What is the model of the UP. I believe that they are/were a manufacturer with several models. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jag200147265" wrote: > Jim I have posted some pictures of my project. Folding mask,fully > adjustable engine mount. Total weight of trike w/447 rotax and prop > is 175pounds. 2-1 reduction with 27-54 prop. So fuel 6 1/2 gal. tank > and 140 pound me, 357pounds,,, so now the wing, what would be your > choice? And have you ever heard of a wing with the name of UP,32 > ft.?? I believe its a hang glider wing... JOHN.. 75 From: "captain_jims" Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 0:06pm Subject: Re: Interested Builder captain_jims Offline Send Email After I hit reply, I realized that all I had done was make negative comments. My apologies, the engineer coming out. First, Congratulation on your progress. Nice to see a trike being built. Looks like an original design. Can you share more details of the design? Did your weight numbers below include full fuel? Here is a link to a database of hang glider. Many UP models listed. http://topaflyers.com/kites/kites.html That is an excellent site to watch for glider sales used. Again, Congratualtions and welcome aboard as a builder Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > You have several serious issues listed here. > > The 2-1 reduction. Usually bad news due to the interaction with the > prop input. Anything just above or below 2:1 is usually ok. > > 6.5 gal tank. Only 5 gal is allowed under part 103. Those are the > ultralight regs. > > The 357 lbs would be your hook in weight. A normal large hang glider > has a max hook in of 275 lbs. Looks like you will definitely need a > tandem Hang glider wing. That would be cheaper by far than one of > the light trike wings. Probably $2000 vs. $3500 used. > > What is the model of the UP. I believe that they are/were a > manufacturer with several models. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jag200147265" > wrote: > > Jim I have posted some pictures of my project. Folding mask,fully > > adjustable engine mount. Total weight of trike w/447 rotax and > prop > > is 175pounds. 2-1 reduction with 27-54 prop. So fuel 6 1/2 gal. > tank > > and 140 pound me, 357pounds,,, so now the wing, what would be your > > choice? And have you ever heard of a wing with the name of UP,32 > > ft.?? I believe its a hang glider wing... JOHN.. 76 From: "john cosand" Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:56pm Subject: Re: Re: Interested Builder jag200147265 Offline Send Email Jim, forget the negative comments, sometimes that's what a person needs to know, we always know the positive.... anyway the trike, motor and me, full of fuel, 6 gal. is the complete weight 357, without the wing.. I understand the 103 rule, but I'm bending it... to many rules in this world now.. I have this wing, and the only thing I can fine on it so far is this UP sewn in the wing cloth around the keel tube. Here's a picture of it if it helps any. ----- Original Message ----- From: captain_jims To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 3:06 PM Subject: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Re: Interested Builder After I hit reply, I realized that all I had done was make negative comments. My apologies, the engineer coming out. First, Congratulation on your progress. Nice to see a trike being built. Looks like an original design. Can you share more details of the design? Did your weight numbers below include full fuel? Here is a link to a database of hang glider. Many UP models listed. http://topaflyers.com/kites/kites.html That is an excellent site to watch for glider sales used. Again, Congratualtions and welcome aboard as a builder Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > You have several serious issues listed here. > > The 2-1 reduction. Usually bad news due to the interaction with the > prop input. Anything just above or below 2:1 is usually ok. > > 6.5 gal tank. Only 5 gal is allowed under part 103. Those are the > ultralight regs. > > The 357 lbs would be your hook in weight. A normal large hang glider > has a max hook in of 275 lbs. Looks like you will definitely need a > tandem Hang glider wing. That would be cheaper by far than one of > the light trike wings. Probably $2000 vs. $3500 used. > > What is the model of the UP. I believe that they are/were a > manufacturer with several models. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jag200147265" > wrote: > > Jim I have posted some pictures of my project. Folding mask,fully > > adjustable engine mount. Total weight of trike w/447 rotax and > prop > > is 175pounds. 2-1 reduction with 27-54 prop. So fuel 6 1/2 gal. > tank > > and 140 pound me, 357pounds,,, so now the wing, what would be your > > choice? And have you ever heard of a wing with the name of UP,32 > > ft.?? I believe its a hang glider wing... JOHN.. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT -- Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groupsyahoo.com/group/Lite_Trike_Builders/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Attachment: (image/jpeg) E.jpg [not stored] 77 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:40am Subject: Re: Interested Builder captain_jims Offline Send Email I don't know that wing, but maybe you can match up to a model on the site linked below. I recently had a Vision 19 that I was going to use for my lite trike. I had planned to sleeve the tubes for added strength but I found that there were sleeves in the critical areas both inside and outside of the existing tubing. Ended up selling it. Here is a rational that I went thru on being able to use it as is. It was rated 275lb at 6g. That is equivalent to a one time load of 275x6=1650lbs which is also equivalent to 412lb load rating at 4g. Since trikes are not flown in strong lift, I rationalized that 4g was enough. The other issue is; what is the handling at the operating load, it may not fail structurally, but is it still stable, are the control pressures acceptable, etc. So, if you find that you have a 250 to 275lb hookin at 6g, there is the rational for flying it overweight. You will just have to judge the handling at the high weight. But that is the same whether you sleeve it or not. The higher weight and sleeving will both affect the handling. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "john cosand" wrote: > Jim, forget the negative comments, sometimes that's what a person needs to know, we always know the positive.... anyway the trike, motor and me, full of fuel, 6 gal. is the complete weight 357, without the wing.. I understand the 103 rule, but I'm bending it... to many rules in this world now.. I have this wing, and the only thing I can fine on it so far is this UP sewn in the wing cloth around the keel tube. Here's a picture of it if it helps any. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: captain_jims > To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 3:06 PM > Subject: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Re: Interested Builder > > > After I hit reply, I realized that all I had done was make negative > comments. My apologies, the engineer coming out. > > First, Congratulation on your progress. Nice to see a trike being > built. Looks like an original design. Can you share more details of > the design? > > Did your weight numbers below include full fuel? > > Here is a link to a database of hang glider. Many UP models listed. > http://topaflyers.com/kites/kites.html > > That is an excellent site to watch for glider sales used. > > Again, Congratualtions and welcome aboard as a builder > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > You have several serious issues listed here. > > > > The 2-1 reduction. Usually bad news due to the interaction with > the > > prop input. Anything just above or below 2:1 is usually ok. > > > > 6.5 gal tank. Only 5 gal is allowed under part 103. Those are the > > ultralight regs. > > > > The 357 lbs would be your hook in weight. A normal large hang > glider > > has a max hook in of 275 lbs. Looks like you will definitely need > a > > tandem Hang glider wing. That would be cheaper by far than one of > > the light trike wings. Probably $2000 vs. $3500 used. > > > > What is the model of the UP. I believe that they are/were a > > manufacturer with several models. > > > > Jim > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jag200147265" > > wrote: > > > Jim I have posted some pictures of my project. Folding > mask,fully > > > adjustable engine mount. Total weight of trike w/447 rotax and > > prop > > > is 175pounds. 2-1 reduction with 27-54 prop. So fuel 6 1/2 gal. > > tank > > > and 140 pound me, 357pounds,,, so now the wing, what would be > your > > > choice? And have you ever heard of a wing with the name of > UP,32 > > > ft.?? I believe its a hang glider wing... JOHN.. > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lite_Trike_Builders/ > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 78 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:54pm Subject: Status report on my project captain_jims Offline Send Email I will take a few minutes to give a status report on my current project. First some specifications: Seating - 2 side by side Weight - 360 lbs License - Experimental Power - Metro 1.3L 4 cyl Prop - Wood 2 blade The frame is fully assembled except for the engine mount. The engine was just recently purchased as is now being modified. All the mods are external. I purchased a 2000 Metro engine with 27000 miles. Engine mods include: 1. Add carburator. (HD 40mm) 2. Add spark timing device(has no distributor) 3. Add thrust bearing to carry prop load. 4. Add details like exhaust extension, cooling plumbling, etc This installation will be a very simple 4 cylinder engine with no electronics, no fuel injection, no starter. It is my goal to mimic the Lycoming installation I had for years. Few parts are few problems. Now that warm weather is here, I need to move the assembly outside for photos. I will post them when available. My light trike project is still in the shop, but I decided to give the two place priority. Further analysis has convinced me that to fly on the 14 hp on the light trike, it must have a more efficient wing than the convential hang glider wing. I will be building a rigid wing for that trike. Think of the top wing on an Easy Riser that is cable braced like a hang glider wing and you have the picture. But that is a project for next winter. Jim 80 From: "michael lane" Date: Sun May 9, 2004 6:57am Subject: new guy m_lane313 Offline Send Email it took me a while to find this group, but i have arrived. i'll post a few pics in the photos section. mike 81 From: "michael lane" Date: Sun May 9, 2004 7:20am Subject: follow up m_lane313 Offline Send Email b.t.w., its sooo nice to find a site that is not only specific to my interest, but isn't full of salesmen, posers, and insecure jerks. thanks. mike can the moderator help me move my pics into my album? 82 From: Jim Date: Sun May 9, 2004 8:07am Subject: Re: follow up captain_jims Offline Send Email will do. Glad to have you aboard. Been fairly quiet lately. What are you building? Jim --- michael lane wrote: > b.t.w., its sooo nice to find a site that is not > only specific to > my interest, but isn't full of salesmen, posers, and > insecure jerks. > thanks. mike > can the moderator help me move my pics into my > album? > > __________________________________ Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 83 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun May 9, 2004 8:14am Subject: Re: new guy captain_jims Offline Send Email Hey, Mike, moved your photos, double check me. Very interesting. Lots of interesting ideas. Welcome aboard. Always glad to see something that pushes a bit of a new path. Can't wait to hear your description. Tell us all about it and don't be shy about describing the features. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "michael lane" wrote: > it took me a while to find this group, but i have arrived. i'll > post a few pics in the photos section. > mike 84 From: "michael lane" Date: Sun May 9, 2004 8:14pm Subject: Re: new guy m_lane313 Offline Send Email Jim, thanks for moving the photos. i built it (with help) as an after hours shop project. i work for a ppc mfg., but prefer hang gliders to parachutes. tired of towing. i want independance. most fittings are cnc'd 6061-t6. tubing is mostly 1.25" .058, with a little 1.5 x .083, and some 1" too. axles are .625" 4130 chrome. motor is a hirth f-33. prop is a 50" powerfin e model. puts out about 155 lbs. static. plenty. the pod is made of a bit of a/c ply and balsa, and fiberglassed. has cht/egt and tach/hourmeter.just the basics. i have a ball m-50 that i put on the basetube for alt., airspeed and vario. hafta get a g.p.s. one of these days..... harness is by hooker, hand deployed system by Betty. front upright disconnects to fold masts down, or pick up the wing. rear susp. needs work. still looking for the perfect shock/strut. wing is a modified airwave klassic. Thinking Kamerons new wing might be perfect. weighs 120 w/ ele. start. i'm currently re working the design a bit. it can be simpler, lighter and cleaner. mike 85 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon May 10, 2004 3:07am Subject: Re: new guy captain_jims Offline Send Email More questions: 1. What is your total take-off weight? And any idea what climb rate you get? I want to make some calculations based on the static thrust. 2. Tell us more about the features of the trike structure. From the 3_oclock photo, looks like more interesting solutions. 3. I see that you are from Wis. Sound like an ex Raven flyer. I took some training at WhiteWater several years back before trikes. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "michael lane" wrote: > Jim, thanks for moving the photos. > i built it (with help) as an after hours shop project. i work for a > ppc mfg., but prefer hang gliders to parachutes. tired of towing. i > want independance. > most fittings are cnc'd 6061-t6. tubing is mostly 1.25" .058, > with a little 1.5 x .083, and some 1" too. axles are .625" 4130 > chrome. > motor is a hirth f-33. prop is a 50" powerfin e model. puts out > about 155 lbs. static. plenty. > the pod is made of a bit of a/c ply and balsa, and fiberglassed. > has cht/egt and tach/hourmeter.just the basics. i have a ball m-50 > that i put on the basetube for alt., airspeed and vario. hafta get a > g.p.s. one of these days..... > harness is by hooker, hand deployed system by Betty. > front upright disconnects to fold masts down, or pick up the > wing. > rear susp. needs work. still looking for the perfect > shock/strut. > wing is a modified airwave klassic. Thinking Kamerons new wing > might be perfect. > weighs 120 w/ ele. start. i'm currently re working the design a > bit. it can be simpler, lighter and cleaner. > mike 86 From: "michael lane" Date: Mon May 10, 2004 6:04am Subject: Re: new guy m_lane313 Offline Send Email morning Jim, did i mention i was from wis? i was heavily involved with raven until the later 90's. taught basic and adv. to many. put in lots of time (i and i do mean lots) on dragonflys. perhaps we've met? t.t.o. weight? i figure about 370 including the wing and 3 gal. of fuel. give or take a burrito or two. climb rate? can only guess, would say not too much more than 600 f/min notable feature of the frame is the tri tube configuration. have never been thrilled by the seat on a stick arrangement most trikes use. the tri tube arrangement is sturdy, both front to back (of course) but, laterally too. i'll post a pic of the frame "bare"- its an early pic, before removal of some unnessary parts. ( thanks due to steve Rewo and Matt Taber for advise and encouragement) mike -- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > More questions: > 1. What is your total take-off weight? And any idea what climb rate > you get? I want to make some calculations based on the static thrust. > > 2. Tell us more about the features of the trike structure. From the > 3_oclock photo, looks like more interesting solutions. > > 3. I see that you are from Wis. Sound like an ex Raven flyer. I > took some training at WhiteWater several years back before trikes. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "michael lane" > wrote: > > Jim, thanks for moving the photos. > > i built it (with help) as an after hours shop project. i work > for a > > ppc mfg., but prefer hang gliders to parachutes. tired of towing. > i > > want independance. > > most fittings are cnc'd 6061-t6. tubing is mostly 1.25" .058, > > with a little 1.5 x .083, and some 1" too. axles are .625" 4130 > > chrome. > > motor is a hirth f-33. prop is a 50" powerfin e model. puts > out > > about 155 lbs. static. plenty. > > the pod is made of a bit of a/c ply and balsa, and > fiberglassed. > > has cht/egt and tach/hourmeter.just the basics. i have a ball m- 50 > > that i put on the basetube for alt., airspeed and vario. hafta get > a > > g.p.s. one of these days..... > > harness is by hooker, hand deployed system by Betty. > > front upright disconnects to fold masts down, or pick up the > > wing. > > rear susp. needs work. still looking for the perfect > > shock/strut. > > wing is a modified airwave klassic. Thinking Kamerons new wing > > might be perfect. > > weighs 120 w/ ele. start. i'm currently re working the design > a > > bit. it can be simpler, lighter and cleaner. > > mike 87 From: "michael lane" Date: Mon May 10, 2004 6:18am Subject: photos ? m_lane313 Offline Send Email Jim, once again, i find i can create a folder, but cannot find a link to upload pics into it. any idea what i'm doing wrong? thanks again. 88 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon May 10, 2004 8:28am Subject: Re: new guy captain_jims Offline Send Email I moved the photos into your folder. The add photo link is in the folder view. Open your folder and look at the upper left of that view. On the Wisconsin subject, I follow the adventures of Dan Grunloh, have not met him yet, but I am just up the road in the next EAA UL chapter. I saw your location when I listened to him on Ultraflight radio. One of the items on my list is to visit that chapter. Thanks for the additional information and photos of your frame. I will spend some time going over that concept. I, too, do not like the single tube under me. My current flying trike is a Sabre. 2" square tube under me. You will see in my photos in the files section that I inclined to a space frame approach. The very light trike in that photo was full space frame. My two place side-by-side that I am building is more of a mixture, but the frame is still on both sides of each person. I have traded email with Matt Tabor and would like to see his latest in person. One of these days, I would like to drive to his place and see his shop and his two light trikes. I was amazed that he starting putting the Kaw 340 on this latest one. I have a couple of those, 32 hp, and they don't like a part throttle climb. But, they are impossible to restart in flight. I have never been able to start mine from the seat. Even on the ground. Finally, thanks for the best guess climb numbers. I have a simple performance model of a trike. I like to add examples to fine tune the model, but it is amazing how well it fits all the data. I used that to make an estimate of a rigid wing on a open trike. I calculated a minimum sink of 160 fpm. On another list, a fellow tried one and reported 180 fpm on his second flight, but also reported that he was certain that there was still better performance. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "michael lane" wrote: > morning Jim, > did i mention i was from wis? i was heavily involved with raven > until the later 90's. taught basic and adv. to many. put in lots of > time (i and i do mean lots) on dragonflys. perhaps we've met? > t.t.o. weight? i figure about 370 including the wing and 3 > gal. of fuel. give or take a burrito or two. climb rate? can only > guess, would say not too much more than 600 f/min > notable feature of the frame is the tri tube configuration. > have never been thrilled by the seat on a stick arrangement most > trikes use. the tri tube arrangement is sturdy, both front to back > (of course) but, laterally too. i'll post a pic of the frame "bare"- > its an early pic, before removal of some unnessary parts. ( thanks > due to steve Rewo and Matt Taber for advise and encouragement) > mike > -- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > More questions: > > 1. What is your total take-off weight? And any idea what climb rate > > you get? I want to make some calculations based on the static > thrust. > > > > 2. Tell us more about the features of the trike structure. From the > > 3_oclock photo, looks like more interesting solutions. > > > > 3. I see that you are from Wis. Sound like an ex Raven flyer. I > > took some training at WhiteWater several years back before trikes. > > > > Jim > > 89 From: "michael lane" Date: Mon May 10, 2004 7:34pm Subject: Re: new guy m_lane313 Offline Send Email i met Dan at snf. a downright nice, knowledgeable guy. easy to converse with. wheres he from? i met Dan Johnson too. i was impressed by both of those guys. true ambassadors of the sport.. from where abouts from do you hail? --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > I moved the photos into your folder. The add photo link is in the > folder view. Open your folder and look at the upper left of that > view. > > On the Wisconsin subject, I follow the adventures of Dan Grunloh, > have not met him yet, but I am just up the road in the next EAA UL > chapter. I saw your location when I listened to him on Ultraflight > radio. One of the items on my list is to visit that chapter. > > Thanks for the additional information and photos of your frame. I > will spend some time going over that concept. I, too, do not like > the single tube under me. My current flying trike is a Sabre. 2" > square tube under me. You will see in my photos in the files > section that I inclined to a space frame approach. The very light > trike in that photo was full space frame. My two place side-by-side > that I am building is more of a mixture, but the frame is still on > both sides of each person. > > I have traded email with Matt Tabor and would like to see his latest > in person. One of these days, I would like to drive to his place > and see his shop and his two light trikes. I was amazed that he > starting putting the Kaw 340 on this latest one. I have a couple of > those, 32 hp, and they don't like a part throttle climb. But, they > are impossible to restart in flight. I have never been able to start > mine from the seat. Even on the ground. > > Finally, thanks for the best guess climb numbers. I have a simple > performance model of a trike. I like to add examples to fine tune > the model, but it is amazing how well it fits all the data. I used > that to make an estimate of a rigid wing on a open trike. I > calculated a minimum sink of 160 fpm. On another list, a fellow > tried one and reported 180 fpm on his second flight, but also > reported that he was certain that there was still better performance. > > Jim > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "michael lane" > wrote: > > morning Jim, > > did i mention i was from wis? i was heavily involved with > raven > > until the later 90's. taught basic and adv. to many. put in lots > of > > time (i and i do mean lots) on dragonflys. perhaps we've met? > > t.t.o. weight? i figure about 370 including the wing and 3 > > gal. of fuel. give or take a burrito or two. climb rate? can only > > guess, would say not too much more than 600 f/min > > notable feature of the frame is the tri tube configuration. > > have never been thrilled by the seat on a stick arrangement most > > trikes use. the tri tube arrangement is sturdy, both front to back > > (of course) but, laterally too. i'll post a pic of the > frame "bare"- > > its an early pic, before removal of some unnessary parts. ( thanks > > due to steve Rewo and Matt Taber for advise and encouragement) > > mike > > -- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > > wrote: > > > More questions: > > > 1. What is your total take-off weight? And any idea what climb > rate > > > you get? I want to make some calculations based on the static > > thrust. > > > > > > 2. Tell us more about the features of the trike structure. From > the > > > 3_oclock photo, looks like more interesting solutions. > > > > > > 3. I see that you are from Wis. Sound like an ex Raven flyer. I > > > took some training at WhiteWater several years back before > trikes. > > > > > > Jim > > > 90 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue May 11, 2004 1:37am Subject: Re: new guy captain_jims Offline Send Email Dan is from East Central Illinois and I am near Bloomington. This time of the year before the crops are up, you can see 40 miles in every direction. Great trike country, always a landing field. And not a hill for miles for anything else. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "michael lane" wrote: > i met Dan at snf. a downright nice, knowledgeable guy. easy to > converse with. wheres he from? > i met Dan Johnson too. i was impressed by both of those guys. > true ambassadors of the sport.. > from where abouts from do you hail? 91 From: "michael lane" Date: Tue May 11, 2004 3:53pm Subject: Re: new guy m_lane313 Offline Send Email sounds great for flyin. we like farm fields. i'm about an hour+ s.s.w. of oshkosh. low rolling tree covered hills and farm fields, mixed with lakes and swamps. on a good, clear day, i can see chicago, milw., and in the afternoon, if the sun is just right, the glean off the state capitol dome, in madison. a few q's....if i may, 1. do you do the oshkosh thing? 2. whats the status of your current project?(the 2 up, right?) 3.weren't you planning a rigid wing ? 4. the concept pic of the single looked great. is it shelved? regards --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > Dan is from East Central Illinois and I am near Bloomington. This > time of the year before the crops are up, you can see 40 miles in > every direction. Great trike country, always a landing field. And > not a hill for miles for anything else. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "michael lane" > wrote: > > i met Dan at snf. a downright nice, knowledgeable guy. easy to > > converse with. wheres he from? > > i met Dan Johnson too. i was impressed by both of those guys. > > true ambassadors of the sport.. > > from where abouts from do you hail? 92 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue May 11, 2004 5:55pm Subject: Re: new guy captain_jims Offline Send Email Here are some answers: 1. I did OshKosh the first 22 years the show was there. I built a Spezio Tuholer which is a full sized plane, 862 lbs, 125 mph cruise, 130 hp. Have not been for 10+ years, but now have a friend in Ripon where I can stay without fighting the crowds. Picture here http://www.hoi-ultralights.org/jim_sturges.htm My big thrill at OshKosh was 1995. They let me park in show center for the day. No prize, just a good parking spot. But everyone that sees the photo thinks I won a prize. Good enough for me. 2. My most active project is the 2 place side-by-side trike. The frame is fully assembled. I work in 4130 since I have been welding for years. It is all tack welded together. I just switched directions on the engine and will be using a 4 cyl Geo. Now fabricating the engine mount. I need to get some more weld in place so I can move it out for photos. All the landing gear is in place and I have the wheels, tires, brakes, etc. Also have the engine, prop, seats, etc. The first flights of this trike will be under my Sabre Wing. This project now has priority so my wife can fly with me. I thought I might show this one at OshKosh next year. Since there are no other s-b-s trikes, I could take first in class. 3. This will get 3 & 4. I was going to fly the lite trike under a Vision Mark IV-19 that I had. But after an inspection, I could not beef up critical areas by sleeving since the Vision was already triple sleeved. It had a hook-in of 265 lbs. I would have stretched to 350, but with my 230lbs, I was going to be at 410 lb tto. Using my model, I concluded that to get the soaring performance, I needed a rigid wing for that trike. Would like to see 220ppm or less sink. So, that made two strikes against the Vision and it is now sold. The lite trike is near finished. Wheels, engine, seat are on or have been. I estimate 20-40 hours to wrap it up. All welding is complete. Finally, I come at trikes from the experimantal aircraft, sailplane side of things. I have had my ticket in sailplanes for years, and will be adding a motorglider rating to take care of the s-b-s. Now aerotow only. ps. Everyone asks me why I am captain_jim. Has nothing to do with airline or military. Has everyting to do with being a Hot Air Balloon pilot(they don't soar well) and being a sailor for years. Everyone is an honorary captain in those two activities. Didn't take long to learn that the trike wing was just a well trimmed sail on a sharply heeled sail boat. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "michael lane" wrote: > sounds great for flyin. we like farm fields. > i'm about an hour+ s.s.w. of oshkosh. low rolling tree covered > hills and farm fields, mixed with lakes and swamps. on a good, clear > day, i can see chicago, milw., and in the afternoon, if the sun is > just right, the glean off the state capitol dome, in madison. > a few q's....if i may, > 1. do you do the oshkosh thing? > 2. whats the status of your current project?(the 2 up, right?) > 3.weren't you planning a rigid wing ? > 4. the concept pic of the single looked great. is it shelved? > regards 93 From: "michael lane" Date: Thu May 13, 2004 10:18pm Subject: Re: new guy m_lane313 Offline Send Email the spiezo looks mighty fine. you musta been proud. i've been burning both ends the last few days. will post pics soon. i hope to meet you at oshkosh., but be warned, i'll give ya a run for the glory.(as there ain't no money to haggle over) again, that single looks first rate! hope you finish it soon. i'm off to bed, mike 94 From: redwine@... Date: Thu Jun 24, 2004 3:39pm Subject: looking for help bending tube mississippi_... Offline Send Email Building lite trike and am using 1" OD 1/8" wall 6061-T6 for the seat frame.Anybody experienced in this? 95 From: "captain_jims" Date: Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:21pm Subject: Re: looking for help bending tube captain_jims Offline Send Email I work in 4130 myself, but perhaps if we describe the forming that you want to do, someone will chime in. Once you have described the forming that you want to accomplishe, we can look at the properties of 6061-T6 and see if that could be accomplished even if we had the tooling. I noted that on the Aircraft Spruce and Specialty site that they recommend the T4 for forming operations. The T6 is aged for hardness and is not as ductile. To quote " In the T4 condition fairly severe forming operations may be accomplished. The full T6 properties may be obtained by artificial aging. It is welded by all methods and can be furnace brazed." Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, redwine@d... wrote: > Building lite trike and am using 1" OD 1/8" wall 6061-T6 for the seat > frame.Anybody experienced in this? 96 From: redwine@... Date: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:54pm Subject: Re: looking for help bending tube mississippi_... Offline Send Email Wide radius 90 degree bends to form up the seat frame for a skycycle type lite trike. In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > I work in 4130 myself, but perhaps if we describe the forming that > you want to do, someone will chime in. Once you have described the > forming that you want to accomplishe, we can look at the properties > of 6061-T6 and see if that could be accomplished even if we had the > tooling. > > I noted that on the Aircraft Spruce and Specialty site that they > recommend the T4 for forming operations. The T6 is aged for hardness > and is not as ductile. > > To quote > " In the T4 condition fairly severe forming operations may be > accomplished. The full T6 properties may be obtained by artificial > aging. It is welded by all methods and can be furnace brazed." > > Jim > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, redwine@d... wrote: > > Building lite trike and am using 1" OD 1/8" wall 6061-T6 for the > seat > > frame.Anybody experienced in this? 97 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Jun 26, 2004 3:51pm Subject: Re: looking for help bending tube captain_jims Offline Send Email Two recommendations to have it done locally. 1. A muffler and tail pipe shop. They will have a bender with an internal mandrel to maintain the tube cross-section thruout the bend. I know Midas has this equipment and would expect any major supplier to have it. 2. Electrical Contractor. They will have conduit bending equipment. Not as good as a mandrel bend, but they usually can bend it with their conduit bending equipment. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, redwine@d... wrote: > Wide radius 90 degree bends to form up the seat frame for a > skycycle type lite trike. > 98 From: "michael lane" Date: Fri Jul 9, 2004 3:14pm Subject: Re: looking for help bending tube m_lane313 Offline Send Email --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, redwine@d... wrote: > Building lite trike and am using 1" OD 1/8" wall 6061-T6 for the seat > frame.Anybody experienced in this? hi gary.(?) i am. we use a hydraulic mandrel bender for the small o.d. small radius stuff. we use a pinch roller set up for the larger arcs. the small tubes tend to oval if not done with a mandrel. we regulary form .875 alum. and 4130 in a 4-5" rad. with it. attempts with a electrical conduit bender did not go well. why .125"? its awfully heavy. mebee overkill? would .058 or .063 work? mike (skymaster light trike) 99 From: "cloudbase09" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:25pm Subject: Sink rate ? cloudbase09 Offline Send Email Group Looking to home build lite trike or bye. Considering going with footlaunch powered harness but dam those trikes look comfy. I would love to have power off as much as possible. I weight 145lbs, what kind of sink rate am I looking at with a double surface wing and a nice lite trike that can handle some off field landings? Nice to find this Group, lets make some motorgliders. Any body doing monocock composite pods? Cload 100 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:43pm Subject: Re: Sink rate ? captain_jims Offline Send Email I think that you find yourself in a interesting position with your light weight. Some simple calculations may point the direction. If not, we can drill down to more detail. Lets assume a lite trike weight of 170 lbs, for trike, wing, engine, etc. Add your weight and we get to 320 lbs. So, what performance will you see, easy, same as a 320 lb hang glider pilot flying in the upright position. Numbers, I would expect to see about 230 fpm sink with a conventional wing that is rated for the 320 lb hook in. Usually, I would say that a target under 200 fpm would be desired, but this is close and what will actually occur is that you will end up with a larger wing, maybe even with a tandem rated hookin weight. At your light weight, you will fly slower and may actually achieve the 200 fpm. The problem, of course, will be the slow speed of the glider and the associated difficulty of moving from thermal to thermal. But, if you just want lazy soaring associated with local flying, you may not need to face all the issues of the heavier pilots. I will go ahead and discuss the next option as I see it. The WooDoo concept of a very minimum trike has been appealing to me, but at my weight, I could not make it make sense. However, at your weight, you coould get an effective trike weight of less than 100 lb. Big advantages since there are many good wings with a hookin of 245 lbs or more without going to a tandem or oversize wing. WooDoo pictures here http://woodoo.matrix94.hu/ Be glad to explore any of this further. Let me know what strikes your interest. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "cloudbase09" wrote: > Group > > Looking to home build lite trike or bye. Considering going with > footlaunch powered harness but dam those trikes look comfy. > I would love to have power off as much as possible. > > I weight 145lbs, what kind of sink rate am I looking at with a > double surface wing and a nice lite trike that can handle some off > field landings? > > Nice to find this Group, lets make some motorgliders. > > Any body doing monocock composite pods? > > Cload 101 From: "michael lane" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:07pm Subject: Re: Sink rate ? m_lane313 Offline Send Email --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "cloudbase09" wrote: > Group > > Looking to home build lite trike or bye. Considering going with > footlaunch powered harness but dam those trikes look comfy. > I would love to have power off as much as possible. > > I weight 145lbs, what kind of sink rate am I looking at with a > double surface wing and a nice lite trike that can handle some off > field landings? > > Nice to find this Group, lets make some motorgliders. > > Any body doing monocock composite pods? > > Cload hey cload, around 250 fpm, give or take, like jim said. depends what you hang it under. the trikes are comfy. my lazy boy was a great help in figuring the ergonomics of my machine. just don't lean the seat back too far, or ya might get sleepy too soon! seriously though, if you are more interested in soaring, the mossys are tough to beat, especially with skills and a folder. they're very clean, much moreso than a lite trike. also much easier to put into a small field. many more lz's will be availible if you can land on your feet. the trade off IS comfort. how much can your back stand? how important is ultimate soarability? how old are you? how fast can you run?......hate to say it, but i am getting older. i like wheels. they roll faster than i run. the beauty of power, be it a lite trike or powered harness, is the ability to restart and climb back up. no towlines, no waiting. no s.p., no tow park ego maniac b.s.......aaahhhh.....self sufficiency.....(AKA FREEDOM!!!!)(not at $20.00 a pull, either!) your skill level is a issue to consider also. if you intend to fly a powered harness, i really hope you are competent flying without power before you attempt flying with it. far as i know, no one is doing powered foot launch tandem. (could be wrong- would'nt be the first time) point is, tandem trike instruction is still availible and applicable to lite triking. if you are considering homebuilding, i hope you have plenty of spare time and flying experience, and that tools, money, or materials, are not an issue. i've designed and built two trikes in the last two years, and i've learned that the next one will always be better....and they are. cheaper? no way. i spend as much time with auto cad as i do cutting stock, if not more. if time IS money....i havn't saved much at all. good luck. mike 102 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 4:52pm Subject: Special Notice - ULTRALIGHT RESERVE GRAND CHAMPION captain_jims Offline Send Email SILVER LINDY ULTRALIGHT RESERVE GRAND CHAMPION Mike Lane Skymaster Light Trike Hartland, Wisconsin Special Congratulations to Mike Lane for this award at OshKosh 2004. Details here of all winners. I look forward to learning more from Mike on how to build a Grand Champion Trike. Jim 103 From: "michael lane" Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 7:58pm Subject: Re: Special Notice - ULTRALIGHT RESERVE GRAND CHAMPION m_lane313 Offline Send Email thanks jim! i've been "flying high" over the last day. i'm still shocked. i showed up late and barely made judging. it rained on thurs. and soaked all my camp gear. i was a miserable, wet, smelly dog on friday morning, i'll tell ya,...... got judged on sat. and tagged late sat. afternoon. you find an envelope with an invitation to the awards ceremony, tucked into your rig. your heart races....... they don't tell you what you won. when the plaques were all gone, well, ........my heart was racing! i knew i won a good one. the black bipe that took it all- you should have seen it!!!!! he deserved it. i think i have a pic of it- will post it if i do. thanks again. mike 104 From: "cloudbase09" Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:57pm Subject: Trike Diet....? cloudbase09 Offline Send Email Just got a over weight lite trike . Need to shed the pounds. I'm looking for sizes and wall thickness being used for tubing, box tubing and plate of all materials(4130,6061,2024,7075)at various locations on trikes. So when do I go from over built to under built? When it breakes? Is there a easier way? Need to loose 40lbs My Trike - 136lbs no battery, fuel or reserve. W/ MZ35 elect. start Me - 150lbs winter gear Materials used on trike; Keel - 63" x 2" x 2" .063 Probably 4130 Lower Mast- 36" x 2" x 2" .25 Alum.? Upper Mast- 56" x 2" x 2" .125 6061-T6 ? Forw Mast - 78" x 1" x .095 4130 tubing Nose Gear - 56" x 1" x 1" .063 4130 Main Gear - 48" x 1.25" .063 4130 tubing, wired no susp. Wheels - 14" 5.6 lbs each Any feed back needed. What are you guys using or seeing at these locations? I mite build one on the side and fly this one with a Falcon 225 or mod. this trike. Not sure. Scott Scott 105 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:26am Subject: Re: Trike Diet....? captain_jims Offline Send Email These tube size do seem somewhat heavy, but the first step must be to get a total weight for the bare structure to see what gain can be made. I would suggest that the lightest practical frame for a single place lite trike is going to be about 30 lbs. I have one with everything pushed to the light limit at 18 lbs, but would not recommend that for normal use. Then, step #2 is to determine the weight of everything associated with the electrical start system you reference. The list gets pretty long and the weights add up fast. Obvious: 1. Starter Less Obvious: 2. Alternator 3. Switches Nearly always forgotten: 4. Cables 5. Regulator 6. Battery or (increased size) 7. Battery rack 8. Drive for alternator 9. Bracket for regulator 10. Starter relay I think I have made my point that the electric start has a lot of hidden elements that must be considered. Next, look at elements like wheel pants, seat details, wheel type and size. The bottom line is that you will likely find a lot of weight that can be lost before you need to address the frame structure. And you may find that it only has a 10-15 lb overweight anyway. Hope this helps, Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "cloudbase09" wrote: > Just got a over weight lite trike . Need to shed the pounds. I'm > looking for sizes and wall thickness being used for tubing, box > tubing and plate of all materials(4130,6061,2024,7075)at various > locations on trikes. > So when do I go from over built to under built? When it breakes? Is > there a easier way? Need to loose 40lbs > > My Trike - 136lbs no battery, fuel or reserve. W/ MZ35 elect. start > Me - 150lbs winter gear > > Materials used on trike; > Keel - 63" x 2" x 2" .063 Probably 4130 > Lower Mast- 36" x 2" x 2" .25 Alum.? > Upper Mast- 56" x 2" x 2" .125 6061-T6 ? > Forw Mast - 78" x 1" x .095 4130 tubing > Nose Gear - 56" x 1" x 1" .063 4130 > Main Gear - 48" x 1.25" .063 4130 tubing, wired no susp. > Wheels - 14" 5.6 lbs each > > Any feed back needed. What are you guys using or seeing at these > locations? I mite build one on the side and fly this one with a > Falcon 225 or mod. this trike. Not sure. > > > Scott > > > Scott 106 From: "cloudbase09" Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:28pm Subject: Heat treating cloudbase09 Offline Send Email Group, Any body know of a good heat treating copany in Western U.S. . What hardness is 4130 taken to and is normalizing needed after welding? Scott 107 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:40am Subject: Re: Heat treating captain_jims Offline Send Email I think that you have some bad information. The great advantage of 4130 is that it does not require heat treat after welding. A simple cool down of each joint upon weld completion is all that is required. I have heat treated 3 4130 parts in 30 years and seen only 1 normalized. The most significant part I heat treated was a very special wing spar bolt that was the maim bolt/swivel for a folding wing mechanism. The part that was normalized was a motor mount. 4130 has 30 pts of carbon. This is plenty to allow a hardness well into the brittle range, but the high alloy content allows the hardness to develop without much effort. But, the 4130 alloy has toughness as its chief property, too much hardness and we lose that toughness. So, given the previous brief intro, the normal conducted heat from welding will harden an area around the weld. To get a good feel for this, weld some sample pieces and then after cooling, file the sample in various spots to see the difference. If any of it cannot be filed, it is way too brittle. Now weld another one with gas, and when the weld is complete spend about a minute backing off the torch and heating a much larger area so that there is a slow cool down. You will find a much larger area harden a little, but no rapid transition of hardness. Exactly what we need for toughness. ps, the slow cool down will also relieve residual stresses to help keep the assembly straight during the weld process. Remember, high hardness will not bend, it breaks. We want our structures tough so that they will bend if overstressed, not break. We can survive a lot better with a bending structure vs a breaking structure. Now, why was the motor mount normalized. It was arc welded rather than gas welded. I use arc to be any of the electrical processes as opposed to the acetylene process. Arc is faster, but the gentle cool down is not possible, so lots of residual hardness, lots a high hardness gradients, and generally more brittle that gas welded. So, the normalizing was used to regain the toughness. I always recommend the gas process for our trike structures, we have all light gauge tube and no rapid transitions of thickness. May take a little longer to weld, but the toughness is maintained without additional operations and expense. Hope this provides some understanding of the issues. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "cloudbase09" wrote: > Group, > > Any body know of a good heat treating copany in Western U.S. . > What hardness is 4130 taken to and is normalizing needed after > welding? > > Scott 108 From: redwine@... Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:43pm Subject: Powdercoating 6061-T6 What's the truth!! mississippi_... Offline Send Email Can someone tell me what the straight skinny is about powdercoating 6061-T6 aluminum? Does the heat mess up the temper? thanks Gary R 109 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:35pm Subject: Re: Powdercoating 6061-T6 What's the truth!! captain_jims Offline Send Email I hope that Mike Lane jumps in on this thread since he used so much powder coat on his prize winning trike. However, here is my two cents. I have not looked at the temperatures involved with the process which is really the critical factor, however, my Sabre is all powder coated. I have drilled the square tubing to make changes and the aluminum drills(cuts) like a hardened material, ie, chips, not strings. But, until we get the temperature data which I am sure Mike Lane will have, we are guessing. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, redwine@d... wrote: > Can someone tell me what the straight skinny is about powdercoating > 6061-T6 aluminum? Does the heat mess up the temper? > > thanks Gary R 110 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:52pm Subject: Re: Powdercoating 6061-T6 What's the truth!! captain_jims Offline Send Email I did some research on this one and found the following. annealing 6061-T6 "to fully anneal 6061-T6 takes over 10 hours at 700 degrees F." powder coating "cure temperature of 450 degrees F." So as I suspected, temperature gives us the answer. The powder coating can be cured well below the annealing temp of the 5051-T6, but certainly if there was an over temperature situation in the powder cure there could be some effect on temper. Therefore, our data shows us that there does not need to be an effect on temper, but does not guarentee that. Hope this helps, Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > I hope that Mike Lane jumps in on this thread since he used so much > powder coat on his prize winning trike. > > However, here is my two cents. I have not looked at the > temperatures involved with the process which is really the critical > factor, however, my Sabre is all powder coated. I have drilled the > square tubing to make changes and the aluminum drills(cuts) like a > hardened material, ie, chips, not strings. But, until we get the > temperature data which I am sure Mike Lane will have, we are > guessing. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, redwine@d... wrote: > > Can someone tell me what the straight skinny is about powdercoating > > 6061-T6 aluminum? Does the heat mess up the temper? > > > > thanks Gary R 111 From: redwine@... Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:15am Subject: Re: Powdercoating 6061-T6 What's the truth!! mississippi_... Offline Send Email --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > I did some research on this one and found the following. > > annealing 6061-T6 > "to fully anneal 6061-T6 takes over 10 hours at 700 degrees F." > > powder coating > "cure temperature of 450 degrees F." > > So as I suspected, temperature gives us the answer. The powder > coating can be cured well below the annealing temp of the 5051-T6, > but certainly if there was an over temperature situation in the > powder cure there could be some effect on temper. Therefore, our > data shows us that there does not need to be an effect on temper, > but does not guarentee that. > > Hope this helps, > > Jim > > Well.the REAL truth I came up with was that the powdercoating was TOO EXPENSIVE......500.00 estimate for a skycycle type light trike. ..So I went to the paint store........I'll try to post pics when final assy. is done. 112 From: redwine@... Date: Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:49pm Subject: Nearly done mississippi_... Offline Send Email I posted a pic in the photos section.Whatcha think? 113 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:19am Subject: Re: Nearly done captain_jims Offline Send Email Nice clean appearance. However, I do have a couple of questions. 1. What material is the rear axles and are they heat-treated? 2. Have you hung it to check the balance? 3. A little hard to tell from the photo, but the mast looks a little tall for that wing and its control bar position. 4. Finally, please provide some more details. Wing, weights, power, etc? Thanks for sharing Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, redwine@d... wrote: > I posted a pic in the photos section.Whatcha think? 114 From: redwine@... Date: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:47pm Subject: Re: Nearly done mississippi_... Offline Send Email The rear axles are 1 1/8 OD .0625 wall 4130.No it isn't heat treated.That's why I used .0625. I'll try to run it down.......... 2x2 .125 6061-T6 for the main tubes landing gear "box" is 3/16 plate 6061-T6 sandwiching 2x2 sections plugged with UHMW drilled for the 1 1/8" .0625 4130 gear tubes that are plugged the last 4 inches with UHMW drilled to accept 5/8" cold rolled axles. All other flat plate is 1/8" 6061-T6. Zenoah G25 hung from a 2x2 bar with 4 lord mounts. Front fork made from 1/4" 6061-T6 plate with 3/8" cross members. Front nose angle is sleeved with 1 3/4" .083 4130 welded to make the angle and the top of the mast has a 6 inch sleeve of the same. Seat frame is 1" .125 6061-T6. Compression strut is 1" .083 6061-T6 Bushings through-out to avoid wearing out holes. 4 inch azusalite wheels and tires Hang tested with 3 gallon tank empty and seat full of me....(190lbs) with the front wheel 5-6 inches above the rears. Empty weight seems to be about 110lbs. I copied from a guy in Florida who is building trikes (Trick Trikes) and I think he copied an earlier skycycle. I bought my Falcon 225 from him also. 115 From: "michael lane" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 3:58pm Subject: Re: Powdercoating 6061-T6 What's the truth!! m_lane313 Offline Send Email > > Well.the REAL truth I came up with was that the powdercoating was > TOO EXPENSIVE......500.00 estimate for a skycycle type light trike. > ..So I went to the paint store........I'll try to post pics when > final assy. is done. 5 bills????!!!! helluva crack habit!!!! we bake at 375 for 30 min. the new bird looks great!!! flown her yet? (sorry about the silence. i've been away. i'm back. we got mom off to florida, and my mrs. into our new digs. moms having second thoughts- i would too if i bought a house and it got spanked three times before i moved in! just tonight got back online.) 116 From: redwine@... Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 10:14pm Subject: Solo'd !!! mississippi_... Offline Send Email Started my training on Friday and by Tuesday accumulated 9 hours dual in an Antares 582 two-seater.Wednesday morning I solo'd my scratch- built light trike. slippin' the surly bonds at last..... Gary 117 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 10:48pm Subject: Re: Solo'd !!! captain_jims Offline Send Email Congratulations. Now the real learning begins. Hope you found the control forces light and balanced on your light trike. Likely, a real joy to fly after the 2 seater and its extra weight. Please keep us up to date on your experiences. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, redwine@d... wrote: > > > Started my training on Friday and by Tuesday accumulated 9 hours dual > in an Antares 582 two-seater.Wednesday morning I solo'd my scratch- > built light trike. > > slippin' the surly bonds at last..... > Gary 118 From: redwine@... Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 10:54pm Subject: Re: Solo'd !!! mississippi_... Offline Send Email And how!!! Wrestling that two seater was making my arms sore.It felt like no effort at all.And that big ole' 225 just floats on down like it's got all day. can't sleep Gary 119 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:38am Subject: Motorcycle Helmet with Headset modified for the ICOM A-5 captain_jims Offline Send Email I have completed modifying a Motorcycle Helmet for use with the ICOM A-5 radio. I used a MotoComm 752 headset which is setup for use with an FRS radio and has a 3 conductor plug to connect to the radio. The A-5 has a single 4 conductor jack next to the antennae which handles the remote speaker, mic, and push-to-talk(PTT). Since no electronics supply house locally handles the 4 conductor plug, I purchased an audio cable from Radio Shack that has the 4 conductor plug on one end and 3 single conductor plugs on the other. The MotoComm wiring has two locations where connections of the headphone and PTT wires occur internal to the headset wiring. The upper location has a connection of the two speakers(ear phones) that are proper for our intended use. However, the lower internal connection which is near the 3 conductor plug connects the PTT in series with the mic and is not usable with the A-5. Now, given that background here are the instructions: 1. Cut the Motocomm cable near the 3 conductor plug just above the junction where the PTT and helmet cable join, ie, you will now have the PTT and the helmet cable separate, and will discard the 3 conductor plug and the plastic junction. 2. Cut the 4 conductor plug and the appropriate amount of cable from that assembly from Radio Shack. Leave a minimum of 6" of cable for splicing purposes. 3. Splice the cables together as follows: First the gotchas - The shield of the 4 conductor is on section 3 and not the normal ground location of 4. You will treat the shield as a conductor. - The helmet cable has a dead second black wire. - All the conductors are very fine. 4 conductor plug Helmet cable PTT cable (numbered from the end) 1. Speaker white none 2. Mic red none 3. PTT none red 4. Grnd black black 4. Assemble the speakers and mic into your helmet 5. Plug into the headset and PTT switch and test. So, there is a low cost motorcycle headset conversion for the ICOM A- 5. Hope this saves you some time. Jim 120 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:44am Subject: Motorcycle Helmet with Headset modified for the ICOM A-5 captain_jims Offline Send Email I have completed modifying a Motorcycle Helmet for use with the ICOM A-5 radio. I used a MotoComm 752 headset which is setup for use with an FRS radio and has a 3 conductor plug to connect to the radio. The A-5 has a single 4 conductor jack next to the attennae which handles the remote speaker, mic, and push-to-talk(PTT). Since no electronics supply house locally handles the 4 conductor plug, I purchased an audio cable from Radio Shack that has the 4 conductor plug on one end and 3 single conductor plugs on the other. The MotoComm wiring has two locations where connections of the headphone and PTT wires occur internal to the headset wiring. The upper location has a connection of the two speakers(ear phones) that are proper for our intended use. However, the lower internal connection which is near the 3 conductor plug connects the PTT in series with the mic and is not usable with the A-5. Now, given that background here are the instructions: 1. Cut the Motocomm cable near the 3 conductor plug just above the junction where the PTT and helmet cable join, ie, you will now have the PTT and the helmet cable separate, and will discard the 3 conductor plug and the plastic junction. 2. Cut the 4 conductor plug and the appropriate amount of cable from that assembly from Radio Shack. Leave a minimum of 6" of cable for splicing purposes. 3. Splice the cables together as follows: First the gotchas - The shield of the 4 conductor is on section 3 and not the normal ground location of 4. You will treat the shield as a conductor. - The helmet cable has a dead second black wire. - All the conductors are very fine. 4 conductor plug........Helmet cable....PTT cable (numbered from the end) 1. Speaker..............white...........none 2. Mic..................red.............none 3. PTT..................none............red 4. Grnd.................black...........black 4. Assemble the speakers and mic into your helmet 5. Plug into the headset and PTT switch and test. So, there is a low cost motorcycle headset conversion for the ICOM A- 5. Reposted with .... added to the connection table. Jim 121 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 5:37pm Subject: My side-by-side trike is officially "on the gear" captain_jims Offline Send Email Well, it is far from a lite trike, but it is a trike being scratch built. This evening, I assembled my side-by-side seating trike onto the gear with the wheels and tires mounted. Funny how these things change size as we build them. Suddenly, it go much bigger. I am using 6x6 tires all around to handle the 500 lb weight on grass. Next big step is to install the Geo 4 cylinder engine. I choose that for cost and fuel consumption. I expect to pull only 50 hp from it during climb with a single surface wing. It will have a full electrical system with starter. I got forced into the starter since you cant hand prop the new DIS engines. They require nearly a full turn before the electronics indexes the spark properly. Normally, a 2 place trike uses brakes only on the nose wheel. Well, like everything else, I examined that and decided to put brakes on the 2 mains and not the nose. That will help steering and the brakes will last a lot longer. And where are the photos? Well I have a little of that boat in the basement problem. My mast is still a single piece as I delay the decision on where I will hinge it. After installing the engine, I will make that decision and then cut it. Then, out the door for photos. Finally, my confidence got a big boost this week. I posted a question on the ExpTrike site about registration and an instructor came back and said that a sbs was easy to fly and the only way his wife transitioned to the front seat. Glad to hear that. I should add a summary of what I learned for registration. I can fly the 2 place solo without any registration by simply declaring it an ultralight trainer. Then, after I work out all the bugs and make all my changes, I can register it as an experimental AIRPLANE and fly it with a passenger on my private license and driver's license as a default Sport Pilot. Jim 122 From: "mnf313" Date: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:47am Subject: Re: My side-by-side trike is officially "on the gear" mnf313 Offline Send Email hi Jim! looking forward to a pic or two. i'm thinking perhaps it has a bench seat arrangement for solo use? mike 123 From: Jim Date: Fri Nov 12, 2004 0:52pm Subject: Re: Re: My side-by-side trike is officially "on the gear" captain_jims Offline Send Email I am now installing the engine which is still being supported in place by a hoist. When that installation is self-supporting, I will roll it outside for photos. To answer your question, it has two distinct seats, ie, no center position even solo. Questions have been raised about that, but I have had folks who have soloed a sbs say that there is not a problem with the offset load when solo. Jim --- mnf313 wrote: > > hi Jim! > looking forward to a pic or two. i'm thinking > perhaps it has a > bench seat arrangement for solo use? > mike > > > > 124 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:49am Subject: Altimeter Watches ?? - an opinion captain_jims Offline Send Email I have two altimeter watches purchased for that very use. First is an Alta Sports Altimeter (Sold under several names). It is 2 inches in diameter and .50 inch thick. Really too big for wearing on your wrist since elastic wrist bands on clothing don't slide over it well. So, I mounted it just below my instrument panel by cutting two slots and connecting the wrist strap behind the panel. The big display is easy to read in flight. Note: this unit also has rate of climb. It is easily reset to field altitude for each flight. For wrist, I use the Vertech. Nice size package, and it has time, temp, altitude all on one display. Both have been compared to a Flytec and were within 3 feet all the time. Since both of these watches are designed as metric units, they move in 3 ft increments, ie, one meter. You can set the display for either feet or metric, so no mental conversion is necessary. I am very satisfied with both, but I particularly like the panel mounted unit. Easy to see, Easy to read, and always there. And all for just a few ounces. Finally, got them both on eBay for about %50 each. Jim 125 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:52am Subject: ReDrive for a Kawasaki - interchangeable ?? captain_jims Offline Send Email I use a cog belt redrive on a Kaw340AC and have a Kaw440FC and just sold a Kaw440LC. I dont pretend that makes me an expert, but I have considered this question. Personally, I have never seen a Kaw redrive that bolted up to the engine itself. Most are some sort of jackshaft mounted on the same structure as the engine case. With a cog or multiple V belts. Now reviewing for a second, the 340 puts out 32hp, the 440 45hp, and you quote 60 hp for the LC. I have no reason to disagree. But given then huge % changes in power, there seems to me to be no reason to expect that the drive would work, even it could be easily attached. You would require a wider cog or an increase in the number of v belts, etc. The easiest approach here is to "scale" a good reliable design and increase the belt capacity as required. The main issue then will be to find or procure the sheaves in aluminum. There is no standard belt reduction for a Rotax of that power level, so I would expect that a visit to the local machine shop would be required. Plan to part with a few bucks, but it is certainly doable. I once looked hard at the belt drive from the snowsled since they get by with one belt, but I could not find any aircraft that had used that approach. And the design books suggest that the single belt would be inadequate given the requirement for reliability under sustained high loading. Hope these ramblings help stir some thoughts, Jim 126 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:02am Subject: Mission of this Group captain_jims Offline Send Email As I continue to visit other trike groups, it is becoming clear that this group needs to focus on the broader question of amateur building of trikes, almost independant of size and weight. The techniques for a 170 lb single place trike and a 370 lb 2 place trike are similiar enough. Add that together with the fact that no other group is providing support for the home builder whether for Part 103 Ultralight, or Experimental, or now Sport Plane. One site is doing an excellent job on the legalities, so we will leave that to them. This includes the forms, procedures, etc required for registration. ExpTrikes is that group. I have held back on posting the construction details of my two place trike since I named this lite trike group, but there is no other group that appreciates the construction details. So, I will be posting more on that project. In that same vein, I invite all members to post any trike building related issues. It is the desire to build and then fly what we have built combined with the desire to fly a trike, the most basic type of aircraft that brings us together. So, lets recognize that common thread and just build trikes and enjoy flying them. Jim 127 From: redwine@... Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 3:27pm Subject: Re: Mission of this Group mississippi_... Offline Send Email I don't post as often as most but the information I have gleaned from the various groups has allowed me to achieve my dream. All of the groups are valuable in their own right. Let's keep them alive and well. Also I took some of your advice and picked up the Alta Sports altimeter/watch for myself for Christmas. Ebay for 57 bucks.New in box. Hoping to get to fly Saturday if the wind cooperates. Got into more turbulence than I cared for on Thanksgiving Day. Did'nt take long for me to decide I wasn't having fun. Sure made a purty landing though.Smooth as butter. Where are you from Cap'n? Slippin' the surley bonds Gary 128 From: "captain_jims" Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 4:48pm Subject: Re: Mission of this Group captain_jims Offline Send Email You will find that most trike flyers use the first two-three hours and the last 2 hours of the day for the best flights to avoid all the rough ride. I have flown fixed wing gliders throughout the day and enjoyed the thermals, but just dont seem to enjoy them as much in a trike. I am from central Illinois. Current temps 37 deg, just a little chilly for me. I enjoyed reading all the advice on all the expensive equipment for altitude that was recommended on the various groups. I think u will be quite happy with that watch face on your panel. Easy to read, and easy to reset. Let us know if u make any cross country flights where the barometer reset was necessary, and I would be curious as to how many time u go over 10,000 ft and find that a problem. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, redwine@d... wrote: > > I don't post as often as most but the information I have gleaned from > the various groups has allowed me to achieve my dream. > All of the groups are valuable in their own right. > Let's keep them alive and well. > Also I took some of your advice and picked up the Alta Sports > altimeter/watch for myself for Christmas. > Ebay for 57 bucks.New in box. > Hoping to get to fly Saturday if the wind cooperates. > Got into more turbulence than I cared for on Thanksgiving Day. > Did'nt take long for me to decide I wasn't having fun. > Sure made a purty landing though.Smooth as butter. > Where are you from Cap'n? > > Slippin' the surley bonds > Gary 129 From: "mariomohl" Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:58am Subject: Newbie mariomohl Offline Send Email Hi group Just found this list and I´m thrilled. Surprised this group didn´t come up on previous searches. Have been considering building a light trike for a while. I´ve flown hang gliders since ´78, took up paragliding in ´99 to cut the old back some slack but that led to paramotors three years ago so the back started complaining again. Building a wheeled cart for the paramotor solved the issues so the next thought is ...... NANOLIGHT TRIKE!!! In the meantime I still occasionaly fly HG, an easy intermediate or a badass topless depending on site and conditions. The problem is the "occasional" part. I´d like to get more time in on a HG but the back doesn´t agree, it seems to think it´s nearing 50 while the rest of me is still 25ish. Anyway, at my less than 140 lbs, things look good to be able to build a light enough trike to go on either one of my wings without loosing the ability to free fly if so desired (both are a bit big for my weight since I live at just over 6000 ft msl and usually footlaunch at around 8000 ft). Where this group becomes invaluable for me is the fact that NO steel tubing and very little hard aluminum seems to be available in Mexico so all must be imported and all in one go, otherwise getting that one tube you missed in your fist order becomes prohibitive, time and moneywise. Seeing the info already available here, directly applied to this specific subject, will make the design and execution much easier, particularly since any voids can be worked out in a reasonable manner, instead of adding more and more material to the list and praying. Anyway, here´s my first big question. Any pointers on how to deal with too many toys? ;)) Mario 130 From: redwine@... Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:57pm Subject: Merry Christmas mississippi_... Offline Send Email Merry Christmas to all and a safe holiday season. Gary 131 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:42am Subject: Re: Newbie captain_jims Offline Send Email Hi Mario, Welcome aboard. Glad to have your experience and enthusiasm here. I envy your weight since it fits this activity much better than mine (228 lbs). You will have the capability to put a lite trike under many hang glider wings without modification. I currently have three projects in the shop. One of them is just perfect for you. I created a folder called Jim's Lite Trike and added some photos. Yahoo must have deleted these, but they are back. That Trike is about 70 lbs dry. The frame is under 15 lbs. A key point you may like is my approach of using pvc pipe for the trial version. Did that in my living room on some cold days and was able to save a lot of time in final sizing. Let me know how much more detail you might like, be glad to go on and on and on on this. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mariomohl" wrote: > > Hi group > > Just found this list and I´m thrilled. Surprised this group > didn´t come up on previous searches. > > Have been considering building a light trike for a while. > I´ve flown hang gliders since ´78, took up paragliding in > ´99 to cut the old back some slack but that led to paramotors > three years ago so the back started complaining again. Building a > wheeled cart for the paramotor solved the issues so the next thought > is ...... > > NANOLIGHT TRIKE!!! > > In the meantime I still occasionaly fly HG, an easy intermediate or a > badass topless depending on site and conditions. The problem is > the "occasional" part. I´d like to get more time in on a HG but > the back doesn´t agree, it seems to think it´s nearing 50 while > the rest of me is still 25ish. > > Anyway, at my less than 140 lbs, things look good to be able to build > a light enough trike to go on either one of my wings without loosing > the ability to free fly if so desired (both are a bit big for my > weight since I live at just over 6000 ft msl and usually footlaunch > at around 8000 ft). > > Where this group becomes invaluable for me is the fact that NO steel > tubing and very little hard aluminum seems to be available in Mexico > so all must be imported and all in one go, otherwise getting that one > tube you missed in your fist order becomes prohibitive, time and > moneywise. > > Seeing the info already available here, directly applied to this > specific subject, will make the design and execution much easier, > particularly since any voids can be worked out in a reasonable > manner, instead of adding more and more material to the list and > praying. > > Anyway, here´s my first big question. Any pointers on how to deal > with too many toys? ;)) > > Mario 132 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:10pm Subject: Special Welcome captain_jims Offline Send Email Our little group has taken a jump in size over these year end holidays, and I wish to give a special welcome to a very special member, John Reynoldson of Austrailia. He is generally recognized as the inventor of the term "Nanolight" as applied to lite trikes for those trikes that have a ready to fly weight of less than 170 lbs (Correct me if wrong here). I have followed the Nanolight Yahoo group for a couple of years and his work to advance the very light trike is a real addition. I believe that he is now flying his Thistledown trike with a rigid wing. This has given him a glide performance that is outstanding in the general range of 160-180 fpm. I have seen his latest efforts at trike carriage drag reduction and again, he is to be commended here as well. He with the handle of Microsoar. Now we have the opportunity to add the comments of a brilliant concept person with the input of the winner of the OshKosh and FunSun builders prizes, Michael Lane. What more could we want. Again, welcome aboard to all, and lets share what we need to build our trikes for a resonable cost, in a resonable time, and get airborne. Jim 133 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:12pm Subject: Push-Pull cable source captain_jims Offline Send Email A common problem in trike construction is a source for push-pull cables of the correct length. Just found that Wicks has cable housing available in bulk that uses 3/32 aircraft cable for the core. You cut your own lengths. www.wicks.com I will be using this for brake and throttle control. Jim 134 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:33pm Subject: Nanolight FAQ etc... microsoar Offline Send Email Just noticed this group existed. Some links for other nanolight trike resources: Nanolight trikers group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NanolightTrikers Nanolight Trike Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.aerialpursuits.com/nanolites/nano_FAQ.htm Opinions expressed on these sites may vary from others expressed in this forum. But then - diversity is to be encouraged! 135 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 3:16pm Subject: Re: Nanolight FAQ etc... captain_jims Offline Send Email Thanks, we welcome all views/opinions and would hope over a period of time that our members might be able to locate several options for resolving their problems. Every builder's problems are just a little different and a mulitiplicity of solutions will often spawn the thought for the best one for that builder even though that exact solution was not posted. There are good reasons that many members of this group would want to fully review and likely participate in your Nanolight group. But, I hope that we can keep the focus of this group on building a range of trike sizes. While I can locate groups focused on building particular kits or models, I have not seen another group with the intention to support the builder who wants to venture on his own, design/build a trike in the 200-400 lb weight range. I have built an experimental airplane (2400 hours) and participated with others for many years, I find the trike to be nearly the perfect project. Just right in size to fit many shops, tolerable of many errors, and can be completed in one off season. It allows a range of construction techniques, engine selections, and fairing styles so that a fair degree of imagination can be used. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "John W Reynoldson" wrote: > > Just noticed this group existed. > Some links for other nanolight trike resources: > > Nanolight trikers group: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NanolightTrikers > > Nanolight Trike Frequently Asked Questions: > http://www.aerialpursuits.com/nanolites/nano_FAQ.htm > > Opinions expressed on these sites may vary from others expressed in > this forum. But then - diversity is to be encouraged! 136 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 3:56pm Subject: Weight and Balance captain_jims Offline Send Email I am working on a simple spreadsheet analysis for calculating the effect of adding weight to the trike carriage on the relative height of the nose wheel above the main wheels. The general consesus is that the front wheel should be a minimum of 4 inches above the rears. With just a little experience you will learn that the front should absoluting never touch first. That is a good way to find out how to do ground rolls in a trike. I have the spreadsheet working and am currently using it on my trike for final calculations of the location of some heavy items like the battery. If you need it, let me know, otherwise, I will be posting it when I am confident it is correct. Just dont want to post it for general use until then. Jim 137 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 5:35pm Subject: Re: Special Welcome microsoar Offline Send Email Warning - long initial post: Thank you Jim, for the kind words. While it's true I did coin the term "nanolight" (for "legal" reasons in Australia, where it refers to a powered aircraft under 155 lb empty weight which is exempt from a number of restrictions), I make no claims to be a "brilliant concept person". I am just someone with a passion for power-launched soaring who has deliberately tried to keep the profile of the activity high to encourage others. There are many, many active nanolight trikers around the world who do much more amazing things every day- you just don't hear about it. I'm happy to contribute when and where I can, but unfortunately, before anyone asks, no, I do not have plans or kits for sale, and I am waaaay too busy with business and family to offer detailed building advice to individuals. Some observations that might help others.... My own little trike is very much a case of "grandfathers axe". Over the years it has evolved in fits and starts, and I'm fairly happy that right now, given the choice of materials, it meets my *personal* requirements well. My own trike needed to meet the following criteria: * Light enough that with my weight I would still be within the certification payload limit for the wing I used. * Pack up small enough to fit in the back of a car. I did not want to have to tow a trailer about. * Easy to construct with simple tools and easily obtainable, no exotic materials. I don't have a lot of time or money to waste. * Easy and fast to rig single handed * Strong enough to take air loads and landing loads * Stable and steerable on the ground * As low drag as practicable. * Able to be soared in light thermal conditions and able to handle turbulence. My current machine meets these criteria well. However, like all trikes it still suffers from fragility on the ground thanks to dust devils and the long wing span (42 ft) is of some concern when taxiing in crosswinds. Not all of the above criteria will apply to other builders. In particular, most of the homebuilders I've run into aren't as concerned with keeping under the wing certification weight, not using a trailer, drag or soaring capability. If you don't care about these things, your building options are significantly wider. Trike building is not rocket science, and the structures and principles are relatively straightforward. If I have one major suggestion to anyone contemplating it, and wanting to build something to fly, rather than spend forever in the workshop, it is to keep things simple. There are lots of builders out there who spend *years* on the project because they have decided on a complex structure. Read what you can find, look at existing units, decide which criteria apply to you and pick the eyes out of existing designs first before deciding to do something exotic. I'm not afraid to admit that my own unit owes a lot to the UK Chaser. The only unique design features on my trike are the those of the limited-yaw joint (a controversial subject on this list I understand) and the unusual seat frame hinges! Everything else can be found on other, earlier designs. There is a second suggestion; and this is that you should choose a commercially available power plant (engine, exhaust and propeller combination) that has been proven to be effective and safe. This is the area that trips up a huge number of home builders - me included. Originally I chose to combine a Solo 210 engine with an (early) Adventure Paramotors redrive plus a propeller carved by a local prop-maker. While the combination gave me adequate thrust, ultimately I ended up losing the propeller in flight(!) due to a combination of a bad propeller and a cascading manufacturing defect/design issue with the reduction drive. Most issues with home-brew propulsion systems aren't as dramatic as that, but problems with vibration, lack of thrust, broken exhaust mounts and engine reliability are all common issues for such units that keep you on the ground more often than not. In addition, I suggest you acquire these items and your wing before you cut your first tube or make your first weld. You will know the actual weight and dimensions of the unit (as opposed to those from the specs), and will not have to make later compromises and changes to make it fit in the real world. My apologies for such a long post. I hope the suggestions are useful to someone. Remember, your mileage may vary!!!! Compliments of the season to all John Reynoldson. 138 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 6:36pm Subject: Re: Special Welcome captain_jims Offline Send Email John has stated the situation very well indeed. 1. Identify your own requirements. (Write them down) 2. Develop a solution that fits "your" list 3. Implement your solution is a practical, safe way. I stand impressed with John's work. Let me explain within the context of his remarks. There are very few real inventions in the world, most developments are the practical and realistic selection of the available means to reach a goal. Each item is selected and balanced, much as a orchestra is tuned, so that they all play in harmony. It is that ability and the expression of that science that we see in his work. Thanks John, excellent post. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "John W Reynoldson" wrote: > > Warning - long initial post: > > Thank you Jim, for the kind words. While it's true I did coin the term > "nanolight" (for "legal" reasons in Australia, where it refers to a > powered aircraft under 155 lb empty weight which is exempt from a > number of restrictions), I make no claims to be a "brilliant concept > person". I am just someone with a passion for power-launched soaring > who has deliberately tried to keep the profile of the activity high to > encourage others. There are many, many active nanolight trikers > around the world who do much more amazing things every day- you just > don't hear about it. > > I'm happy to contribute when and where I can, but unfortunately, > before anyone asks, no, I do not have plans or kits for sale, and I am > waaaay too busy with business and family to offer detailed building > advice to individuals. > > Some observations that might help others.... > > My own little trike is very much a case of "grandfathers axe". Over > the years it has evolved in fits and starts, and I'm fairly happy that > right now, given the choice of materials, it meets my *personal* > requirements well. > > My own trike needed to meet the following criteria: > * Light enough that with my weight I would still be within the > certification payload limit for the wing I used. > * Pack up small enough to fit in the back of a car. I did not want > to have to tow a trailer about. > * Easy to construct with simple tools and easily obtainable, no > exotic materials. I don't have a lot of time or money to waste. > * Easy and fast to rig single handed > * Strong enough to take air loads and landing loads > * Stable and steerable on the ground > * As low drag as practicable. > * Able to be soared in light thermal conditions and able to handle > turbulence. > > My current machine meets these criteria well. However, like all > trikes it still suffers from fragility on the ground thanks to dust > devils and the long wing span (42 ft) is of some concern when taxiing > in crosswinds. > > Not all of the above criteria will apply to other builders. In > particular, most of the homebuilders I've run into aren't as concerned > with keeping under the wing certification weight, not using a trailer, > drag or soaring capability. If you don't care about these things, > your building options are significantly wider. > > Trike building is not rocket science, and the structures and > principles are relatively straightforward. If I have one major > suggestion to anyone contemplating it, and wanting to build something > to fly, rather than spend forever in the workshop, it is to keep > things simple. There are lots of builders out there who spend *years* > on the project because they have decided on a complex structure. Read > what you can find, look at existing units, decide which criteria apply > to you and pick the eyes out of existing designs first before deciding > to do something exotic. I'm not afraid to admit that my own unit owes > a lot to the UK Chaser. The only unique design features on my trike > are the those of the limited-yaw joint (a controversial subject on > this list I understand) and the unusual seat frame hinges! Everything > else can be found on other, earlier designs. > > There is a second suggestion; and this is that you should choose a > commercially available power plant (engine, exhaust and propeller > combination) that has been proven to be effective and safe. This is > the area that trips up a huge number of home builders - me included. > Originally I chose to combine a Solo 210 engine with an (early) > Adventure Paramotors redrive plus a propeller carved by a local > prop-maker. While the combination gave me adequate thrust, ultimately > I ended up losing the propeller in flight(!) due to a combination of > a bad propeller and a cascading manufacturing defect/design issue with > the reduction drive. Most issues with home-brew propulsion systems > aren't as dramatic as that, but problems with vibration, lack of > thrust, broken exhaust mounts and engine reliability are all common > issues for such units that keep you on the ground more often than not. > In addition, I suggest you acquire these items and your wing before > you cut your first tube or make your first weld. You will know the > actual weight and dimensions of the unit (as opposed to those from the > specs), and will not have to make later compromises and changes to > make it fit in the real world. > > My apologies for such a long post. I hope the suggestions are useful > to someone. Remember, your mileage may vary!!!! > Compliments of the season to all > John Reynoldson. 139 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:19am Subject: Engine Power/Prop Loading captain_jims Offline Send Email I uploaded a file named Engine Power/Prop loading to the files section. It is a graph of horsepower vs rpm for the Rotax 582 and three sample props. We will use that for a discussion of how the engine output and the prop load match up. Here is what the chart shows: At a given temperature/pressure the engine has a power vs rpm output and three props power absorption at that same temperature/pressure. Note that the props have a nominal power absorption of 55hp, 65 hp, 75 hp at 6500 rpm. Now the question is: How to choose a prop for this engine. Some speculate that the prop must match the engine at peak rpm. That is too simplistic and I will try to detail the process here. It is unlikely that you will ever have complete data for this kind of matchup, but understanding the process will help with the limited data you have. First, it is important that the power curves all be drawn on the same graph. The intersection points are the max prop output when driven by that engine at that temp/pressure. You can see from our plot that the 75 hp prop actually intersects at a lower engine power and the 55 hp prop intersects at a higher power. Yes, this analysis will have some surprises. Now to make it more complex, both the engine and the props will have a variety of curves based on air temp/pressure. Therefore, there is not just one intersection point but a group of them that sort of fall in a circle. I did not show it, but these three example props would probably overlap at various temp/pressures. I will stop here rather than extend this initial discussion to an unreadable length, but this gives a taste of the engine/prop matching analysis. Jim 140 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 9:35am Subject: The WooDoo - a minimum trike captain_jims Offline Send Email Here is a link to the WooDoo site. A very minimum trike. http://woodoo.matrix94.hu/ Looks like absolute minimum weight but still has 3 wheels and a seat. However, there is very little capability to move the wing on the ground. That is, to pitch or roll the wing due to winds. Otherwise, looks interesting. Jim 141 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 2:34pm Subject: A progress report on my sbs Trike with Geo engine captain_jims Offline Send Email Latest weight estimate is 350 lbs without fairing. Therefore, 175 lbs per person, so it is just two lite trikes. Seriously, I have completed all the work of the first assembly. My procedure is to assemble and build knowing that I will disassemble back to the bare frame to weld on all the pcs that I find are required. Well, I am ready to disassemble back to that bare frame for welding in about ten areas, then proceed back together with rather permanent assembly. No photos yet, The reason is a little silly, but I did not want to cut the mast and cant get it out the door. During this teardown, I will cut the mast and weld in the hinge, so photos will become a lot easier. I will get into some design and engine mod details in another post, but thought you might find this interesting. Given the multitude of rules that now exist I have the following options on registration and license Ultralight trainer, no FAA registration, EAA registration, no license Sport FAA registration as a weight shift ELSA, Sport Pilot license which is my private without a physical Experimenatal Airplane, FAA registration, Single Engine Private license, requires physical Experimental Glider, FAA registration, Private glider license with motorglider signoff. no physical So, for the time being, I will test fly as an Ultralight Trainer until it is finalized, then register as an Experimental glider since I have my private glider ticket. That combination gives me the most freedom with the least effort. Only took 2-3 months to figure out all those combinations. Jim 142 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 3:36pm Subject: A video for your viewing pleasure captain_jims Offline Send Email Just stumbled across this site. Great video. Look for the link in the upper RH corner of the screen. Be sure to turn on the sound. Just a little help to get thru these winter days with no flying. http://www.matteam.com/English/home_e.htm Jim 143 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Jan 2, 2005 10:42am Subject: Engine torque and thrust captain_jims Offline Send Email I have received some questions as to how to convert engine torque to thrust, ie, what conversion factor is used. There have been several responses to this, but I will give a try at being more complete. First, some basics. Engine torque is measured in ft-lbs, not ft/lbs. Bolt torque, which is a static torque not related to power generation, is technically lb-ft, but most folks say ft-lbs. Thrust is pure lbs, no ft involved. Now to the prop. In the analysis of this kind of problem, first look at the forces that are equal and opposite. The engine applies torque, x ft-lbs, to the prop. The prop resists in the plane of rotation with an equal drag torque. But, how to get to thrust. The prop is technically a screw mechanism. A screw by definition will convert a torque about its axis to a thrust, ie, force, along its axis. What is the conversion factor? This is the difficult question and it is not a conversion table, but rather a complex calculation involve screw size, pitch, slippage, resistance, etc, etc. I will let you convert these screw terms to a prop. Hope this helps your understanding. When I was in school this was part of Mechanics of Mechanisms, ME201. Jim 144 From: "Gerry" Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:12pm Subject: Shaving the Piston Skirt farellus Offline Send Email Hello gang, I fly a foot-launched powered hang glider (FLPHG) equiped with a little single-piston engine: Radne Raket 120 and that gives me MARGINAL power on take off (1200 ASL). Since I fly it prone, I can't put a heavier engine as the inertia is too much to swing with my feet. The Raket engine (http://www.radne.se/Store/Product/ProductDetails.aspx?PartNo=3201) was developed for Karting, 2-stroker, has no reed, it uses ports for intake & exhaust. I'd like to increase its horse power but want to stay away from expensive porting jobs, so I'm getting a high compression head and am building a compatible tuned exhaust. Also, someone suggested me to shave the piston skirt on the side of the intake port in order to prolong the intake flow. I copy/paste his message below and I'd apreciate any comments or warnings of doing this mod Thank you and Blue skies! Gerry Farell ""The Radne will provide you much fun if you love too tinker! What you want to achieve is a nice radius-ed cut-out the same dimension as the intake port. Measure approximately .060" (1.5mm) from the bottom of the intake skirt and mark that area off with a marker. Then take a DREMEL or other grinder and go to work. The easiest way to copy the intake pattern on the piston is by lowering the piston .060" below the top of the port, then draw... By raising the intake port your are simply increasing intake duration. In other words you're allowing more fuel into the cylinder to increase power. Don't go more than .060" (1.5mm) at first because even though your are increasing intake duration you tend to narrow the mid- range when using a real tuned pipe."" 145 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:29am Subject: Re: Shaving the Piston Skirt captain_jims Offline Send Email I expect that you will receive a number of responses, both on this group and others about boosting the output, but I will take a differest tack. Highly tuned engines of this type are difficult to use with a prop in that their power peaks in a narrow range. The prop load increases as the rpm to the third power, so it will also reach a power requirement level in a narrow range. The trick is matching these. Be a little off, then you may be off a long ways on the power match. What would be interesting here is to gather some engine output data, and some prop load data and make a plot on the same chart of engine and prop to see if you have the proper match. This same apprach could be used to determine if a power loss has occured with time. I would suggest building a simple dynamometer in which your harness or the leg portion is held with the engine running and the resulting torque measured. That will provide the prop curve. A means such as an external brake to absorb the engine torque would allow the engine curve to be generated. Be glad to get into more detail if this approach interests you. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" wrote: > > Hello gang, > I fly a foot-launched powered hang glider (FLPHG) equiped with a > little single-piston engine: Radne Raket 120 and that gives me > MARGINAL power on take off (1200 ASL). Since I fly it prone, I can't > put a heavier engine as the inertia is too much to swing with my feet. > > 146 From: "Gerry" Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 0:14pm Subject: Re: Shaving the Piston Skirt farellus Offline Send Email I was contacted by the "DoodleBug" builder. He experimented extensively with the Raket 120 engine - including shaving the piston skirt next to the inlet port. His veredict is that the engine life is reduced drasticaly (piston seizures) and that the best way to boost the Raket's power is to get a tuned expansion chamber (tuned pipe) and leave the rest alone. The engine is quite reliable so I might just do that. Cheers! Gerry --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > > I expect that you will receive a number of responses, both on this > group and others about boosting the output, but I will take a > differest tack. > > Highly tuned engines of this type are difficult to use with a prop > in that their power peaks in a narrow range. The prop load increases > as the rpm to the third power, so it will also reach a power > requirement level in a narrow range. The trick is matching these. Be > a little off, then you may be off a long ways on the power match. > > What would be interesting here is to gather some engine output data, > and some prop load data and make a plot on the same chart of engine > and prop to see if you have the proper match. This same apprach > could be used to determine if a power loss has occured with time. > > I would suggest building a simple dynamometer in which your harness > or the leg portion is held with the engine running and the resulting > torque measured. That will provide the prop curve. A means such as > an external brake to absorb the engine torque would allow the engine > curve to be generated. > > Be glad to get into more detail if this approach interests you. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" > wrote: > > > > Hello gang, > > I fly a foot-launched powered hang glider (FLPHG) equiped with a > > little single-piston engine: Radne Raket 120 and that gives me > > MARGINAL power on take off (1200 ASL). Since I fly it prone, I > can't > > put a heavier engine as the inertia is too much to swing with my > feet. > > > > 147 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 7:21am Subject: an Update on my sbs Geo powered trike captain_jims Offline Send Email I have made a lot of progress during the cold weeks of winter. Note: sbs stands for side-by-side seating. The manufacturing phase of the engine conversion parts is complete. The welding of the frame is 98% complete. May need a few mounting tabs yet. The engine is back on the frame with the frame on the wheels. I am now installing accessories on the engine such as the Harley carb, the GM ignition module, remote thermostat, and just starting to install wiring and the engine instrument panel. (btw, AutoZone carries the Sunpro instruments, nice appearance) Hoping for an engine startup in early March. Remember, on the engine, I needed a thrust of 240#. The 3 cyl Geo engine with a belt reduction will deliver this at 5000 rpm, but I decided to use a 4 cyl Geo direct drive for that same output. I now have three props for test. Two wood props, 63x34, and 61x31 and an aadjustable pitch UltraProp 3 blade 61". Should give me plenty of datapoints to determine what I need. Finally, on the critical issue of weight. Conducted a wheel by wheel weighin, and am currently at 244# with the frame and wheels alone at 126#. I estimate 20# of accessories for a dry weight of 264#. This is, coincidentally, the dry weight of an AirCreation 582 equipped trike carriage. Interesting comparison. And my structure is 100% steel. Now for a wet weight comparison. They rate the fuel consumption at 2.5 gal per hour, I expect 1.25 gph with the Geo. So with 3 hours of fuel and an hour reserve, I will be 5 gal or 35# lighter. Last, I am hoping for a good warm sunny day to move everything outdoors and get some photos. I will be publishing the photos of the sbs and my ultra lightweight trike that I have not written about for some time. ps, I am firming plans to show the sbs at OshKosh. Now have arrangements for housing for the duration of the show. May take the Ultra light weight trike just to show. Jim 148 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 7:25am Subject: What is your construction progress????? captain_jims Offline Send Email I just posted a message on the progress of my construction. Would like to hear from anyone with a project or a project planned. Nothing stirs others to action faster than to hear about projects that are moving along. So, lets do our part to get them moving by describing how much fun we are having getting ready for that first flight. Jim 149 From: "Gerry" Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 0:05pm Subject: Micro pilot gets away with minor injuries farellus Offline Send Email Micro pilot gets away with minor injuries http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/manawatustandard/0,2106,3183673a6502,00.h tml 10 February 2005 By MERVYN DYKES Injured pilot David Spencer, who made a forced landing near Cheltenham yesterday hitched a ride away from the crash site in a friend's microlight. He was flown to Feilding Aerodrome (Taonui) and driven from there to hospital where he was operated on to repair ligament damage to a foot. The two microlights were flying in the vicinity of Haynes Line in fine and sunny weather when the mishap occurred shortly before 8am. "He had a motor problem," said Glen Roberts whose property overlooks the point where Mr Spencer's microlight came down. "He looked around for a paddock to come down. Fortunately most of the paddocks around here are flat, so he was able to get down all right, but had no power to get out again." Mr Spencer chose the wheat field of Wendy and Ross Humphrey for his landing and finished up about 200 metres from Haynes Line. "I looked out and saw three police cars and a fire engine on the road," said Mrs Humphrey who was home alone at the time. "I hooned across on a motorbike." "Through the wheat?" said her husband. Mrs Humphrey said she thought someone might be hurt and needing help. Hang glider and gyrocopter pilot Alf Crowe, who was at the scene soon after, praised the way the pilot of the second microlight reacted. "He landed, picked him up and flew him back to the aerodrome. He did a marvellous job." The second pilot, who didn't want to be identified, later returned with a trailer to retrieve the microlight. 150 From: "Mitch" Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 3:20pm Subject: JPX / MZ34 illusion13069 Offline Send Email Anyone flying a lite trike using the JPX engine? I'm trying to decide between the JPX and the MZ34 and would like some feedback so I could make the right choice... Thanks Mitch 151 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:43am Subject: Progress Report captain_jims Offline Send Email My 2 place sbs Geo powered trike is ready to start the engine. Just waiting on some warmer weather to have the shop doors open for that. Also need some cooperative weather for photos. It is snowing in central Illinois today as I write this, temps in the mid 20's. I find myself more concerned about the startup than the first flight. Made a lot of engine changes. I will summarize in this list: 1.3 L 4 cyl Geo engine No ECM, thats the computer control Used a DIS from a 1990 gm product. DIS = Distorbutorless ignition system Crankshaft signal to drive the DIS Carb from a Harley motorcycle. modified the Geo inlet manifold to fit Radiator from a Kawasaki Snowmobile Cooling system expansion tank from a Volvo My own drive system, turned all parts from scratch. Relocated the thermostat housing off the engine Battery from a LawnTractor Fuel tank out of a boat. Electric fuel pump. However, all the internals of the engine are stock. Another report to follow in a week or two with photos this time. Jim 152 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:35am Subject: Re: Progress Report - Photos captain_jims Offline Send Email Finally a decent warm day in Central Illinois. Took progress photos of the sbsGeoTrike and my LiteTrike. They are in the photo section. I am building a web page with a lot of photos and will post that link later, but this will give u a chance to see the status. The electrical is in good shape except for two hard to find connectors in the ignition that I found yesterday. 10 day wait to get them. But, I will be testing the electrical, the fuel pump, etc in preparation for a startup. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > > My 2 place sbs Geo powered trike is ready to start the engine. Just > waiting on some warmer weather to have the shop doors open for that. > Also need some cooperative weather for photos. It is snowing in > central Illinois today as I write this, temps in the mid 20's. > > 153 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 0:52pm Subject: Car Heat - Keihin CV carb captain_jims Offline Send Email I am using the current production HD carb, a Keihin CV on the Geo. Needed to make the carb heat decision. In light of the fact that the 2 cycle engines do not use carb heat, no carb heat for the sbsGeoTrike. Now the logic is actually a little more thorough than that. The Mikuni carb I have on my Kaw340 and is typical of the 2 strokes carbs, has a variable venture, not fixed like most aircraft carbs. It changes in size, flexes, if you will, which should help break up ice formation. This may be what accounts for no reported ice in that carb. There is no heat applied to the Mikuni in any form. The Keihin CV, (constant velocity) carb also has that feature. Given the fact that there are not a rash of HD motorcycles at the side of the road with frozen carbs, I will forgo for now carb heat. However, in contrast, I had an updraft carb similiar to that used on a Lycoming, on my Farm Tractor, and it would form frost on the outside on a warm day. Interesting contrast. Jim 154 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:51pm Subject: What airfield type - UL vs Experimental captain_jims Offline Send Email Reposted message I put on the Engine=UL group Here is a link to the Illinois Aviation regulations so you can read for yourself. Simplifying, it says that an UltraLight can operate almost anywhere as long as you dont takeoff within 4 miles of another airport. But otherwise any piece of ground where you have permission is ok. An Experimental or an LSA is an airplane and must use an airport, not the same unimproved field as an Ultralight. And only so many airplanes can be based at a private field(6), ie, restricted use runway, while an unlimited number of ultralights may be based there. Note, the regs dont mention LSA/Experimental but do mention N numbers or airplanes. Also gets into where instruction may take place. As a result of this, I decided to operate within the regs with my sbsGeoTrike and fly it from an airport and not an Ultralight field. I may have some minor details wrong here, but you can read the regs and interpret for yourself. The senior pilot at the UL field agreed with my interpretation. I think this will lead to serious surprises as the ultralight population moves to LSA/Experimental and gets N numbers. One important feature is that a restricted use airport runway(for airplanes) must be a minimum of 1800 ft while there is no minimum for an UL field. Finally, I stress, please read the regs for yourself and dont rely on my interpretation. Jim 155 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 11:02am Subject: Clarification of Experimintal Trikes captain_jims Offline Send Email Today I received this answer on the ExpTrike group and wanted to share it here. This clarifies the issue of Experimental Trikes. Read in detail. The FAA put their plans in the Preamble since they forgot to put the information in the public comment release. ============================================================= From Jon Thornburgh, ExpTrikes Moderator and founder of the Glider- Trike program: Dear Jim, The FAA has assured me that all presently certificated glider-trikes will retain their current designations as "gliders" and that all FAA- certificated pilots who have a "glider-self-launch" endorsement in their logbooks may fly a glider-trike. The glider-trike program was an interim solution for a pilot applicant to train and take a practical test in a trike until the FAA created the new "weight-shift" category. After the creation of the weight-shift category as a part of the Sport Pilot initiative, the FAA presumes that future trike pilot applicants would train to obtain a weight-shift pilot certificate, not a glider certificate. The FAA has told me that it no longer wants any pilots to take a practical test for a "glider" certificate in a trike. However, the FAA has NOT ruled that a trike cannot be put into the Experimental category as a "glider." In fact, the FAA implied the exact opposite when it published the Sport Pilot rule in the Federal Register. The FAA Sport Pilot rule may be downloaded at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/rulemaking/SportPilotRule7_19.doc. The publication in the Federal Register contains more than just the Sport Pilot regulations. It also contains an extensive Preamble, which discusses the FAA's responses to various public comments to the Sport Pilot NPRM and its reasons for adopting specific Sport Pilot regulations. On pages 150 to 173 of the Preamble the FAA discusses "driver's license medical" and other medical issues relating to Sport Pilot. On pages 172 and 173 the FAA specifically states that "a weight- shift control aircraft can be operated as an experimental powered glider..." The paragraph below is cut-and-pasted from directly from the end of page 172 and the first part of page 173: "Future Rulemaking on Private Pilots with Weight-Shift-Control or Powered Parachute Ratings: During the process of drafting the final rule, the FAA recognized that it did not specifically propose medical eligibility requirements for private pilots with a weight-shift-control or powered parachute rating. This would have inadvertently defaulted these pilots to a requirement to hold at least a third-class airman medical certificate to exercise the privileges associated with those ratings. This was not the FAA's intent. However, because the FAA did not propose and seek public comment on allowing private pilots with a weight-shift- control or powered parachute rating to operate those aircraft without holding a third-class airman medical certificate, the FAA must initiate future rulemaking action. It should be noted that persons wishing to operate weight-shift-control aircraft or powered parachutes while exercising sport pilot privileges, but not private pilot privileges, may do so under this rule. In addition, under current rules, a weight-shift-control aircraft can be operated as an experimental powered glider, with an endorsement for self-launching, without an airman medical certificate." The definitive answer to your question is this: Yes, you may put your trike into the experimental glider category but you may not take a practical test in your glider-trike in order to obtain a glider rating. However, if you already have a glider rating (with a self- launch endorsement) you may fly your experimental glider-trike as a glider pilot. Sincerely, Jon Thornburgh 156 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 2:37pm Subject: Light Sport Aircraft regulations captain_jims Offline Send Email Link to the FAA site with all the regs and explanations http://afs600.faa.gov/AFS610.htm Just looked up the regs on the weight of an aircraft that can be flown by a Sport Pilot or Private Pilot without a medical. The maximum weight of a light-sport aircraft is the sum of: (1) Aircraft empty weight; (2) Weight of the passenger for each seat installed; (3) Baggage allowance for each passenger; and (4) Full fuel, including a minimum of the half-hour fuel reserve required for day visual flight rules in §91.151 (a)(1). For a two seat aircraft with 14 gal tanks, that works out to an empty weight of 1320-340--20-100=860#. Should cover any trike. Although, this may impact my plans for a trike with an automotive V8 engine. HaHa. Jim 157 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 0:39pm Subject: Cruise sbsTrike photo captain_jims Offline Send Email Just put a photo of the Cruise sbs Trike in the photo section. I understand that this Trike will be at SunNFun. Anyone that sees it fly or just sees it all, please post a report. Jim 158 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:22am Subject: Geo 1.3L Direct-Drive, less than $1000 captain_jims Offline Send Email This post is to clarify and make the point that one of the key reasons for using a DirectDrive 1.3L 4 cyl Geo engines is the low cost of providing a reliable engine. Less than $1000 $500 - Base engine Model year 2000 $100 - gaskets, misc parts, bolts $50 - Harley carb $20 - DistributorLess ignition module $20 - Crank signal magnetic pickup $40 - Propeller bearing to handle the thrust load $200 - 3 hours of machine work (lathe and mill) ------ $930 The 3 cylinder Geo engine is the same price due to a higher demand, but the Drive is approx $3500 purchased from either of the two primary vendors. And if an ECM is used add another $1000 for sensors, harness, and ECM. This should make clear what we are attempting to show with this project. Jim 159 From: "moe113097" Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:54am Subject: Re: Geo 1.3L Direct-Drive, less than $1000 moe113097 Send IM Send Email Jim, what size prop are you planning on using ??? what max rpm Moe --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > > This post is to clarify and make the point that one of the key reasons > for using a DirectDrive 1.3L 4 cyl Geo engines is the low cost of > providing a reliable engine. > > Less than $1000 > > $500 - Base engine Model year 2000 > $100 - gaskets, misc parts, bolts > $50 - Harley carb > $20 - DistributorLess ignition module > $20 - Crank signal magnetic pickup > $40 - Propeller bearing to handle the thrust load > $200 - 3 hours of machine work (lathe and mill) > ------ > $930 > > The 3 cylinder Geo engine is the same price due to a higher demand, > but the Drive is approx $3500 purchased from either of the two primary > vendors. And if an ECM is used add another $1000 for sensors, harness, > and ECM. > > This should make clear what we are attempting to show with this > project. > > Jim 160 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:28pm Subject: Re: Geo 1.3L Direct-Drive, less than $1000 captain_jims Offline Send Email First, my target for static pull is 220-240#. That is what would normally be expected from the 3 cyl Geo with redrive. I plan to limit engine rpm to 3200 with prop load. Currently, for test, I have a 61-31 2 blade wood and a 59" 3 blade adj pitch Ultraprop. I would like to use a 2 blade wood, but think now that I will need a flatter pitch than 31 to achieve the desired rpm. Note: the 1.3L Geo is rated at approx 50 hp at 3200 rpm. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "moe113097" wrote: > > > Jim, > > what size prop are you planning on using ??? what max rpm > > Moe > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > > > This post is to clarify and make the point that one of the key > reasons > > for using a DirectDrive 1.3L 4 cyl Geo engines is the low cost of > > providing a reliable engine. > > > > Less than $1000 > > > > $500 - Base engine Model year 2000 > > $100 - gaskets, misc parts, bolts > > $50 - Harley carb > > $20 - DistributorLess ignition module > > $20 - Crank signal magnetic pickup > > $40 - Propeller bearing to handle the thrust load > > $200 - 3 hours of machine work (lathe and mill) > > ------ > > $930 > > > > The 3 cylinder Geo engine is the same price due to a higher > demand, > > but the Drive is approx $3500 purchased from either of the two > primary > > vendors. And if an ECM is used add another $1000 for sensors, > harness, > > and ECM. > > > > This should make clear what we are attempting to show with this > > project. > > > > Jim 161 From: "captain_jims" Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:33am Subject: New Photo of the RH side of the Geo engine captain_jims Offline Send Email In the sbsGeoTrike folder, I put a closeup photo of the Geo engine conversion. In this photo you can see: 1. Harley CV carb mounted to the standard Geo intake manifold 2. Coolant reservoir above the engine 3. Standard thermostat housing - now remote 4. The DIS ignition module 5. The direct drive prop bearing and prop flange Note that the prop bearing is mounted on the structure and not on the engine to save weight and complexity. It is positioned so that no thrust force is transferred to the crankshaft. Hope this helps you understand the engine conversion. Jim 163 From: "jhopper80" Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:46pm Subject: Balencing?? jhopper80 Offline Send Email Hey guys can anyone help me on how to find the balancing point where to make the trike frame attach to the wings? I dont know a process without without alot of redo's. And is a fuel injectected GEO engine worth the extra weight? 164 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:37am Subject: Re: Balencing?? captain_jims Offline Send Email Location of the Hang pivot point I will give the very simple explanation and if you need more, I can expand in later posts, let me know. First, find the fore-aft center of gravity. For a new design, this can be done analytically, and for a partially completed trike it can be done by using a bathroom scale under each wheel, one wheel at a time. The only warning on weighing one wheel at a time is that a dummy spacer must be placed under the wheels without the scale so that the trike doesnt tilt various ways. Now, for the partially constructed trike, add the wheel weights to get the total weight. Wt then plug into this equation where Wf equals the weight of the front wheel. cglocation = wheelbase x Wf/Wt That will give the location of the cg as measured forward of the rear wheel centers. Be sure to measure the combination for your trike that will give the lightest front wheel. Now in flight, the cg point will move under the hang point. Since we want the front wheel to be a minimum of 4" above the main in the worst case, if the pivot is 4" forward of the cg on level ground, the trike will swing forward and raise the front wheel. I have left out the detail calculations here since they only have a minor effect. All of this can be made much more detailed, but this approach will get as good of a position as is required. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" wrote: > > Hey guys can anyone help me on how to find the balancing > point where to make the trike frame attach to the wings? > I dont know a process without without alot of redo's. > And is a fuel injectected GEO engine worth the extra weight? 165 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:54am Subject: Re: Fuel Injection captain_jims Offline Send Email My opinion on fuel injection. There are two negative issues with fuel injection. Weight and compexity. The weight issue is fairly minor but can add up. 1. Pressure pump 2. Computer 3. Harness 4. Better filter However, the complexity issue makes the decision for me. Fuel injection makes a lot of sense for an auto that is constantly changing speed and load, and has a great need for tight control of the combustion process due to emissions. Our trikes do not have these requirements. We run three speeds, idle, max, cruise. and since we hook to a prop, that defines the load. A carb will handle these three loads fine. We may give up a slight amount of power at max, but a Geo has plenty of power so a slight loss is not significant. At cruise, where we spend most of our time, the carb can be tuned to give good economical performance with a lot less complexity. By the way, I think all of the Geo discussion spend way too much time on max power. Expecially as related to a trike. Trikes are overpowered as it is. Why debate whether we are 15 hp overpowered or 20 hp overpowered.? Airplanes, by design have 33% more power for climb compared to cruise. A trike has 80%-100% more power for climb compared to the cruise requirement. Do we need to be at 120%? Not likely. A four cylinder with redrive trike that was just built in Florida has a requirement for 30 hp at cruise and has 92 hp available. If that were a fixed wing, it would be called aerobatic. Lets put common sense in our design requirements. In my opinion, that is a result of too much arm chair flying and not enough aircraft flying. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" wrote: > > Hey guys can anyone help me on how to find the balancing > point where to make the trike frame attach to the wings? > I dont know a process without without alot of redo's. > And is a fuel injectected GEO engine worth the extra weight? 166 From: "jhopper80" Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:37am Subject: Mikes trike? jhopper80 Offline Send Email Has mike shared any plans of his trike with anyone? Mike if you are still around you made a neat trike and I would like to know more about it. What engine was put on it? 167 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:43am Subject: Re: Mikes trike? captain_jims Offline Send Email I have never seen plans or any hint of plans from Mike. I believe that he had access to the manufacturing facilities of a PPC manufacturer where he works. That capability may make the trike hard to build for those with normal home shops. Those curved rails I see in the photos are a good example of that as well as all the finished fittings I have read about. For what it is worth here, my opinion of trike plans in general is that they are designed to be built with the facilities available to the builder. The general design is so simple, just go ahead and design it, Mock it up in plastic to get an idea of size. I used plastic water pipe. But put together a design that can be built given your facilities. My current trike is probably 20 lbs overweight if I were to build on a production basis. But when I had a decision, I went heavy. When you are only building one and want to minimize the risk, add a lb here or there. I recommend that you do the same. Better save than the alternative. If you look at my design for the sbsGeoTrike, it is not the best design, but I like to weld and have a good tool room lathe, so guess what, welded frame with lathe turned accessories. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" wrote: > > Has mike shared any plans of his trike with anyone? > Mike if you are still around you made a neat trike and I would like > to know more about it. > What engine was put on it? 168 From: "jhopper80" Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:49pm Subject: OK guys what tto do??? jhopper80 Offline Send Email Guys I am the newbe to this group and to this sport. Thanks for all the help so far it is a blessing! Can a person learn to fly trikes from instructional videos? I got toed up by a trike the other day on a tandem glider flight and fell in love with the trike and the sport. Cant afford $75 an hour training!! Cant afford to buy a trike!! Cant afford the drive to visit the gliding field!! What to do???? Pray for money?? For future plans is a geo engine too much for a beginner single man trike? thanks! 169 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:24pm Subject: Re: OK guys what tto do??? captain_jims Offline Send Email Well, lets take those questions one at a time. 1. You cannot learn to fly a trike from a video. You will need 12-20 hours with an instructor or experienced pilot. There are better prices than $75. Find an ultralight field, offer to pay for expenses for rides, work around the field to earn some training. Whatever you need to to, but get the final training and the solo sign-off from an instructor. You will injure yourself and/or kill yourself. These are not good alternatives, but very real without training. I had been a pilot for 35 years and still needed the trike training. btw, hang glider training is helpful and much lower cost. 2.A trike can be built for less than $2000 complete ready to fly. You buy the pcs as they are needed. The wing and the engine are the only two lumps to swallow and there is a good way around the engine lump. Buy a Kawasaki 440 sled engine for $150 and rebuild it. Parts are readily available from the sled vendors and the Kaw is a good engine. I have one.(actually 3) 3. The Geo powered trike is interesting, but way out of your league at your level of experience and finances. Let that wait a year or two. 4. Where are you located? That will help me give you some more advice. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" wrote: > > Guys I am the newbe to this group and to this sport. > Thanks for all the help so far it is a blessing! > Can a person learn to fly trikes from instructional videos? > I got toed up by a trike the other day on a tandem glider > flight and fell in love with the trike and the sport. > Cant afford $75 an hour training!! Cant afford to buy a trike!! > Cant afford the drive to visit the gliding field!! > What to do???? Pray for money?? > For future plans is a geo engine too much for a beginner > single man trike? > thanks! 170 From: "jhopper80" Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:42pm Subject: Re: OK guys what tto do??? jhopper80 Offline Send Email --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" I live in extreame north GA and went to lookout MTN hang gliding club for my flight which is about a 2hr drive. How much of the 2 grand is for the wings? prob half. Its good to know about the KAW 440 would work for me!! I live in the ATV lands and not sled land!! Are they a diffrence in ATV and sled engines? Where is a good place to get a 440? And is it hard to find a reduction gear for the prop? Thanks Jim!! wrote: > > Well, lets take those questions one at a time. > 1. You cannot learn to fly a trike from a video. You will need 12-20 > hours with an instructor or experienced pilot. There are better prices > than $75. Find an ultralight field, offer to pay for expenses for > rides, work around the field to earn some training. Whatever you need > to to, but get the final training and the solo sign-off from an > instructor. You will injure yourself and/or kill yourself. These are > not good alternatives, but very real without training. I had been a > pilot for 35 years and still needed the trike training. btw, hang > glider training is helpful and much lower cost. > > 2.A trike can be built for less than $2000 complete ready to fly. You > buy the pcs as they are needed. The wing and the engine are the only > two lumps to swallow and there is a good way around the engine lump. > Buy a Kawasaki 440 sled engine for $150 and rebuild it. Parts are > readily available from the sled vendors and the Kaw is a good engine. > I have one.(actually 3) > > 3. The Geo powered trike is interesting, but way out of your league at > your level of experience and finances. Let that wait a year or two. > > 4. Where are you located? That will help me give you some more advice. > > Jim > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" > wrote: > > > > Guys I am the newbe to this group and to this sport. > > Thanks for all the help so far it is a blessing! > > Can a person learn to fly trikes from instructional videos? > > I got toed up by a trike the other day on a tandem glider > > flight and fell in love with the trike and the sport. > > Cant afford $75 an hour training!! Cant afford to buy a trike!! > > Cant afford the drive to visit the gliding field!! > > What to do???? Pray for money?? > > For future plans is a geo engine too much for a beginner > > single man trike? > > thanks! 171 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:34pm Subject: Re: OK guys what tto do??? captain_jims Offline Send Email I fly a Sabre which has a Kaw 340 and it works very well, The 440's are easier to find and have about 8 more hp. That will work fine. The Jbird type of redirve, ie, v-belts and pillow blocks works fine on many, many Sabre trikes and will work for you as well. You want a 440A. I dont know about ATVs, but look at the engine name plate. I would be concerned about the extreme dust, where sleds run a lot cleaner. You can get a Kaw440 sled engine on eBay for about $150 in running condition and then overhaul it when u need to. Talk to the hg training school about a wing, Likely they trade their 2 place training wings every year or two. One of those will work fine. They usually have hookin weight of 440lb or so. Plenty for a trike. Training in trikes is morning and evening, but hang gliders fly all day. If you could get even 10 hours of hang glide time, that would cut your cost of trike training. Lots of scattered information here. Hope this stirs some ideas of how to get started. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" wrote: > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > I live in extreame north GA and went to lookout MTN > hang gliding club for my flight which is about a 2hr drive. > How much of the 2 grand is for the wings? prob half. > Its good to know about the KAW 440 would work for me!! > I live in the ATV lands and not sled land!! Are they a diffrence > in ATV and sled engines? Where is a good place to get a 440? > And is it hard to find a reduction gear for the prop? > Thanks Jim!! > > 172 From: "jhopper80" Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:05am Subject: Re: OK guys what tto do??? jhopper80 Offline Send Email --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" Oh this info is helping alot and I am feeling like I can do this now!! just need some $$$.. Is a KAW engine the only one that will work with a redrive? wrote: > > I fly a Sabre which has a Kaw 340 and it works very well, The 440's > are easier to find and have about 8 more hp. That will work fine. > The Jbird type of redirve, ie, v-belts and pillow blocks works fine on > many, many Sabre trikes and will work for you as well. You want a > 440A. I dont know about ATVs, but look at the engine name plate. I > would be concerned about the extreme dust, where sleds run a lot cleaner. > > You can get a Kaw440 sled engine on eBay for about $150 in running > condition and then overhaul it when u need to. > > Talk to the hg training school about a wing, Likely they trade their 2 > place training wings every year or two. One of those will work fine. > They usually have hookin weight of 440lb or so. Plenty for a trike. > > Training in trikes is morning and evening, but hang gliders fly all > day. If you could get even 10 hours of hang glide time, that would > cut your cost of trike training. > > Lots of scattered information here. Hope this stirs some ideas of how > to get started. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" > wrote: > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > > I live in extreame north GA and went to lookout MTN > > hang gliding club for my flight which is about a 2hr drive. > > How much of the 2 grand is for the wings? prob half. > > Its good to know about the KAW 440 would work for me!! > > I live in the ATV lands and not sled land!! Are they a diffrence > > in ATV and sled engines? Where is a good place to get a 440? > > And is it hard to find a reduction gear for the prop? > > Thanks Jim!! > > > > 173 From: "Luiz Renato Vieira de Castro e Silva" Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:15am Subject: BRAZILIAN NOVICEN IN THE GROUP vieiradecast... Offline Send Email HELLO GUYS, FIRST, I WANT THANKS FOR HAVING ME ACCEPTED IN GROUP. I AM CONSTRUCTING A TWIN-SEAT TRIKE, WITH ENGINE Vw AIR COOLED 1600cc, TUBULAR STRUCTURE IN STEEL SAE 1020, UNTIL the MOMENT ALL GOOD, MY GREAT PROBLEM THIS In the WING....... SOME COLLEAGUE COULD SAY ME IF IS COMPLICATED EXCESSIVELY TO CONVERT A WING OF FREE FLIGHT MODEL TRUE FLIGHT MADE IN N.A. TO BE USED IN MY TRIKE? THE REINFORCEMENTS ARE MORE DIFICULT TO MAKE? ANY INFORMATION WILL BE COMING WELL! BESTS REGARDS! LUIZ RENATO FARM SANTA LUZIA BRASIL 174 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:15am Subject: Re: OK guys what tto do??? captain_jims Offline Send Email Engine options. There are a lot of engine options, but given a tight budget, I cant think of any that will give more for the money that the Kaw440. The Rotax all get very expensive in the parts market. You would have twice as much in a R377 as a Kaw440. The sled parts suppliers are all on line so your location is not an issue. Do some parts shopping and make up your own mind. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" wrote: > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > Oh this info is helping alot and I am feeling like I can do this now!! > just need some $$$.. > Is a KAW engine the only one that will work with a redrive? > > 175 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:20am Subject: Re: BRAZILIAN NOVICEN IN THE GROUP captain_jims Offline Send Email Hello, glad to have you aboard. Everyone is welcome as long as their posts are Trike and Trike building related. Glad to hear about someone working in steel tube, That is my favorite way to build. On the wing, I have tried to convert a Vision Mark 19 by sleeving, but found that the manufacturer had already sleeved to get to the Mark 19 from the Mark 17, a smaller wing. No place for additional sleeves, so I sold the wing. The problem for you will come in that the reinforcements are normally aluminum tube sleeves slid inside the existing tubes. You will need to get high quality exact size tubing, normally inch, not metric. Even then, it is not an easy job. Today, no one is giving advice on this. Use to be a site with some guidance, but that has been taken down. The best choice in a hang glider is a tandem glider from a training school. They normally have a 440 lb hook in rating which should be plenty. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Luiz Renato Vieira de Castro e Silva" wrote: > > HELLO GUYS, > > FIRST, I WANT THANKS FOR HAVING ME ACCEPTED IN GROUP. I AM > CONSTRUCTING A TWIN-SEAT TRIKE, WITH ENGINE Vw AIR COOLED 1600cc, > TUBULAR STRUCTURE IN STEEL SAE 1020, UNTIL the MOMENT ALL GOOD, MY > GREAT PROBLEM THIS In the WING....... SOME COLLEAGUE COULD SAY ME IF > IS COMPLICATED EXCESSIVELY TO CONVERT A WING OF FREE FLIGHT MODEL > TRUE FLIGHT MADE IN N.A. TO BE USED IN MY TRIKE? THE REINFORCEMENTS > ARE MORE DIFICULT TO MAKE? ANY INFORMATION WILL BE COMING WELL! > > BESTS REGARDS! > > LUIZ RENATO > FARM SANTA LUZIA > BRASIL 176 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:24am Subject: Will delete all off topic posts - moderator captain_jims Offline Send Email I did not make the point in the previous post, but I will simply delete all off topic posts. If there is not a tie to Trikes or Trike building, it is gone. My judgement, no appeal. If anyone wants to argue politics, or just flame, please find another forum to vent. This will not be the place. Now after that rather harsh statement, I must say that our little group has stayed on topic very well. Please continue the excellent effort to keep this group focused. Jim 177 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:30am Subject: Re: OK guys what tto do??? captain_jims Offline Send Email Further note on engine options. I still am working on my mini trike with a 13 hp Tecumseh engine. When I find or build the right wing, I will attempt to fly that. Given the right wing and a little push in power to 16 hp, that will fly. I weigh 225lbs, if I were 175lbs, 12 hp would be enough. That is a marginal climb rate capability, but, it will be fun in calm conditions. I would like to get it flying for this year yet. Can you see the looks on faces at the local air shows and breakfasts. There I am flying with a lawnmower engine with a one gallon tank. I have the engine and prop mounted on the finished frame. Another 20 hours of labor and it will fly. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > > Engine options. > There are a lot of engine options, but given a tight budget, I cant > think of any that will give more for the money that the Kaw440. The > Rotax all get very expensive in the parts market. You would have twice > as much in a R377 as a Kaw440. The sled parts suppliers are all on > line so your location is not an issue. Do some parts shopping and > make up your own mind. > > Jim > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" > wrote: > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > > Oh this info is helping alot and I am feeling like I can do this now!! > > just need some $$$.. > > Is a KAW engine the only one that will work with a redrive? > > > > 178 From: "jhopper80" Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 4:21pm Subject: Where to buy j-bird redrives? jhopper80 Offline Send Email Where to buy j-bird redrives? 179 From: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 4:59pm Subject: New file uploaded to Lite_Trike_Builders Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Send Email Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Lite_Trike_Builders group. File : /340.pdf Uploaded by : captain_jims Description : Sabre 340 assembly instructions You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lite_Trike_Builders/files/340.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, captain_jims 180 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:00pm Subject: Re: Where to buy j-bird redrives? captain_jims Offline Send Email You can buy the complete drive from Jbird in Wisconsin, but given your budget, I dont recommend it. I will find a copy of the drawing of the drive for you, but it is so simple that you can build it at home a lot cheaper. Takes two pillow block bearings, a 1/1/2" shaft, (I used 4130 heavy wall tubing), and a couple of 4 strand v-belt pulleys. Get those from the farm supply store or from a bearing/belt supplier. These were used on about 700 Sabre trikes and you may find a good used one out on the market when someone went to a different engine. The Sabre used a 2" wide cog belt instead of v-belts. The pulleys are a lot more expensive due to patents on the tooth shape. Limited sources for the pulleys. I uploaded a file to the files section for you to read. 340.pdf. That is the assembly instructions for the Sabre 340. Several pictures of the redrive and you can see how simple it is. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" wrote: > > Where to buy j-bird redrives? 181 From: "Bill Czygan" Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:23pm Subject: Re: Where to buy j-bird redrives? bczygan Offline Send Email Kawasaki Yahoo Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kaw440/?yguid=60424946 J-Bird contact info (free catalog no website): J-Bird 262-626-2611 Bill Czygan --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" wrote: > > Where to buy j-bird redrives? 183 From: "mnf313" Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:11pm Subject: Re: Mikes trike? mnf313 Offline Send Email --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" wrote: > > Has mike shared any plans of his trike with anyone? > Mike if you are still around you made a neat trike and I would like > to know more about it. > What engine was put on it? Hi Hopper! thank you, and yes, i am still around. the trike has a hirth f-33. 28 hp. 2.5 reduction- powerfin e blade ground pitchable prop. 2 gal.tank. Jims info is correct. no plans have been produced. it was all designed on autocad, and built in a machine shop. there are a considerable number of cnc fittings on my trike. were i to build another, i'd use 4130, and save a bunch of weight. with a harbor freight tube bender, i think a guy could do even better, out of his garage! Jims suggestion regarding pvc plastic pipe is a good one. worked for me. mike 184 From: "Bill Czygan" Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:25pm Subject: Re: Mikes trike? bczygan Offline Send Email Mike, Any chance of getting a look at some of the AutoCad files? I've got AutoCad. How about some close up shots of the details and some rough overall dimensions? Your trike is a very intriguing starting point for designing. And it's just plain beautiful! Bill Czygan --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mnf313" wrote: > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" > wrote: > > > > Has mike shared any plans of his trike with anyone? > > Mike if you are still around you made a neat trike and I would like > > to know more about it. > > What engine was put on it? > > Hi Hopper! > > thank you, and yes, i am still around. > the trike has a hirth f-33. 28 hp. 2.5 reduction- powerfin e > blade ground pitchable prop. 2 gal.tank. > Jims info is correct. no plans have been produced. it was all > designed on autocad, and built in a machine shop. > there are a considerable number of cnc fittings on my trike. > were i to build another, i'd use 4130, and save a bunch of weight. > with a harbor freight tube bender, i think a guy could do even > better, out of his garage! > Jims suggestion regarding pvc plastic pipe is a good one. > worked for me. > mike 185 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:58pm Subject: AutoCad viewer captain_jims Offline Send Email Here is a link to a FREE AutoCad file viewer for anyone that wants to view, not make, AutoCad drawings in the dwg format. This is a freeware/shareware service that I use a lot. There stuff is good quality. I have not used this one, but would expect good performance. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mnf313" wrote: > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" > wrote: > > > > Has mike shared any plans of his trike with anyone? > > Mike if you are still around you made a neat trike and I would like > > to know more about it. > > What engine was put on it? > > Hi Hopper! > > thank you, and yes, i am still around. > the trike has a hirth f-33. 28 hp. 2.5 reduction- powerfin e > blade ground pitchable prop. 2 gal.tank. > Jims info is correct. no plans have been produced. it was all > designed on autocad, and built in a machine shop. > there are a considerable number of cnc fittings on my trike. > were i to build another, i'd use 4130, and save a bunch of weight. > with a harbor freight tube bender, i think a guy could do even > better, out of his garage! > Jims suggestion regarding pvc plastic pipe is a good one. > worked for me. > mike 186 From: "jhopper80" Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:28am Subject: KAW 440 question? jhopper80 Offline Send Email I need to know why the KAW 440 is the engine to put on a trike? Can you explain what is diffrent from the 440A and other models? And can any other motorcycle engines be used? YAHMAHA? HONDA? thanks 187 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:35am Subject: Re: KAW 440 question? captain_jims Offline Send Email The Kaw440 is NOT a motorcycle engine. Motorcycle engines have not generally been successful on trikes. The Kaw440 has an excellent history of many users on ultralights. It is easy to maintain, low cost, parts are readily available. There is a Kaw440 group on yahoo. Recommend that u join that for many details on that engine. Lots of information there. For your budget, it is either the Kaw340, 440 or the small Rotax engines, but the Kaw440 is the most for the least. It is a nicely built engine. And is tougher than the Rotax, not so easy to overheat. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" wrote: > > I need to know why the KAW 440 is the engine to put on a trike? > Can you explain what is diffrent from the 440A and other models? > And can any other motorcycle engines be used? YAHMAHA? HONDA? > thanks 188 From: "Bill Czygan" Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:47am Subject: Re: KAW 440 question?/Link to KAW Group bczygan Offline Send Email Here's a link to the Kawasaki Yahoo Group. Also has info on Mikuni Carbs. Look in files section for lots of info. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kaw440?yguid=60424946 Bill Czygan --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" wrote: > > I need to know why the KAW 440 is the engine to put on a trike? > Can you explain what is diffrent from the 440A and other models? > And can any other motorcycle engines be used? YAHMAHA? HONDA? > thanks 189 From: "jhopper80" Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:17am Subject: Re: KAW 440 question? jhopper80 Offline Send Email Thanks guys!! great advice.. Cant beat this group!! --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > > The Kaw440 is NOT a motorcycle engine. Motorcycle engines have not > generally been successful on trikes. > > The Kaw440 has an excellent history of many users on ultralights. It > is easy to maintain, low cost, parts are readily available. There is a > Kaw440 group on yahoo. Recommend that u join that for many details on > that engine. Lots of information there. > > For your budget, it is either the Kaw340, 440 or the small Rotax > engines, but the Kaw440 is the most for the least. It is a nicely > built engine. And is tougher than the Rotax, not so easy to overheat. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" > wrote: > > > > I need to know why the KAW 440 is the engine to put on a trike? > > Can you explain what is diffrent from the 440A and other models? > > And can any other motorcycle engines be used? YAHMAHA? HONDA? > > thanks 190 From: "moe113097" Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:10am Subject: my BB trike with rotax 503 for sale on Barnstormers.com moe113097 Send IM Send Email Hi All, I'm selling my BB trike W/ Rotax 503 if anyone is interested http://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?id=71040 Moe 191 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:50am Subject: Kawasaki Engine and drive on eBay captain_jims Offline Send Email Nice 340cc Kaw with a redrive. This is the same engine I have on my Sabre and is plenty of power for a single place. Jim 192 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:14am Subject: Raven vs Klass captain_jims Offline Send Email I have watched with some interest as the Engineer from Raven and a Sales Rep of Klass have exchanged heated emails on the Geo group, but unfortunately, when you read for real details of a performance and reliability comaprison, you soon see that this debate is not much more than the classic "My Chevy is better than your Ford" kind of debate. To help you understand what is really required on this kind of comparison is some data is well known and accepted formats. This may be new to you, but has been used in commercial and industrial purchase decisions for years (30+) 1. Weibull analysis of all drives produced 2. Maintenance hours per hour of flight 3. Maintenance cost per hour of flight. A brief discussion and I will expand if there is further interest. Economic Life of a item like a redrive is defined as "when the cost of ownership exceeds the cost of a new or rebuilt replacement" Only by having the data list above can the economic life be determined. The Weibull analysis gives the probability of failure at any point in the life of the product. The maintencance costs are simply the costs of maintaining the status quo. But as life passes, the maintenance costs increase and the probablility of further life decreases, The cross-over depends on your evaluation of various costs. What is the price you would pay to avoid an engine out landing for example. Bottom line: So far in the debate between these two manufacturers, we have not seen any data that can be used for a rational decision. Maybe, but more like, maybe not. Jim 193 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue May 10, 2005 9:24am Subject: Design Review of the SPG-2 Redrive unit captain_jims Offline Send Email SPG-2 Speed Reducer and Prop Drive Critical Design Review This review is not intended as a balanced review looking at the positives and negatives of the product, but rather this is clearly labeled "a critical review" in which only those items that exhibit a weakness in product operation or support are analyzed. This is much like searching for the weak links in the chain. Several issues were identified that have resulted in a "do not purchase" recommendation. They are listed below with a brief explanation. It should be stressed that we did not have access to the engineering drawings from which this product is manufactured, but instead have relied on photographs during data gathering. - Product description The SPG-2 PSRU (Propeller Speed Reduction Unit) is a single reduction gear drive utilizing two helical cut gears mounted on shafting which is supported by ball bearings at each end. No method of preloading the bearings is apparent. The torque is transmitted by a fabricated shaft which is driven by an extension of the flywheel bolts. This shaft drives a 3 bolt "star" assembly which is welded to the shaft. This shaft is a non-precision assembly which appears to be lathe turned after welding. The engine output torque is then passed to a non-metallic assembly (held by three bolts) that is most often used to handle mis-alignment (much like a u-joint) by other manufacturers. In this assembly, that non-metallic unit is referred to as the torsional vibration damper. But that function is unclear due to the high stiffness of the assembly. However, the mis-alignment function is needed due to the rough nature of the "star" shaft assembly. The drive unit is contained within 4 castings which appeared to void free with a minimum of machine work to establish flat faces and bolt holes and/ or threads. Initial areas of of concern that should be investigated. (We did not investigate all to reach our conclusion) 1. Ball bearings 2. Lack of pilot pins between castings 3. Flatness and parallelism of the machined surfaces of the castings 4. Gear tooth hardness profile 5. Straightness of the "star shaft assembly" 6. Torque transfer capability of the "star assembly" as limited by three bolts 7. Torsional stiffness of the non-metallic coupling 8. Output shaft end play - Ball bearings throughout the drive instead of tapered roller bearings Ball bearings are best known for their low cost. The low density ball spacing bearings (balls far apart, ie, very few balls per bearing) found in this drive are best used in a very low cost assembly such as a yard implement. The critical load here is the thrust load from the propeller which is taken through these low density bearings. This thrust load alone is sufficient to load the bearings to a critically high load at the 375# prop thrust associated with the 1.0L G10 application. This overload condition will result in surface fatigue of the balls and races. This will be first detected thru particles in the lubricant and the actual life will be unpredictable, but a bearing failure can be rapid after the surface begins to fatigue. This issue appears to be substantiated by the recommendation to periodically replace the bearings. Helical cut gears have the advantage of multiple teeth carrying the torque load and quieter operation, but the significant disadvantage of creating a side load on the gears that must be resisted by the bearings. Depending on the tractor vs pusher application, this load will be additive to the prop thrust load. This will result in a significant thrust load on the ball bearings. A second issue with the ball bearings is the inability to preload the bearing to prevent end play of the driven shaft. A torque is applied and removed from the propeller, it will cause the shaft to shift throughout it range of end play which will lead to accelerated seal wear. Tapered roller bearings are preloaded against each other to prevent this "loose" behavior. - Substantially overpriced An initial costing evaluation would place the total cost of manufacturing at less than $400. The retail price of the unit is listed at $1750 indicating substantial markup as the units are passed thru multiple hands in the long distribution chain. To confirm these costs of manufacturing, this unit was compared to similar industrial units of the same size. Those units, manufactured in the US, are priced in the $800-$1000 range even though they often include a double reduction and tapered roller bearings. Further, the well known Rotax gearboxes are now being marketed for approximately $500. Initially, we viewed the pricing as appropriate for the 140 hp rating as advertised. However, after the bearing analysis and a review of an additional limitation of not running the 1.0L engine at full throttle for more than four minutes, we concluded that the 140 hp rating is a peak, extremely limited time rating that is not applicable for the aircraft application. The four minute warning as applied to the 1.0L engine raises concern about the utilization on the 1.3L engine. With the 1.3L engine capable of 90 hp, 70% of that is 63 hp which is effectively full throttle for the 1.0L engine. Therefore, it would appear that the unit is not capable of a normal 70% power sustained cruise when used with the 1.3L engine. - No warranty No warranty of any form is listed for the unit. 194 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun May 15, 2005 6:13pm Subject: Re: Design Review of the SPG-2 Redrive unit captain_jims Offline Send Email Well, I posted the following observations of the SPG-2 Redrive on the Geo site. I ended up getting validation of all these points, some in a round about way, but I did find to my satisfaction that the importer and the distributor do not understand that simple drive. The humorous side of the discussion was the fierce defense of the current design by the group. A total rejection of design ideas by a vocal few with a strong defense of that design. No discussion at all. The interesting thing about talking about issues related to fatigue failure like a number of these are this. When you apply good engineering analysis, like the ball bearing analysis for example, that identifies a potential problem. It may not have yet been detected but it will be. And when it is, then it will like the Titanic sinking, "but nobody told us". Aha, but you did not listen. So, we will wait thru this flying season and maybe next as the hours build on these drives. 1. No pilot pins between castings, Normally there for initial alignment and to prevent movement in operation. 2. Gasketed surfaces between the two gearbox halves. Modern design practices use a groove containing a rubber seal so compression of the gasket in use does not affect the bolt tightness. 3. The engine ouput torque is being taken on a very small radius, ie, the flywheel mounting bolts, rather than the normal large radius of the torque converter mounting. 4. Unable to put a torque wrench on the extended flywheel bolts. 5, The flywheel bolts now span three mating surface pairs rather than the original single mating surface pair. Each mating surface pair increases the liklihood of loose bolts. This joint has a critically high load. 6. The combination of the coupling and the long drive tube, two springs in series, actually control the torsional fundamental frequency. The spring rate of the tube assembly plays an important role here and it is undamped. 7. Ball bearings instead of tapered roller bearings. This gearbox is required to take the prop thrust, but ball bearings have a low thrust capability. 8. A ball bearing taking thrust loads is held in by a snap ring. 9. Abid's site warns not to operate this gearbox on a G10 at full throttle more than 4 minutes. Full throttle of the G10 is about the same power as cruise of the G13. This 4 minute limit and the use with the G13 seem at odds. 10. Appears to be inaccessible to tighten key bolts with the unit installed. A bolt and nut are used in several locations(8) and the bolt head is not exposed when installed. These are the bolts that are across the gasketed surface and can be expected to need tightening. 196 From: "captain_jims" Date: Thu May 26, 2005 9:49am Subject: Direct drive HP captain_jims Offline Send Email I invite you to join me in a good chuckle. The Geo groups have finally decided to examine the hp curves for the G10 and G13 engines. (3 cyl and 4 cyl). And what do they find, the G10 puts out 41 hp and the G13 puts out 54 hp at 3000+ rpm. Amazing what a little science will bring to a long standing argument that the engine had no power with direct drive. Now, what does that compare to. I have been using the comparison of a Rotax 503 to the G13 dd. About 53 hp each. While the G13 is at a higher rpm and somewhat ineffecient due to that, the 503 dual carb is so peaky, that exact prop matching is unlikely. What about weight, well a 503 powered aircraft would normally have about a 12 gal tank. With the G13, only 6 gal is required. Save 6 gal x 7 lbs per gal or 42 lbs of fuel on takeoff. and save 6 gal x $2.25 each flight. That is a $13.50 savings each time out plus the cost of the 2 cycle oil which is another $1.50 for 12 gal. Total $15.00 per flight savings. So, the bottom line is that we can have a 503 power equivalent for under $1000 that uses $15.00 less in fuel for each tank full. Sold. Jim 197 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Jun 3, 2005 5:50pm Subject: update on Sport Pilot for trikes--time extension? captain_jims Offline Send Email Here is a quote from the USUA site dated May 2005 "USUA Petitions FAA To Extend Sport Pilot Deadlines: Acting from a request from it's members, and with the encouragement of the FAA Sport Pilot Branch (AFS-610), USUA is taking the lead in an action that will allow additional time for ultralight pilots and their vehicles, to transition into Sport Pilot. And, since the existing ultralight training programs have been extremely successful in training safe pilots throughout the years, USUA is also recommending that the exemptions allowing two place ultralights for training purposes, be extended as well." Note, the extension request was encouraged by the FAA. Based on that statement alone, sounds like the FAA will grant the request. Best guess on announcement time, EAA at Oshkosh next month. Probably the only remaining question is: one year or two. Full report here http://www.usua.org/HQNews/Archive/200505.html Jim 198 From: "jag200147265" Date: Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:17pm Subject: new lite trike jag200147265 Offline Send Email Have uploaded a few pictures in Lite_Trike_Builders under Heli50 of a 97 pound trike I've just finished. The frame was made of an old wing which I had laying around, 1 1/2 tubing, all sleeved. 5 inch alum. wheels, hyd disc. brake, 100cc 20hp PCR Kart engine with elec. start, cog belt drive with 52 inch prop. 3 gallon fuel tank from a Troy-built tractor. Thrust is just over 100 pounds. Folding mask with a quick latching device. Everything needed to build this project came from a Kart shop, except for the tubing , cables and prop. I believe I'll replace the front brake with a rub plate. Its not like I'm stopping a race car. Also thinking of rear suspension for the near future. A question I have for all, what would be a good hang-glidder wing for this trike? My weight and trike with fuel is around 250... Thanks, John.. 199 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:12pm Subject: Re: new lite trike captain_jims Offline Send Email Very nice, thanks for sharing those pics. I had a Vision Mark IV-19 wing for a while. Its hookin weight goes up to 265#. With my weight at 225, I never did fly it with my trike. Thought I could sleeve it, but it was already step sleeved inside the tubes to get it to the -19 from the -17. I had talked with several folks who recommended that wing. Sounds like it would be a good choice for your trike. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jag200147265" wrote: > > Have uploaded a few pictures in Lite_Trike_Builders under Heli50 of > a 97 pound trike I've just finished. The frame was made of an old wing > which I had laying around, 1 1/2 tubing, all sleeved. 5 inch alum. > wheels, hyd disc. brake, 100cc 20hp PCR Kart engine with elec. start, > cog belt drive with 52 inch prop. 3 gallon fuel tank from a Troy-built > tractor. Thrust is just over 100 pounds. Folding mask with a quick > latching device. Everything needed to build this project came from a > Kart shop, except for the tubing , cables and prop. I believe I'll > replace the front brake with a rub plate. Its not like I'm stopping a > race car. Also thinking of rear suspension for the near future. A > question I have for all, what would be a good hang-glidder wing for > this trike? My weight and trike with fuel is around 250... Thanks, > John.. 200 From: "Donald Barnard" Date: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:56am Subject: Heavier Loads donbetholmar Offline Send Email Fellows, I just now joined this Trike Group. I'm a heavy man interested in a trike with a useful load around 525 lbs. What wing, engine, and 2 seat trike frame is recommended. Looking at a G10 or G13 engine if wing & trike frame can be made to work out. Hope empty wt. is under 465 lbs if possible. Don Barnard, Boaz, AL 201 From: "kmatti2001" Date: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:01pm Subject: Re: OK guys what tto do??? kmatti2001 Offline Send Email All, New member here. I have a Dream 220 wing which was built extra strong and was thinking about putting a four stroke B&S of 24hp on a trike frame to fly it, but maybe that is too much hp, read that too much extra money spent. Also, you also mentioned some plans/diagrahms of a redrive for the 440. since it is so cheap then using a 440 maight be a good option, alos. Thanks in advance for the advice. Ken p.s. I have a few 8' 2" square, .125 tubes I was planning on using for the frame. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > > Further note on engine options. I still am working on my mini trike > with a 13 hp Tecumseh engine. When I find or build the right wing, I > will attempt to fly that. Given the right wing and a little push in > power to 16 hp, that will fly. I weigh 225lbs, if I were 175lbs, 12 > hp would be enough. That is a marginal climb rate capability, but, it > will be fun in calm conditions. > > I would like to get it flying for this year yet. Can you see the looks > on faces at the local air shows and breakfasts. There I am flying > with a lawnmower engine with a one gallon tank. I have the engine and > prop mounted on the finished frame. Another 20 hours of labor and it > will fly. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > > > Engine options. > > There are a lot of engine options, but given a tight budget, I cant > > think of any that will give more for the money that the Kaw440. The > > Rotax all get very expensive in the parts market. You would have twice > > as much in a R377 as a Kaw440. The sled parts suppliers are all on > > line so your location is not an issue. Do some parts shopping and > > make up your own mind. > > > > Jim > > > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > > > Oh this info is helping alot and I am feeling like I can do this now!! > > > just need some $$$.. > > > Is a KAW engine the only one that will work with a redrive? > > > > > > 202 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:43pm Subject: Re: OK guys what tto do??? captain_jims Offline Send Email I have heard good things about the Dream 220. A little slow for a trike, but will soar. There is a four stroke engine group that has been discussing the 24 hp BS engine. That is an engine that would be on my "do" list. The 440 is a known entity, but the BS would be fun to do, and will be economical on gas. As far as the tubing, my Sabre is almost all 2" square alum tube, my sbsGeoTrike has a lot of 2" sq steel tube. I like to work the 2" tube and square allows for some nice looking fittings. The assembly manual for the Sabre is in the Files section so you can see those fittings. Back to the overall concept of what you are doing, the 440 is really too much power for the Dream Wing. It is big and slow and would be a good platform for working with the BS 24 hp engine. And that definitely would be an attention getter. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "kmatti2001" wrote: > All, > > New member here. I have a Dream 220 wing which was built extra > strong and was thinking about putting a four stroke B&S of 24hp on a > trike frame to fly it, but maybe that is too much hp, read that too > much extra money spent. > > Also, you also mentioned some plans/diagrahms of a redrive for the > 440. since it is so cheap then using a 440 maight be a good option, > alos. Thanks in advance for the advice. > > Ken > > p.s. I have a few 8' 2" square, .125 tubes I was planning on using > for the frame. > > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > > > Further note on engine options. I still am working on my mini trike > > with a 13 hp Tecumseh engine. When I find or build the right wing, > I > > will attempt to fly that. Given the right wing and a little push in > > power to 16 hp, that will fly. I weigh 225lbs, if I were 175lbs, 12 > > hp would be enough. That is a marginal climb rate capability, but, > it > > will be fun in calm conditions. > > > > I would like to get it flying for this year yet. Can you see the > looks > > on faces at the local air shows and breakfasts. There I am flying > > with a lawnmower engine with a one gallon tank. I have the engine > and > > prop mounted on the finished frame. Another 20 hours of labor and it > > will fly. > > > > Jim > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > > wrote: > > > > > > Engine options. > > > There are a lot of engine options, but given a tight budget, I > cant > > > think of any that will give more for the money that the Kaw440. > The > > > Rotax all get very expensive in the parts market. You would have > twice > > > as much in a R377 as a Kaw440. The sled parts suppliers are all > on > > > line so your location is not an issue. Do some parts shopping and > > > make up your own mind. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > > > > Oh this info is helping alot and I am feeling like I can do > this now!! > > > > just need some $$$.. > > > > Is a KAW engine the only one that will work with a redrive? > > > > > > > > 203 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:15am Subject: Re: OK guys what tto do??? captain_jims Offline Send Email Lot of good reading here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Small4-strokeEngines/ Several examples of flying projects using the industrial engines. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "kmatti2001" wrote: > All, > > New member here. I have a Dream 220 wing which was built extra > strong and was thinking about putting a four stroke B&S of 24hp on a > trike frame to fly it, but maybe that is too much hp, read that too > much extra money spent. > > Also, you also mentioned some plans/diagrahms of a redrive for the > 440. since it is so cheap then using a 440 maight be a good option, > alos. Thanks in advance for the advice. > > Ken > > p.s. I have a few 8' 2" square, .125 tubes I was planning on using > for the frame. > > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > > > Further note on engine options. I still am working on my mini trike > > with a 13 hp Tecumseh engine. When I find or build the right wing, > I > > will attempt to fly that. Given the right wing and a little push in > > power to 16 hp, that will fly. I weigh 225lbs, if I were 175lbs, 12 > > hp would be enough. That is a marginal climb rate capability, but, > it > > will be fun in calm conditions. > > > > I would like to get it flying for this year yet. Can you see the > looks > > on faces at the local air shows and breakfasts. There I am flying > > with a lawnmower engine with a one gallon tank. I have the engine > and > > prop mounted on the finished frame. Another 20 hours of labor and it > > will fly. > > > > Jim > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > > wrote: > > > > > > Engine options. > > > There are a lot of engine options, but given a tight budget, I > cant > > > think of any that will give more for the money that the Kaw440. > The > > > Rotax all get very expensive in the parts market. You would have > twice > > > as much in a R377 as a Kaw440. The sled parts suppliers are all > on > > > line so your location is not an issue. Do some parts shopping and > > > make up your own mind. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jhopper80" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > > > > Oh this info is helping alot and I am feeling like I can do > this now!! > > > > just need some $$$.. > > > > Is a KAW engine the only one that will work with a redrive? > > > > > > > > 204 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:12am Subject: Nanolight Trike group captain_jims Offline Send Email For reference materials on nanolight trikes, see this interesting group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NanolightTrikers/ It is hosted by John W Reynoldson and others. He is currently flying a nanolight with a rigid wing. I believe that this approach will lead to the next step up in performance. In response to a question, I posted the name of the Lite Trike Builders group on his group and wanted to give him fair mention here. Jim 205 From: "kmatti2001" Date: Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:06pm Subject: Re: Nanolight Trike group kmatti2001 Offline Send Email Jim, Thanks for the info. I've been on the nonolight trike group for a while and heard about this group there. I would still like to get any info you are willing to share on the redrive. I have a cuyana 215 that I would like to make a redrive for. Thanks. Ken --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > For reference materials on nanolight trikes, see this interesting group > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NanolightTrikers/ > > It is hosted by John W Reynoldson and others. He is currently flying > a nanolight with a rigid wing. I believe that this approach will lead > to the next step up in performance. > > In response to a question, I posted the name of the Lite Trike > Builders group on his group and wanted to give him fair mention here. > > Jim 206 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:20pm Subject: Re: Nanolight Trike group captain_jims Offline Send Email Look in the file section of this group and find the file 340.pdf. That is the assembly instructions for a Sabre trike and has some good photos of the redrive there. That general concept is easy to build and will work on many engines. There is another version of this using v-belts instead of cog and is generally referred to as a 'j-bird' redrive since the parts are sold by a company in Wisconsin called Jbird. A lot of what controls the redrive requirements is what u will be using it on and whether u can tolerate the center of the prop opposite the cylinders. Note: I am flying a Sabre 340 now with the redrive shown and am very happy with it. I check the parts after every flight as I am building confidence in it, and everything looks fine. The bearing and belt are just warm to the touch, not hot. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "kmatti2001" wrote: > Jim, > > Thanks for the info. I've been on the nonolight trike group for a > while and heard about this group there. I would still like to get any > info you are willing to share on the redrive. I have a cuyana 215 that > I would like to make a redrive for. Thanks. > > Ken > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > For reference materials on nanolight trikes, see this interesting > group > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NanolightTrikers/ > > > > It is hosted by John W Reynoldson and others. He is currently flying > > a nanolight with a rigid wing. I believe that this approach will lead > > to the next step up in performance. > > > > In response to a question, I posted the name of the Lite Trike > > Builders group on his group and wanted to give him fair mention here. > > > > Jim 208 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Jul 6, 2005 3:28am Subject: Waste Spark Ignition captain_jims Offline Send Email I see a number of references to the 'nessa' site for information on how to install the waste spark ignition system. I have the system described there running on my G13 and let me assure you that you CANNOT buy, build, and install the system from the information there. When I have time, I will make a more complete page and post it, but here are some missing questions and answers. If you are actually going to install one, you may contact me for more details. 1. What GM parts are required? The ignition modules and coils from a 1990 Chevy Beretta. Anything newer than a 1991 module will NOT work, it requires the computer, this early version does not. 1a. How about ignition wires? Locate the ignition module and either buy wires to fit or have them custome made. I used the Beretta wires. Just lucky they fit with my module location. 2. Where do I get them and how much? Autozone or Advance auto, $150. 3. What reference material should I read? Not the Geo manual, but the 1990 Chevy manual 4. What about the mag pickup? A 12 v three wire, .62" diameter. The pickup distance is related to the diameter and if you get one smaller, it has to be mounted too close to the pulley. 5. Where is the pulley drilled? Too complex to answer here, but I have a diagram. This is the most difficult part. The pulley must be lathe turned and 7 holes drilled. 6. How do I hook up a tachometer There is a pin on the ignition module that drives the tach, I used a Sun. 7. How do I hook up to the ignition module? Advance Auto has a catalog of obsolete pigtales. The two required can be purchased 'special order' for $40. They sanp into the ignition module. 8. How do I check the timing when it is all running? Best news here. An old fashioned timing light will work when cranking or running. 9. Where should I mount the mag pickup for the crank pulley? Where you can build in adjustment to move the pickup around the pulley to fine tune the timing. 10. What Geo parts are used in this system? Just the pulley, all the rest are made or purchased. I put it on a 2000 that was DIS and did not use any Geo parts at all. 11. What does the engine do if I dont get all these details right? Makes terrible noises and spits fire out both ends. This took me weeks to dig out, hope it saves someone some time. Once installed, it seems like a solid system so far. Jim 209 From: "captain_jims" Date: Thu Jul 7, 2005 9:04am Subject: Recommended engine gauges captain_jims Offline Send Email One member asked about gauges. I used the Sun gauges from AutoZone and Advanced Auto. Very nice gauges and low cost. $30 each and the tach was $50. There are two types of gauges, mechanical and electrical, recommend the electrical since you only have a wire between the engine and he panel, the mechanical are cheaper but you have a more complex hookup. Jim 210 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:02pm Subject: Auction Sale of a Fuel Injection Rail and Throttle body captain_jims Offline Send Email I have two auctions on eBay that may be of interest. The first is the complete Fuel Injection Rail for a 1.3L 4 cyl Geo. This is includes all 4 injectors that list at about $316 each at AutoZone. I also have the portion of the engine harness with the connectors for these injectors. The wiring is not listed in the auction. But if someone on here buys it, just remind me to put it in the box. The second item is the throttle body for the same engine, complete with Throttle position sensor. Use the eBay search and enter either of these two numbers to see the current status. 7986213461 7986213499 Jim 211 From: "Bob Arnold" Date: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:10pm Subject: Aluminium strength judeanbob Offline Send Email I'm going to construct my single seat trike frame soon and becauee I live in a remote area I have a problem getting the 6061-T6 grade aluminium tube as well as a lot of other bits and peices. I was thinking about using the same lightweight tube used in the manufacturing of auto protection bars of say 2" OD x 1/8 or 3/16" wall thickness. It might be a bit over engineered but the little extra weight involved would be hardly noticed with a 447 as the power source. This tube can be welded and/or bent without any major weakening of the material and personally, I think it would be a stronger setup overall. What are your thoughts? 212 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:53pm Subject: Re: Aluminium strength captain_jims Offline Send Email I think that is a completely workable plan. I would use the heavier wall for the lower member that carries the pilots weight in bending as well as the mast that handles the twisting load from the wing. The lighter gage can be used for the front strut. Many folks get carried away with the high tensile strength of 6061 and 7075 without realizing that the high strength comes at the expense of brittleness. The tube you describe should be very ductile to be bent in the shape of the protection bars. That means that if you are under sized, the structure element will bend, but not fracture. That is a safe failure. I think that you will be able the come very close to the weight of my Sabre trike with this approach. The front fork will take some planning, but perhaps you can find a small bit of smaller material for that. The 2" will work fine for the landing gear, just dont cantilever. Good luck and keep us up to date on your progress. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" wrote: > I'm going to construct my single seat trike frame soon and becauee I > live in a remote area I have a problem getting the 6061-T6 grade > aluminium tube as well as a lot of other bits and peices. > I was thinking about using the same lightweight tube used in the > manufacturing of auto protection bars of say 2" OD x 1/8 or 3/16" wall > thickness. > It might be a bit over engineered but the little extra weight involved > would be hardly noticed with a 447 as the power source. > This tube can be welded and/or bent without any major weakening of the > material and personally, I think it would be a stronger setup overall. > > What are your thoughts? 213 From: "Mark Overson" Date: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:27am Subject: Re: Aluminium strength oversonlanding Offline Send Email Just a side note, Shapiro Supply will ship you anything you need and their prices are reasonable. The longest single piece you're likely to need is about 48", easily UPS shippable. Check thier website. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" wrote: > I'm going to construct my single seat trike frame soon and becauee I > live in a remote area I have a problem getting the 6061-T6 grade > aluminium tube as well as a lot of other bits and peices. > I was thinking about using the same lightweight tube used in the > manufacturing of auto protection bars of say 2" OD x 1/8 or 3/16" wall > thickness. > It might be a bit over engineered but the little extra weight involved > would be hardly noticed with a 447 as the power source. > This tube can be welded and/or bent without any major weakening of the > material and personally, I think it would be a stronger setup overall. > > What are your thoughts? 214 From: "Bob Arnold" Date: Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:14pm Subject: Re: Aluminium strength judeanbob Offline Send Email Thanks for that info Mark but I'm in Australia and I dont think Shapiro supply have a store here. I ordered the material I need from a steel supply outlet close by....should have it in a few days time. I want to follow the design of the "Gibbo trike" that has a one peice combination base and mast and has three bends.....one at the front for the steering caster angle and two at the rear where the base tube is bent up also to become the mast. I have spoken to an automotive exhaust installer who uses a hi-tech hydraulic pipe bender and he says he can bend the aluminium tube without leaving the usual impression at the site of the bend by packing the tube with a product called "Cerrabend" --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Overson" wrote: > Just a side note, Shapiro Supply will ship you anything you need and > their prices are reasonable. The longest single piece you're likely to > need is about 48", easily UPS shippable. Check thier website. > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" > wrote: > > I'm going to construct my single seat trike frame soon and becauee I > > live in a remote area I have a problem getting the 6061-T6 grade > > aluminium tube as well as a lot of other bits and peices. > > I was thinking about using the same lightweight tube used in the > > manufacturing of auto protection bars of say 2" OD x 1/8 or 3/16" > wall > > thickness. > > It might be a bit over engineered but the little extra weight > involved > > would be hardly noticed with a 447 as the power source. > > This tube can be welded and/or bent without any major weakening of > the > > material and personally, I think it would be a stronger setup overall. > > > > What are your thoughts? 215 From: "captain_jims" Date: Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:36pm Subject: Re: Aluminium strength captain_jims Offline Send Email You will want to do a hang test to check the balance of the trike. That will be a perfect time to add 3-4 times the pilot and fuel weight to check the strength. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" wrote: > Thanks for that info Mark but I'm in Australia and I dont think > Shapiro supply have a store here. I ordered the material I need > from a steel supply outlet close by....should have it in a few days > time. > I want to follow the design of the "Gibbo trike" that has a one > peice combination base and mast and has three bends.....one at the > front for the steering caster angle and two at the rear where the > base tube is bent up also to become the mast. > I have spoken to an automotive exhaust installer who uses a hi-tech > hydraulic pipe bender and he says he can bend the aluminium tube > without leaving the usual impression at the site of the bend by > packing the tube with a product called "Cerrabend" > > > - 216 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:39pm Subject: Re: Aluminium strength microsoar Offline Send Email --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" wrote: > I want to follow the design of the "Gibbo trike" that has a one > peice combination base and mast and has three bends.....one at the > front for the steering caster angle and two at the rear where the > base tube is bent up also to become the mast. A down side of this setup is that you do have to be pretty good with your centre-of-gravity calculations before you start bending, as you only get one chance to get it right or you throw the whole bent tube mast/basetube assembly away. I admit, despite my best efforts on the drawing board, and several designs under my belt, I have usually had to make (albeit slight) adjustments to the mast/basetube geometry to optimise the setup for hang angle, drag, etc... So I guess you will be having a lot of fun measuring and weighing all the bits and calculating c-of-g positions!!! :-) John R. 217 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:50pm Subject: Re: Aluminium strength captain_jims Offline Send Email John is exactly right here and I want to second what he has said. However, there is one little thing that will help. We dont know from your general description the exact list of items that you will be locating on the frame. But if there are some that you can save to last, you can use them to tune the balance of the trike carriage. On my Geo powered trike, I had a battery to play with and about four feet of range on the frame where I could locate it. Ended up at the rearmost extreme position and hit the right balance with the mast as designed. I did have several inches of play on the fore-aft position of the fuel tank but did not need to use that. But, that is why we have designers and scales. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "John W Reynoldson" wrote: > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" > wrote: > > > I want to follow the design of the "Gibbo trike" that has a one > > peice combination base and mast and has three bends.....one at the > > front for the steering caster angle and two at the rear where the > > base tube is bent up also to become the mast. > > A down side of this setup is that you do have to be pretty good with > your centre-of-gravity calculations before you start bending, as you > only get one chance to get it right or you throw the whole bent tube > mast/basetube assembly away. I admit, despite my best efforts on the > drawing board, and several designs under my belt, I have usually had > to make (albeit slight) adjustments to the mast/basetube geometry to > optimise the setup for hang angle, drag, etc... So I guess you will > be having a lot of fun measuring and weighing all the bits and > calculating c-of-g positions!!! > :-) > > John R. 218 From: Bob Date: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:43pm Subject: Re: Re: Aluminium strength judeanbob Offline Send Email Thanks John and Jim, I did think of the CG and there would be a few things I could play around with to get it right before the drastic step of slightly bending the tube a little more in the same direction if need be or..... starting from scratch One is to have an adjustable folding mast, which I originally intended to do, two would be the bum position along the base, three positioning of the engine and any other onboard necessity and four, the fore or aft position of the rear wheels but hopefully, I can get it close the first time, I'm pretty good when it comes to beginners luck . John, I have also aquired one of those rare Victa 170cc twin cylinder horizontally opposed engines that I will look at using for a nanolight, have you come across anyone who is currently using one or heard any good or negative things about them? Bob Arnold. captain_jims wrote: John is exactly right here and I want to second what he has said. However, there is one little thing that will help. We dont know from your general description the exact list of items that you will be locating on the frame. But if there are some that you can save to last, you can use them to tune the balance of the trike carriage. On my Geo powered trike, I had a battery to play with and about four feet of range on the frame where I could locate it. Ended up at the rearmost extreme position and hit the right balance with the mast as designed. I did have several inches of play on the fore-aft position of the fuel tank but did not need to use that. But, that is why we have designers and scales. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "John W Reynoldson" wrote: > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" > wrote: > > > I want to follow the design of the "Gibbo trike" that has a one > > peice combination base and mast and has three bends.....one at the > > front for the steering caster angle and two at the rear where the > > base tube is bent up also to become the mast. > > A down side of this setup is that you do have to be pretty good with > your centre-of-gravity calculations before you start bending, as you > only get one chance to get it right or you throw the whole bent tube > mast/basetube assembly away. I admit, despite my best efforts on the > drawing board, and several designs under my belt, I have usually had > to make (albeit slight) adjustments to the mast/basetube geometry to > optimise the setup for hang angle, drag, etc... So I guess you will > be having a lot of fun measuring and weighing all the bits and > calculating c-of-g positions!!! > :-) > > John R. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 219 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:26pm Subject: Re: Aluminium strength microsoar Offline Send Email Hello Bob, I presume (and I could be wrong) that you are talking about a "Skylark" horizontally opposed (boxer) engine, which was assembled from Victa parts back in the early 1980's by Ron Lang at Officer (Victoria). I'm surprised any have survived all this time!* Being hand-made one-offs, the quality and power tended to vary significantly between engines in my experience. Greg Withers (now CFI at Bright Microlight School) actually built the first trike (I was #2) in Victoria using a Skylark, and you could ask him about it. It was somewhat unreliable. I saw a few of his engine-outs myself. He scrapped it pretty quickly. Mind you, it was more powerful (if less reliable) than the single-cylinder Pixie (modified Victa with 9hp!) that my first trike had! *note: re survival of engines: my current Solo is over 20 years old. It was one of 3 engines (one was a backup spare) used by Werner Becker on his epic crossing of the Nullabor Plain in a twin- engine "jackeroo" ultralight back in about 1982, and I bought all 3 engines, which had been sitting in a shed for 15 years, for $AUD850, kept the best one and onsold the others. I fitted it with an updated head (bigger fins) a redrive and new rings, and it's served me well, though Solo don't make the parts for that particular ignition and pull start system any more: fortunately a bunch of old parts came with the package deal, still in the blister packs. John R. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Bob wrote: > Thanks John and Jim, > > I did think of the CG and there would be a few things I could play around with to get it right before the drastic step of slightly bending the tube a little more in the same direction if need be or..... starting from scratch > > One is to have an adjustable folding mast, which I originally intended to do, two would be the bum position along the base, three positioning of the engine and any other onboard necessity and four, the fore or aft position of the rear wheels but hopefully, I can get it close the first time, I'm pretty good when it comes to beginners luck . > > John, > I have also aquired one of those rare Victa 170cc twin cylinder horizontally opposed engines that I will look at using for a nanolight, have you come across anyone who is currently using one or heard any good or negative things about them? > > Bob Arnold. > 220 From: "george_rf1" Date: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:55pm Subject: Twist forces george_rf1 Offline Send Email I'm in the process of hanging my Hang Buggy on the glider, The straight hang force is pretty predictable but the twisting forces have me rather puzzled , I would guess the long wingspan leverage would put quite a bit of twisting load on the main hang tube just don't how much , like how many foot lb, I'm using falcon 195 for a wing which is very light at 55 lb. I have 6061 11/4 x 1/8 round tube for the main tube which is attached with two 1/4 inch Al side plates to a short stub on a Hang Buggy , the stub is AL 11/4 x 11/4 1/8 square "C" channel doubled inside with al "C" channel 1x1x 1/8. George 221 From: george_rf Date: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:56pm Subject: Twist forces george_rf1 Offline Send Email I'm in the process of hanging my Hang Buggy on the glider, The straight hang force is pretty predictable but the twisting forces have me rather puzzled , I would guess the long wingspan leverage would put quite a bit of twisting load on the main hang tube just don't how much , like how many foot lb, I'm using falcon 195 for a wing which is very light at 55 lb. I have 6061 11/4 x 1/8 round tube for the main tube which is attached with two 1/4 inch Al side plates to a short stub on a Hang Buggy , the stub is AL 11/4 x 11/4 1/8 square "C" channel doubled inside with al "C" channel 1x1x 1/8. George Disclaimer ; opinions of others will vary depending on what they're selling This is my website http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/index.html Look all you want but don't touch __________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 222 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:41am Subject: Re: Twist forces captain_jims Offline Send Email I would reference John Reynoldson for this information since he has done the most work in this area that I have seen. However, I did see where you posted this same message to the Nanolight group and received his answer directly. I agree with his answer. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, george_rf wrote: > > I'm in the process of hanging my Hang Buggy on the glider, The straight hang force is pretty predictable but the twisting forces have me rather puzzled , I would guess the long wingspan leverage would put quite a bit of twisting load on the main hang tube just don't how much , like how many foot lb, I'm using falcon 195 for a wing which is very light at 55 lb. I have 6061 11/4 x 1/8 round tube for the main tube which is attached with two 1/4 inch Al side plates to a short stub on a Hang Buggy , the stub is AL 11/4 x 11/4 1/8 square "C" channel doubled inside with al "C" channel 1x1x 1/8. > > George > > Disclaimer ; opinions of others will vary depending on what they're selling > > This is my website > http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/index.html > Look all you want but don't touch > __________________________________________________ > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com 223 From: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:52am Subject: New file uploaded to Lite_Trike_Builders Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Send Email Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Lite_Trike_Builders group. File : /Prop Selector.exe Uploaded by : captain_jims Description : Prop Selector You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lite_Trike_Builders/files/Prop%20Selector.exe To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, captain_jims 224 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:51am Subject: Re: Twist forces captain_jims Offline Send Email I have followed the discussion of the 'twist forces' on the Nanolight group. I think that someone needs to say straight out that a 1.25" tube will not likely handle the yaw moment from that large wing. period. Now there are two options. The first is to increase the tube size, but that simply chases the problem down into the structure. The second, and likely more desirable, for this design is to use a wing to carriage mechanism that does NOT rigidly attach the wing to the carriage, but allows some yaw freedom. John has such a design. I am now back working on my very lite trike that will not use a pivot joint at all. NONE. It will hang from the wing much like a hang glider pilot does. Just straps. With all the torque being handled by the pilot. Fundamentally, in these light designs, we need to shift gears. We cannot say, as the heavy trike folks do, that we will design a rigid structure to resist all forces. That is not consistant with lite design. On my light trike, the wing sits in a simple cradle on the ground and then will be about an inch out of the cradle in flight. I will report the test results. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, george_rf wrote: > > I'm in the process of hanging my Hang Buggy on the glider, The straight hang force is pretty predictable but the twisting forces have me rather puzzled , I would guess the long wingspan leverage would put quite a bit of twisting load on the main hang tube just don't how much , like how many foot lb, I'm using falcon 195 for a wing which is very light at 55 lb. I have 6061 11/4 x 1/8 round tube for the main tube which is attached with two 1/4 inch Al side plates to a short stub on a Hang Buggy , the stub is AL 11/4 x 11/4 1/8 square "C" channel doubled inside with al "C" channel 1x1x 1/8. > > George > > Disclaimer ; opinions of others will vary depending on what they're selling > > This is my website > http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/index.html > Look all you want but don't touch > __________________________________________________ > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com 225 From: george_rf Date: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:15am Subject: Re: Re: Twist forces george_rf1 Offline Send Email You can't tell straight out it will not handle it until you test the whole rig and know the force you need to test it to. That's why I'm trying to find out some numbers I could go with. I can increase the tube diameter up to two inches if I need to and the structure itself is very strong. I chose the trike hang joint so it can be flown by one hand and handling should be generally les demanding that way. Post some pictures of yor trike George captain_jims wrote: I have followed the discussion of the 'twist forces' on the Nanolight group. I think that someone needs to say straight out that a 1.25" tube will not likely handle the yaw moment from that large wing. period. Now there are two options. The first is to increase the tube size, but that simply chases the problem down into the structure. The second, and likely more desirable, for this design is to use a wing to carriage mechanism that does NOT rigidly attach the wing to the carriage, but allows some yaw freedom. John has such a design. I am now back working on my very lite trike that will not use a pivot joint at all. NONE. It will hang from the wing much like a hang glider pilot does. Just straps. With all the torque being handled by the pilot. Fundamentally, in these light designs, we need to shift gears. We cannot say, as the heavy trike folks do, that we will design a rigid structure to resist all forces. That is not consistant with lite design. On my light trike, the wing sits in a simple cradle on the ground and then will be about an inch out of the cradle in flight. I will report the test results. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, george_rf wrote: > > I'm in the process of hanging my Hang Buggy on the glider, The straight hang force is pretty predictable but the twisting forces have me rather puzzled , I would guess the long wingspan leverage would put quite a bit of twisting load on the main hang tube just don't how much , like how many foot lb, I'm using falcon 195 for a wing which is very light at 55 lb. I have 6061 11/4 x 1/8 round tube for the main tube which is attached with two 1/4 inch Al side plates to a short stub on a Hang Buggy , the stub is AL 11/4 x 11/4 1/8 square "C" channel doubled inside with al "C" channel 1x1x 1/8. > > George > > Disclaimer ; opinions of others will vary depending on what they're selling > > This is my website > http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/index.html > Look all you want but don't touch > __________________________________________________ > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com Disclaimer ; opinions of others will vary depending on what they're selling This is my website http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/index.html Look all you want but don't touch __________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 226 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:31am Subject: Re: Twist forces captain_jims Offline Send Email Let me amplify on my logic and I think that you will agree. On another group, we had a discussion of how much yaw would occur with a Sabre wing on a Sabre mast. So I ran some tests. First, the Sabre mast is a 2" sq alum tube .12 wall with a round tube inside it. When I applied a yaw moment with my arms, the deflection in the mast was large, I taxied around on rough ground and observed the same deflections. The wing tip was moving +/-12" from neutral as I applied a nominal yaw moment. The moment being applied by the wing is directly proportional to the observed deflection. A tube that is approx 1/2 that diameter will have deflections that are 4 times greater to resist the same moment. I will assure you, that if the mast torsional deflections were 4 times what I observed on my Sabre, the only flight would back to the hanger. I appreciate your dedication to testing since I spent 10 years as a test engineer and have often made the same statements, but the yaw observations that I have observed are simply too large to require any more testing. You will be back to the two options, either make it heavier or reduce the yaw moment input with a floating joint of some type. I also need to point out that these results have made me question the mast on my sbsGeoTrike. It has a 2" sq tube .065 wall of 4130. Since the rest of the trike structure is heavier and stiffer, the mast must take all the deflection. I have not made a final decision, but I now think that I am undersized there. It will get a thorough analysis before I continue. Photos of the very lite trike are in the 'Jim's Lite Trike' folder in the photos section. I need to add some of the mast detail. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, george_rf wrote: > > > You can't tell straight out it will not handle it until you test the whole rig and know the force you need to test it to. That's why I'm trying to find out some numbers I could go with. I can increase the tube diameter up to two inches if I need to and the structure itself is very strong. I chose the trike hang joint so it can be flown by one hand and handling should be generally les demanding that way. > Post some pictures of yor trike > George > 227 From: george_rf Date: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:57pm Subject: Re: Re: Twist forces george_rf1 Offline Send Email I agree with your logic fully, I'm well aware that increasing the tubes diameter is far more effective to the stiffness and the strength however I don't see some flexing of the system in yaw as a problem, assuming the total strength is adequate. The flex should even help dampen some of the shock load in the crooked landing. I'm trying to keep the whole thing light and slick so that's why I'm trying to go with smaller diameter tubes although I might be trying splitting hairs on this one. I am posting a mock-up picture of what I'm doing because my set up is not like a typical trike, my Hang Buggy is hung inside the control frame, this makes the main mast tube only two feet long and what is even more significant that unlike a regular trike that has the mast almost straight up mine is at very high angle almost 45degrees. Its this angle that transforms the twisting forces of the wing for a large part into bending loads on the tubes. http://tinypic.com/98wlc6.jpg The second pic shows the doubled "C" channel attachment which I consider the most critical part. I could also insert a short piece of solid square 1 inch bar instead of the inside channel. http://tinypic.com/98wlkp.jpg I appreciate your comments, Its often hard to get feedback to highly technical problems from somebody who knows what he is talking about. George captain_jims wrote: Let me amplify on my logic and I think that you will agree. On another group, we had a discussion of how much yaw would occur with a Sabre wing on a Sabre mast. So I ran some tests. First, the Sabre mast is a 2" sq alum tube .12 wall with a round tube inside it. When I applied a yaw moment with my arms, the deflection in the mast was large, I taxied around on rough ground and observed the same deflections. The wing tip was moving +/-12" from neutral as I applied a nominal yaw moment. The moment being applied by the wing is directly proportional to the observed deflection. A tube that is approx 1/2 that diameter will have deflections that are 4 times greater to resist the same moment. I will assure you, that if the mast torsional deflections were 4 times what I observed on my Sabre, the only flight would back to the hanger. I appreciate your dedication to testing since I spent 10 years as a test engineer and have often made the same statements, but the yaw observations that I have observed are simply too large to require any more testing. You will be back to the two options, either make it heavier or reduce the yaw moment input with a floating joint of some type. I also need to point out that these results have made me question the mast on my sbsGeoTrike. It has a 2" sq tube .065 wall of 4130. Since the rest of the trike structure is heavier and stiffer, the mast must take all the deflection. I have not made a final decision, but I now think that I am undersized there. It will get a thorough analysis before I continue. Photos of the very lite trike are in the 'Jim's Lite Trike' folder in the photos section. I need to add some of the mast detail. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, george_rf wrote: > > > You can't tell straight out it will not handle it until you test the whole rig and know the force you need to test it to. That's why I'm trying to find out some numbers I could go with. I can increase the tube diameter up to two inches if I need to and the structure itself is very strong. I chose the trike hang joint so it can be flown by one hand and handling should be generally les demanding that way. > Post some pictures of yor trike > George > Disclaimer ; opinions of others will vary depending on what they're selling This is my website http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/index.html Look all you want but don't touch __________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 228 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:27pm Subject: Strap and cradle microsoar Offline Send Email Interesting that you should mention the hang-strap/cradle setup, Jim. I've just this week been cleaning up the junk pile in the workshop and one of the things that got junked was, in fact, a cradle designed for just this purpose some years ago. I ended up not using it in practice because there were going to be problems with interference with the wing I was using at the time. The fitting was an inverted "U" shaped aluminium fitting lined internally with neoprene rubber (and I was not sure I had enough, there is a likelihood that the wing will bounce around in the channel a fair bit when taxiing), with a fitting underneath that allowed the "U" to move around in the tilt (pitch) and yaw axes so that it could passively track the keel, since the idea is for the keel to remain captive in the "U" after takeoff, the slack in the hang loop being only the natural stretch as the load came on. My eventual hang point, the one I am using today, LOOKS like a conventional one, but in fact in flight you are indeed only hanging on a hang strap! (see drawings at http://www.aerialpursuits.com/nanolites/pics/hangpt1.gif and http://www.aerialpursuits.com/nanolites/pics/hangpt2.gif It's complicated looking at first viewing, but is actually very simple. Maybe it's time I revisited the cradle concept to save a bit of weight. John R. 229 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:16pm Subject: Re: Strap and cradle captain_jims Offline Send Email Thanks for the good description John, I know that you had worked with the concept but did not know how yours was constructed. Mine is a formed 1/2" dia 4130 tube so it will support a piece of rubber hose pushed over it better than flat strap will. I plan to use the natural stretch in the hang strap as you described to allow the wing to lift out of the cradle. To provide lateral stability of the keel, I will have a strap going down from the keel toward each side of the carriage. I am hoping that by using two this way, I can avoid the required contact between the cradle and the keel and still have sufficient lateral stability. You will see that I have flaired the U cradle in line with this thinking. I will get a photo posted this weekend. But, the bottom line is that flexibility in this joint makes sense for several reasons on the lite trikes. We are only discussing how and not if. I will share a little bit more of an interesting story. I had put this 4 cycle powered lite trike on the back burner in favor of the Geo powered trike I have been building. Then, I moved to a hanger at a different airport two months ago. The fellow across from me has a V2 Kohler powered motor glider that he just flew, and of course, my interest shifted back to the lite trike with the single cylinder 4 cycle engine. So, it will either fly on 14 hp or I will have a great go-kart for getting around the airport. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "John W Reynoldson" wrote: > Interesting that you should mention the hang-strap/cradle setup, Jim. > I've just this week been cleaning up the junk pile in the workshop > and one of the things that got junked was, in fact, a cradle designed > for just this purpose some years ago. > > I ended up not using it in practice because there were going to be > problems with interference with the wing I was using at the time. > > The fitting was an inverted "U" shaped aluminium fitting lined > internally with neoprene rubber (and I was not sure I had enough, > there is a likelihood that the wing will bounce around in the channel > a fair bit when taxiing), with a fitting underneath that allowed the > "U" to move around in the tilt (pitch) and yaw axes so that it could > passively track the keel, since the idea is for the keel to remain > captive in the "U" after takeoff, the slack in the hang loop being > only the natural stretch as the load came on. > > 230 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:47pm Subject: Re: Strap and cradle microsoar Offline Send Email Maybe I should wait for the photo, but I will perhaps ask - (and I feel a bit like I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here... :-) if you are concerned about the relatively small bearing surface the 1/2inch tube plus rubber hose will have on the keel of the wing if it gets slammed around into the keel either taxiing or in the air? The cradle I built was actually about 60mm (about 2.4 inches) long and lined with 8mm of neoprene rubber (as well as being able to float to align with the keel) to try to make sure that any movement of the trike toward wing and vice-versa was distributed over a fairly wide area with no point loads. Maybe I'm paranoid :-( The prototype cradle had a couple of cutouts mid-way which allowed the hang strap to come down either side of it at the centre in a located way, and fasten to both sides of the keel just under the float-hinge below the cradle. The hang strap was secured (or would have been!) in position on the keel by a cross strap sewn on top and two hose clamps either side of the main strap under which the cross strap passed. Will look forward to the photo., so I can understand the idea better. cheers, John R. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > Thanks for the good description John, I know that you had worked with > the concept but did not know how yours was constructed. > > Mine is a formed 1/2" dia 4130 tube so it will support a piece of > rubber hose pushed over it better than flat strap will. I plan to use > the natural stretch in the hang strap as you described to allow the > wing to lift out of the cradle. To provide lateral stability of the > keel, I will have a strap going down from the keel toward each side of > the carriage. I am hoping that by using two this way, I can avoid the > required contact between the cradle and the keel and still have > sufficient lateral stability. You will see that I have flaired the U > cradle in line with this thinking. > > I will get a photo posted this weekend. 231 From: "Bob Arnold" Date: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:51pm Subject: Re: Strap and cradle judeanbob Offline Send Email What about adding a small motorcycle steering damper to Johns 30 degree universal idea?, that would cushion any severe twisting forces. An arm extending out from the mast and a bracket on the keel with the damper in between. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "John W Reynoldson" wrote: > Maybe I should wait for the photo, but I will perhaps ask - (and I > feel a bit like I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here... :- ) > if you are concerned about the relatively small bearing surface the > 1/2inch tube plus rubber hose will have on the keel of the wing if it > gets slammed around into the keel either taxiing or in the air? > > The cradle I built was actually about 60mm (about 2.4 inches) long and > lined with 8mm of neoprene rubber (as well as being able to float to > align with the keel) to try to make sure that any movement of the > trike toward wing and vice-versa was distributed over a fairly wide > area with no point loads. Maybe I'm paranoid :-( > > The prototype cradle had a couple of cutouts mid-way which allowed the > hang strap to come down either side of it at the centre in a located > way, and fasten to both sides of the keel just under the float- hinge > below the cradle. The hang strap was secured (or would have been!) in > position on the keel by a cross strap sewn on top and two hose clamps > either side of the main strap under which the cross strap passed. > > Will look forward to the photo., so I can understand the idea better. > > cheers, > John R. > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > Thanks for the good description John, I know that you had worked with > > the concept but did not know how yours was constructed. > > > > Mine is a formed 1/2" dia 4130 tube so it will support a piece of > > rubber hose pushed over it better than flat strap will. I plan to use > > the natural stretch in the hang strap as you described to allow the > > wing to lift out of the cradle. To provide lateral stability of the > > keel, I will have a strap going down from the keel toward each side of > > the carriage. I am hoping that by using two this way, I can avoid the > > required contact between the cradle and the keel and still have > > sufficient lateral stability. You will see that I have flaired the U > > cradle in line with this thinking. > > > > I will get a photo posted this weekend. 232 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:42pm Subject: Re: Strap and cradle microsoar Offline Send Email My limited yaw joint only puts twist forces on the keel/mast at the hangpoint if you come up gainst the 30 degree stop. Otherwise, all twist/yaw forces are transmitted via the pilots arms through the lower front-back cables to the front and back of the keel. I have yet (in the air) to come up against the stop, even in major thermal turbulence! I was concerned, when I added my little pod and skirt, that there might be some yaw instability introduced, but I was pleasantly surprised to find no apparent problem. cheers. John R. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" wrote: > What about adding a small motorcycle steering damper to Johns 30 > degree universal idea?, that would cushion any severe twisting > forces. > An arm extending out from the mast and a bracket on the keel with > the damper in between. > > 233 From: "mississippi_gambler" Date: Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:47am Subject: Mildew Spots mississippi_... Offline Send Email Hello all....... What will safely remove mildew spots from my WW Falcon 1 225. let's go fly Gary 234 From: Jim Date: Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:17pm Subject: Re: Mildew Spots captain_jims Offline Send Email I have seen that woolite has been recommended on other sites. Have not tried it yet, but just getting ready to since I also have some spots. Jim --- mississippi_gambler wrote: > Hello all....... > What will safely remove mildew spots from my WW > Falcon 1 225. > > let's go fly > Gary __________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 235 From: "mississippi_gambler" Date: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:53pm Subject: Re: Mildew Spots mississippi_... Offline Send Email I tried the weak bleach solution/mild detergent/soft brush and scrubbing today without a real difference. I was going to try Simple Green but found a warning about getting it on aluminum.That seems to be the catch for the common available mildew cleaners. Gary 236 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:11am Subject: Torsionals - a tutorial captain_jims Offline Send Email This post is the start of a series of posts that I will make to discuss driveline torsionals. A weighty subject indeed. Now this subject is covered in the Mechanical Engineering curriculum at the Senior level so it is not surprising that many do not grasp the details since three years of engineering study is required to essentially qualify to take the courses. Let me state my qualifications. First, I am an Engineer, but important to this discussion, several years ago I had the assignment to lead a group within one of the largest tractor manufacturing companies in the US. Our responsibility was to analyze and validate thru test, the drivetrain behaviour of every drivetrain in the product line. There were over 100 vehicles in production and we created analytical models of every one, and validated all the significant variations thru substantial testing. We had a test budget that ran into the millions of dollars for all the detailed instrumentation and telemetry required, plus the cost of tractors, operators, and technical staff. We learned a lot over several years, and this series of posts will share an important part of that. For those that wonder why this happened this way, we had a new chief engineer who decided he wanted more analysis in design and he was willing to spend the money to develop the necessary techniques. Our analytical methods were essentially all based on the Holzer analysis method. As part of this discussion, I will walk you thru that analysis method and provide a spreadsheet that will do a Holzer analysis of any drive, no matter the type. The spreadsheet model was developed and validated about 18 months ago with a member of the Sub group who was designing his own drive and had gathered a lot of Sub drive test data. We modeled and correlated calculations to test data on approximately 5 drive designs. Why do I stress the analytical model. Just as it is expensive for you to build an airplane to find the problem, it was very expensive in time and money to build a prototype tractor and have a problem. The analysis is needed to be able to catch the issues. It is not unusual to spend $20-$50 millions to build a prototype tractor and you dont want to be the one to tell management that we just found a show stopper. And last. What do tractors have to do with airplanes. This issue is fundamental to all drivetrains where masses and shafts are used to transmit power. In a tractor we had very large masses, and in the airplane we want everything as light as possible. When we put both of these into the analysis we find that they drive the important frequencies of the torsional issues right into our operating range. Analytically, they are the same problem. As I end for now, a teaser. We will be discussing a simple way that the vendors, or an independant tester, could provide a torsional response map for the drives. No more speculation, just look at the map. We will be building up to understanding this torsional map. Definitions next time. To be continued.................. Jim 237 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:14am Subject: Driveline torsionals continued captain_jims Offline Send Email Driveline torsionals continued Definitions - You will find that definitions are difficult but necessary since there is some much interdependance. And you will find many terms that are mis-used making discussion difficult. Vibration Mode - There are several ways in which any drivetrain may respond to driving excitation. The number of modes of response are easy to determine. Simply count the number of independant springs in the system. There is a first mode, a second mode, etc. Resonance - one thing being caused to vibrate due to the initial vibration of something else. If we dont know the frequencies and their ratios, we say "that part is resonating". Harmonic - vibration at 2,3,or 4 times the fundamental frequency of that mode. For example, if the driving frequency is 2 times the basic frequency of the first mode, then we say "The system is operating at the 2nd harmonic of the fundamental of the first mode." System Springs/Masses - All systems can be divided into springs and masses, but every element of the system is really both a spring and a mass. Gears, pulleys, props are all masses and deflect so little that it can be ignored. Small diameter shafts, rubber bushings, etc are all low mass, but high deflection elements. These are the springs. Critical speed - The driven speed in rpm at which the rpm matches the frequency of a given vibration mode. Or matches an integral multiple of a given vibration mode, ie, 2 or 3 or 4 times the frequency of a given mode. System response - The vibratory action of a system when excited externally. A drive train has one response map of vibration modes no matter what speed it is turning. In fact, a drivetrain that is stationary will vibrate at its primary mode if struck by a mallot. That is the same frequency whether it is stopped or turning. Gear backlash - The small amount of clearance in gear teeth that can be seen or felt when moving a drive system by hand. This is NOT a factor is the torsional response in any way. One of the most basic misperceptions involving this subject. Vibration isolator - This phase should be banned from driveline discussion. Nothing known to man isolates one part of a drivetrain from vibration that is occurring in another part of the drivetrain when that drivetrain is complete. Advertising would lead you to believe otherwise, but it simply does not. A disengaged clutch obviously will isolate part of the drivetrain, but it is not a very effective drive train. Input excitation - This can be input into the drivetrain from either end. Engine firing, engine rotation speeds, prop load, and prop load variation all provide some input that can cause a drivetrain system to vibrate torsionally. All this recent flywheel discussion will affect the magnitude of the input, but that does not control the magnitude of the torsional. Holzer analysis - This is an analytical method that lends itself well to spreadsheet analysis. In addition, it is very handy to develop an understanding of the response of a system. Once the spreadsheet is setup, the input frequency is the driving variable. As it is changed, the Holzer analysis determins a relative amplitude of motion for every mass in the system. The allows us to visualize the torsional mode, to know what spring is controlling that mode, and to make changes that we would expect to affect the mode in question. Drivetrain damping - a hard to quantify behaviour that controls the amplitude of response of the drivetrain when excited at one of its fundamental frequencies. Easy to measure, hard to calculate, but not too important since we dont design to operate where it is controlling the amplitude. More important on expensive cars where you dont want to feel any torsional. To be continued.................. Jim 239 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:19am Subject: False ID and posting removed captain_jims Offline Send Email There was a posting on this group by a member using a false ID solely for the purpose of advertising another Yahoo group. I find the use of false IDs and advertising for that particular group offensive and removed the post and banned the member. I expect he will return using another false ID. But we will not tolerate that kind of posts on this group. Jim 240 From: "Bob Arnold" Date: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:23pm Subject: Re: False ID and posting removed judeanbob Offline Send Email Good work, it wiuld be good if all group moderators were similarly on the ball. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > There was a posting on this group by a member using a false ID solely > for the purpose of advertising another Yahoo group. I find the use of > false IDs and advertising for that particular group offensive and > removed the post and banned the member. > > I expect he will return using another false ID. But we will not > tolerate that kind of posts on this group. > > > > Jim 241 From: "Bob Arnold" Date: Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:08pm Subject: Hang block bush judeanbob Offline Send Email Whats the best way to aquire a hang block bush ?...can they be purchased to size or turned down on a lath from a lump of polypropylene which would probably be a better option for me. Thanks, Bob 242 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:40am Subject: Re: Hang block bush captain_jims Offline Send Email I get the material for that from a vendor on ebay. Check this listing 3819916443 2" X 2" UHMW PLATE 2-3/4" LONG UltraHighMolecurWeight plastic works fine for that. Very low friction. This supply house has been good to work with, just let them know what you need. There are others that sell the UHMW material for machine shop work for making tooling. In large blocks. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" wrote: > Whats the best way to aquire a hang block bush ?...can they be > purchased to size or turned down on a lath from a lump of > polypropylene which would probably be a better option for me. > > Thanks, Bob 243 From: Bob Date: Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:01am Subject: Re: Re: Hang block bush judeanbob Offline Send Email What I'm after Jim is the polypropylene (plastic) friction bush that goes between the keel and the metal hang block, not the actual hang block itself. BTW, I ended up getting 50mmX 4mm aluminium tubing for my trike base....its not 6061-T6 aircraft grade but it will sure take a lot to break or even bend it. I just hope the powers that be will pass the design using non aircraft grade tubing. Cheers, Bob captain_jims wrote: I get the material for that from a vendor on ebay. Check this listing 3819916443 2" X 2" UHMW PLATE 2-3/4" LONG UltraHighMolecurWeight plastic works fine for that. Very low friction. This supply house has been good to work with, just let them know what you need. There are others that sell the UHMW material for machine shop work for making tooling. In large blocks. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" wrote: > Whats the best way to aquire a hang block bush ?...can they be > purchased to size or turned down on a lath from a lump of > polypropylene which would probably be a better option for me. > > Thanks, Bob Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 244 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:10am Subject: Re: Hang block bush captain_jims Offline Send Email I understand what bushing you need, that is what UHMW is, a very easy to machine plastic that has very low friction. Essentially a nylon replacement. It is used in a lot of machine shop tooling since it is so tough, but will do your job nicely. Has good wear properties. I think it is the same as what you were asking for, ie, polyproylene, just a more technical name. That block on ebay is $4 so it is not expensive material. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Bob wrote: > What I'm after Jim is the polypropylene (plastic) friction bush that goes between the keel and the metal hang block, not the actual hang block itself. > BTW, I ended up getting 50mmX 4mm aluminium tubing for my trike base....its not 6061-T6 aircraft grade but it will sure take a lot to break or even bend it. > I just hope the powers that be will pass the design using non aircraft grade tubing. > > Cheers, Bob > 245 From: "mnf313" Date: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:38pm Subject: Re: Hang block bush mnf313 Offline Send Email --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > I understand what bushing you need, that is what UHMW is, a very easy > to machine plastic that has very low friction. Essentially a nylon > replacement. It is used in a lot of machine shop tooling since it is > so tough, but will do your job nicely. Has good wear properties. I > think it is the same as what you were asking for, ie, polyproylene, > just a more technical name. > > That block on ebay is $4 so it is not expensive material. > > Jim > Hi Bob, and Jim. if you do not find the plastic you need, on e-bay, you may find it through the mcmaster carr suppy house on line catalog. http://www.mcmaster.com/ 246 From: Bob Date: Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:10pm Subject: Re: Re: Hang block bush judeanbob Offline Send Email Thanks for the link, it would be nice if Mc Masters had a store like that in Australia, all my problems would be over mnf313 wrote: --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > I understand what bushing you need, that is what UHMW is, a very easy > to machine plastic that has very low friction. Essentially a nylon > replacement. It is used in a lot of machine shop tooling since it is > so tough, but will do your job nicely. Has good wear properties. I > think it is the same as what you were asking for, ie, polyproylene, > just a more technical name. > > That block on ebay is $4 so it is not expensive material. > > Jim > Hi Bob, and Jim. if you do not find the plastic you need, on e-bay, you may find it through the mcmaster carr suppy house on line catalog. http://www.mcmaster.com/ -- Messenger 7.0 beta: Free worldwide PC to PC calls 247 From: george_rf Date: Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:48pm Subject: Re: Re: Hang block bush george_rf1 Offline Send Email looks like this is the stuff http://tinyurl.com/a7swt Bob wrote: Thanks for the link, it would be nice if Mc Masters had a store like that in Australia, all my problems would be over mnf313 wrote: --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > I understand what bushing you need, that is what UHMW is, a very easy > to machine plastic that has very low friction. Essentially a nylon > replacement. It is used in a lot of machine shop tooling since it is > so tough, but will do your job nicely. Has good wear properties. I > think it is the same as what you were asking for, ie, polyproylene, > just a more technical name. > > That block on ebay is $4 so it is not expensive material. > > Jim > Hi Bob, and Jim. if you do not find the plastic you need, on e-bay, you may find it through the mcmaster carr suppy house on line catalog. http://www.mcmaster.com/ -- Messenger 7.0 beta: Free worldwide PC to PC calls Disclaimer ; opinions of others will vary depending on what they're selling This is my website http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/index.html Look all you want but don't touch -- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 248 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:19pm Subject: Re: Hang block bush microsoar Offline Send Email See my Bargain Box for a couple of hang blocks for sale: www.aerialpursuits.com/products/prd_barg.htm John. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" wrote: > Whats the best way to aquire a hang block bush ?...can they be > purchased to size or turned down on a lath from a lump of > polypropylene which would probably be a better option for me. > > Thanks, Bob 249 From: "Bob Arnold" Date: Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:49pm Subject: Re: Hang block bush judeanbob Offline Send Email Thanks for the offer John however the problem has been solved. I was at the local boat dealers this morning and there on the counter was a polypropylene boat trailer roller which will turn down nicely to make the bush. Bob Arnold. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "John W Reynoldson" wrote: > See my Bargain Box for a couple of hang blocks for sale: > www.aerialpursuits.com/products/prd_barg.htm > John. > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Arnold" > wrote: > > Whats the best way to aquire a hang block bush ?...can they be > > purchased to size or turned down on a lath from a lump of > > polypropylene which would probably be a better option for me. > > > > Thanks, Bob 250 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:06pm Subject: Jim's Lite Trike - taxi tests captain_jims Offline Send Email After two weeks of instense effort, I taxied my lite trike powered by the single cylinder Tecumseh engine. Ran to the end of the day today and ran out of time for new photos. Should have some later this week. Todays taxi tests were in my front field without the wing. Findings. 1. The Tecumseh is rougher than I thought it would be. I dont have any rubber mounts. 2. The simple steering system just has enough steer capability, but I can't oversteer. 3. The tread rub brake system needs to be a little more agressive. It will slow the trike, but not quite fast enough for me. I am now rubbing on the flat surface of a square tube. 4. The sling seat made of a combination of 1" and 2" nylon straps woven in place is extremely comfortable. May be the best feature of the trike. Takes about 45 ft of each strap to build this seat. 5. I also like the seating position. Slightly reclined. 6. The Tecumseh is responsive to the throttle, but I am not sure if I was at full power or not today. If I was, it was only for a few seconds at a time. Dont have a tach yet. In fact, no instruments at this time and would like to continue with none. 7. The finished carriage weight is right at 100 lbs split 45 lb for the frame and wheels, and 55 lb for the engine, prop, etc. 8. And a good point about the Tecumseh to end this list. This engine has a compression release. Makes the rope pull a lot lighter, easily one handed. I am confident I can restart this engine in flight. I have taken care of small leaks, etc and am ready for more taxi tests. I plan to break in the engine, its first start was today, before I do static thrust tests. Then, the static thrust test will decide if this is flyable. I would like to see at least 100 lb static to know that I have enough for a minimum climb. Jim. 251 From: "Bill Czygan" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:02pm Subject: Re: Torsionals - a tutorial bczygan Offline Send Email Jim, I NEED part two! I'm thinking that this will help me understand how things are best matched from the crankshaft through the belt drive or gearbox to the prop. As an example, I have a Mirage, which is a belt drive pusher. The engine and drive are mounted forward of the wing, with a driveshaft about 5' long going to the back of the wing for the prop. I see some difficulties with that design. Bill Czygan --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > This post is the start of a series of posts that I will make to > discuss driveline torsionals. A weighty subject indeed. Now this > subject is covered in the Mechanical Engineering curriculum at the > Senior level so it is not surprising that many do not grasp the > details since three years of engineering study is required to > essentially qualify to take the courses. > > Let me state my qualifications. First, I am an Engineer, but important > to this discussion, several years ago I had the assignment to lead a > group within one of the largest tractor manufacturing companies in the > US. Our responsibility was to analyze and validate thru test, the > drivetrain behaviour of every drivetrain in the product line. There > were over 100 vehicles in production and we created analytical models > of every one, and validated all the significant variations thru > substantial testing. We had a test budget that ran into the millions > of dollars for all the detailed instrumentation and telemetry > required, plus the cost of tractors, operators, and technical staff. > We learned a lot over several years, and this series of posts will > share an important part of that. For those that wonder why this > happened this way, we had a new chief engineer who decided he wanted > more analysis in design and he was willing to spend the money to > develop the necessary techniques. > > Our analytical methods were essentially all based on the Holzer > analysis method. As part of this discussion, I will walk you thru > that analysis method and provide a spreadsheet that will do a Holzer > analysis of any drive, no matter the type. The spreadsheet model was > developed and validated about 18 months ago with a member of the Sub > group who was designing his own drive and had gathered a lot of Sub > drive test data. We modeled and correlated calculations to test data > on approximately 5 drive designs. > > Why do I stress the analytical model. Just as it is expensive for you > to build an airplane to find the problem, it was very expensive in > time and money to build a prototype tractor and have a problem. The > analysis is needed to be able to catch the issues. It is not unusual > to spend $20-$50 millions to build a prototype tractor and you dont > want to be the one to tell management that we just found a show stopper. > > And last. What do tractors have to do with airplanes. This issue is > fundamental to all drivetrains where masses and shafts are used to > transmit power. In a tractor we had very large masses, and in the > airplane we want everything as light as possible. When we put both of > these into the analysis we find that they drive the important > frequencies of the torsional issues right into our operating range. > Analytically, they are the same problem. > > As I end for now, a teaser. We will be discussing a simple way that > the vendors, or an independant tester, could provide a torsional > response map for the drives. No more speculation, just look at the > map. We will be building up to understanding this torsional map. > > Definitions next time. > > To be continued.................. > > Jim 252 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:13pm Subject: Re: Torsionals - a tutorial captain_jims Offline Send Email Glad to hear you are reading. There are several more parts to go. I have been distracted with good flying weather after the hot weather we had in the midwest. After a couple more parts, we will be ready to analyze the system you describe. I would be more than happy to use it for an example right here for all to see. Your call. I will get the next part posted yet this week. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Czygan" wrote: > Jim, > I NEED part two! I'm thinking that this will help me understand > how things are best matched from the crankshaft through the belt > drive or gearbox to the prop. As an example, I have a Mirage, which > is a belt drive pusher. The engine and drive are mounted forward of > the wing, with a driveshaft about 5' long going to the back of the > wing for the prop. I see some difficulties with that design. > > Bill Czygan > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > This post is the start of a series of posts that I will make to > > discuss driveline torsionals. A weighty subject indeed. Now this > > subject is covered in the Mechanical Engineering curriculum at the > > Senior level so it is not surprising that many do not grasp the > > details since three years of engineering study is required to > > essentially qualify to take the courses. > > > > Let me state my qualifications. First, I am an Engineer, but > important > > to this discussion, several years ago I had the assignment to lead a > > group within one of the largest tractor manufacturing companies in > the > > US. Our responsibility was to analyze and validate thru test, the > > drivetrain behaviour of every drivetrain in the product line. There > > were over 100 vehicles in production and we created analytical > models > > of every one, and validated all the significant variations thru > > substantial testing. We had a test budget that ran into the > millions > > of dollars for all the detailed instrumentation and telemetry > > required, plus the cost of tractors, operators, and technical > staff. > > We learned a lot over several years, and this series of posts will > > share an important part of that. For those that wonder why this > > happened this way, we had a new chief engineer who decided he wanted > > more analysis in design and he was willing to spend the money to > > develop the necessary techniques. > > > > Our analytical methods were essentially all based on the Holzer > > analysis method. As part of this discussion, I will walk you thru > > that analysis method and provide a spreadsheet that will do a Holzer > > analysis of any drive, no matter the type. The spreadsheet model > was > > developed and validated about 18 months ago with a member of the Sub > > group who was designing his own drive and had gathered a lot of Sub > > drive test data. We modeled and correlated calculations to test > data > > on approximately 5 drive designs. > > > > Why do I stress the analytical model. Just as it is expensive for > you > > to build an airplane to find the problem, it was very expensive in > > time and money to build a prototype tractor and have a problem. The > > analysis is needed to be able to catch the issues. It is not > unusual > > to spend $20-$50 millions to build a prototype tractor and you dont > > want to be the one to tell management that we just found a show > stopper. > > > > And last. What do tractors have to do with airplanes. This issue is > > fundamental to all drivetrains where masses and shafts are used to > > transmit power. In a tractor we had very large masses, and in the > > airplane we want everything as light as possible. When we put both > of > > these into the analysis we find that they drive the important > > frequencies of the torsional issues right into our operating range. > > Analytically, they are the same problem. > > > > As I end for now, a teaser. We will be discussing a simple way that > > the vendors, or an independant tester, could provide a torsional > > response map for the drives. No more speculation, just look at the > > map. We will be building up to understanding this torsional map. > > > > Definitions next time. > > > > To be continued.................. > > > > Jim 253 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:21pm Subject: Re: Torsionals - a tutorial - special section captain_jims Offline Send Email This special section of the torsional tutorial is to address the question raised by Bill. His thought is right on, that system will have a fundamental mode where the driveshaft is the primary spring and it will have several secondary modes. When we complete the series of tutorials, we will know how to calculate all of them. But in the early design phase, it is wise to use a simple analysis to pinpoint a probable issue. Fortunately, a system like we have here. Prop mass and Engine mass separated by a well definded drive shaft that is the spring, it is easily calculated. The basic equation that we will use is f= sqr(k/(1/J1 + 1/J2))/(2 * 3.14159) In english, this is the square root of the spring rate of the drive shaft divided by the sum of the inverse of the two mass inertias all divided by 2 pi. So, what we need now are 1. the spring rate of the drive shaft 2. the moment of inertia of the engine/redrive 3. the moment of inertia of the prop and flange. And, I suppose that you will say that you dont have those. Well, I have first estimates for the prop and engine inertias. The numbers I have are better than a WAG and approach a SWAG. WAG= wild ass guess. SWAG = scientific wild ass guess. So, if Bill will provide us with the drive ratio and the driveshaft length and diameter, OD and ID, we can work everything out for a first cut. If we determine from the first cut, that we want a more exact answer, I will walk you thru how to measure the moment of inertia of the engine and the prop. Actually quite easy, just some string and a stop watch. Than, with the actual values, we can fine tune the analysis to an exact frequency at which Bills drive train will reach maximum torsional amplitude and most importantly know if it is in his operating range. btw, the basic equation for this system, which many claim cannot be analyzed, is from a text book published in 1963 and I will assure you that there is no better equation today, maybe better calculators, but not a better equation. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Czygan" wrote: > Jim, > I NEED part two! I'm thinking that this will help me understand > how things are best matched from the crankshaft through the belt > drive or gearbox to the prop. As an example, I have a Mirage, which > is a belt drive pusher. The engine and drive are mounted forward of > the wing, with a driveshaft about 5' long going to the back of the > wing for the prop. I see some difficulties with that design. > > Bill Czygan > 254 From: "Bill Czygan" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:48pm Subject: Re: Torsionals - a tutorial - special section bczygan Offline Send Email Jim, I would be happy to get you information on that system. I have it in a shed behind my house. The engine is a Kawasaki TA440A. The Kawasaki group (that I started) is a source of info on the engine. There is a wood prop, two blade, I forget the make. I'll mike and measure the shaft tomorrow. I think it's a 4 belt. I'll measure the pulleys to get the ratio. I know this is a good system to demonstrate bad design features as I've been told the harmonics produced by the long shaft are a problem. This is evidenced by broken welds where the shaft bearings are welded to the root tube. It will be interesting to see what analytical tools are available to quantify this. I will then use them to design a better system for my future trike. And thanks. Knowledge and abilities like yours are a gold mine. Your willingness to do the work and share is truly a gift (from your preface, a multi- million dollar one) and I appreciate it. Bill --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > This special section of the torsional tutorial is to address the > question raised by Bill. His thought is right on, that system will > have a fundamental mode where the driveshaft is the primary spring and > it will have several secondary modes. When we complete the series of > tutorials, we will know how to calculate all of them. But in the > early design phase, it is wise to use a simple analysis to pinpoint a > probable issue. > > Fortunately, a system like we have here. Prop mass and Engine mass > separated by a well definded drive shaft that is the spring, it is > easily calculated. > > The basic equation that we will use is > > f= sqr(k/(1/J1 + 1/J2))/(2 * 3.14159) > > In english, this is the square root of the spring rate of the drive > shaft divided by the sum of the inverse of the two mass inertias all > divided by 2 pi. > > So, what we need now are > 1. the spring rate of the drive shaft > 2. the moment of inertia of the engine/redrive > 3. the moment of inertia of the prop and flange. > > And, I suppose that you will say that you dont have those. Well, I > have first estimates for the prop and engine inertias. The numbers I > have are better than a WAG and approach a SWAG. WAG= wild ass guess. > SWAG = scientific wild ass guess. > > So, if Bill will provide us with the drive ratio and the driveshaft > length and diameter, OD and ID, we can work everything out for a first > cut. > > If we determine from the first cut, that we want a more exact answer, > I will walk you thru how to measure the moment of inertia of the > engine and the prop. Actually quite easy, just some string and a stop > watch. Than, with the actual values, we can fine tune the analysis to > an exact frequency at which Bills drive train will reach maximum > torsional amplitude and most importantly know if it is in his > operating range. > > btw, the basic equation for this system, which many claim cannot be > analyzed, is from a text book published in 1963 and I will assure you > that there is no better equation today, maybe better calculators, but > not a better equation. > > Jim > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Czygan" > wrote: > > Jim, > > I NEED part two! I'm thinking that this will help me understand > > how things are best matched from the crankshaft through the belt > > drive or gearbox to the prop. As an example, I have a Mirage, which > > is a belt drive pusher. The engine and drive are mounted forward of > > the wing, with a driveshaft about 5' long going to the back of the > > wing for the prop. I see some difficulties with that design. > > > > Bill Czygan > > 255 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:27am Subject: Re: Jim's Lite Trike - now some photos captain_jims Offline Send Email Finally got some photos. Put three in the folder in the photo section, Jims Lite Trike. And put one on the home page. This trike was my first effort at designing and building a lite trike. Along the way, I bought a Sabre trike in flying condition, and also built a Geo powered sbs trike. So, it was back to the roots for a while here to complete this trike. A little more testing, including static thrust, and off the the hanger with it. I now have a hanger that is large enough to hold all three trikes and a couple of wings. An issue that I have had is how to put the wing on this lite trike. Now I can use a simple hoist to lift the wing straight up off one trike and lower it onto another. Great way to test new trikes, with the same wing. Not learning how to fly it, but rather I am able to concentrate on the carriage issues. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > After two weeks of instense effort, I taxied my lite trike powered by > the single cylinder Tecumseh engine. Ran to the end of the day today > and ran out of time for new photos. Should have some later this week. > > Todays taxi tests were in my front field without the wing. > > Findings. > 1. The Tecumseh is rougher than I thought it would be. I dont have any > rubber mounts. > 2. The simple steering system just has enough steer capability, but I > can't oversteer. > 3. The tread rub brake system needs to be a little more agressive. It > will slow the trike, but not quite fast enough for me. I am now > rubbing on the flat surface of a square tube. > 4. The sling seat made of a combination of 1" and 2" nylon straps > woven in place is extremely comfortable. May be the best feature of > the trike. Takes about 45 ft of each strap to build this seat. > 5. I also like the seating position. Slightly reclined. > 6. The Tecumseh is responsive to the throttle, but I am not sure if I > was at full power or not today. If I was, it was only for a few > seconds at a time. Dont have a tach yet. In fact, no instruments at > this time and would like to continue with none. > 7. The finished carriage weight is right at 100 lbs split 45 lb for > the frame and wheels, and 55 lb for the engine, prop, etc. > 8. And a good point about the Tecumseh to end this list. This engine > has a compression release. Makes the rope pull a lot lighter, easily > one handed. I am confident I can restart this engine in flight. > > I have taken care of small leaks, etc and am ready for more taxi > tests. I plan to break in the engine, its first start was today, > before I do static thrust tests. Then, the static thrust test will > decide if this is flyable. I would like to see at least 100 lb static > to know that I have enough for a minimum climb. > > Jim. 256 From: "mnf313" Date: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:34am Subject: Re: Jim's Lite Trike - now some photos mnf313 Offline Send Email hi Jim the pics look great! too bad about your wing issue.....(we should all have such problems... ) what are you expecting for an all up weight? on which wing? regards, mike 257 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:25am Subject: Re: Jim's Lite Trike - now some photos captain_jims Offline Send Email Thanks, The pics were taken with a new Canon 4 megapixel camera we just purchased, seems to do a great job so far. Those were high res, 2 MB in size when downloaded from the camera. The trike is right at 100 lbs, 55 lbs for the engine and prop, and 45 lbs for the frame, wheels, etc. I will be flying it with a Sabre wing off my Sabre Trike. That wing is right at 100 lbs. It is too heavy for a LiteTrike, and it has a rated load capacity of over 700 lbs. But, at my weight, the loaded trike with fuel is at 340 lbs. That is over the hookin allowed for any hang glider with the exception of the dual trainers. The hang gliders are 65-70 lbs, so I am about 30 lbs over that. The Sabre wing is 16Meter, so lots of area, and I know how it flies, so no surprises. However, having said all that about the wing, I am still thinking that I will need to build a rigid wing to get the performance I want with this low power. And, to get the soaring performance that I want to see. I really would like to get the min rate of descent unpowered down under 200 fpm. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "mnf313" wrote: > hi Jim > > the pics look great! too bad about your wing issue.....(we should > all have such problems... ) > > what are you expecting for an all up weight? > > on which wing? > > > regards, > mike 258 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:52am Subject: Announcement - new development captain_jims Offline Send Email Well, I have been waiting to get some experience with the Tecumseh Trike discussed in a few previous posts before making this announcement, but I now satisfied with some critical issues on that Trike so I can start thinking about the next step. I am well into the configuration and design of a 3 cyl Geo powered Trike using the basic structure of the Tecumseh Trike. My target is to be competitive with the Air Creation Fun Racer at a lot less cost. Here is the configuration that will be assembled. 1. Frame and wheels from the Tecumseh Trike with a 5 lb allowance for some mods required for the heavier engine - 50 lbs 2. 3 cyl Geo engine, no electrical, stripped bare, direct drive, 50 hp at 3500 rpm. - 100 lbs 3. Allowance for wing weight - 100 lbs Total weight 250 lbs, Part 103 legal !!! I have discussed the details of the engine mods required with the most experienced Geo converter in the country. Had an opportunity for a 30 minute meeting at OshKosh. We are in agreement as to what needs to be done and how we squeeze 50 hp out of 3 cylinders. Details to follow later on this. Key features from the Tecumseh Trike. 1. Frame stiffness 2. Steering 3. Seat - (glad I have the same seat in my sbsGeoTrike 4. Overall seating size and trike size. The end of the Trike flying season is only 10-12 weeks away, but that is the start of the Trike building season. This building season will cover the addition of a cowling to the sbsGeoTrike and the construction of the Geo3Trike. Jim 259 From: "pgvea" Date: Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:37pm Subject: throttle lever pgvea Offline Send Email I bought a nanolight trike a couple of months ago. The throttle lever that came w/ it is somewhat flimsy and would like to replace it w/ something a little bit sturdier. It would have to be attached to a seat tube , unlike the quadrants sold by most UL shops. Any leads on a supplier would be greatly appreciated. Victor vabraham@... 260 From: Bob Date: Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:39pm Subject: Re: throttle lever turbometaspider Offline Send Email pgvea wrote: > I bought a nanolight trike a couple of months ago. The throttle lever > that came w/ it is somewhat flimsy and would like to replace it w/ > something a little bit sturdier. It would have to be attached to a > seat tube , unlike the quadrants sold by most UL shops. Any leads on a > supplier would be greatly appreciated. > > Victor > > vabraham@... > Go to a bicycle shop and look at the shift for a 10 speed bicycle. Measure the stroke required for your carb first :-) Bob 261 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:13pm Subject: Re: throttle lever captain_jims Offline Send Email I have done two things to solve that problem. First, look at the farm supply stores or the marine stores for a throttle lever. I found an all steel lever that I liked at the farm supply store for the Tecumseh trike. Second, to mount those you need a flat surface. The way I handled that was to use two clamps around the seat frame and connect those with a 1/8 x 1 alum strap. Then I mounted the lever assem onto that strap. The clamps were the rubber covered alum type. Once the bolt is tightened, they dont move if they are the right size. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "pgvea" wrote: > I bought a nanolight trike a couple of months ago. The throttle lever > that came w/ it is somewhat flimsy and would like to replace it w/ > something a little bit sturdier. It would have to be attached to a > seat tube , unlike the quadrants sold by most UL shops. Any leads on a > supplier would be greatly appreciated. > > Victor > > vabraham@c... 262 From: "jeremy_harris_uk" Date: Mon Sep 5, 2005 1:23pm Subject: Re: Announcement - new development jeremy_harri... Offline Send Email Sounds great, but I have one slight worry. What restrains the engine in the event of an accident/hard landing? I'd hate to think of something the weight of a Geo breaking free and going through that frame gap to impact your head/neck............ Maybe I'm just worrying too much, here in the UK rear mounted engines have to be proven to take 15g forwards as part of the test programme, just for such an eventuality. Jeremy SALISBURY UK 263 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Sep 5, 2005 2:07pm Subject: Re: Announcement - new development captain_jims Offline Send Email Excellent point. I have allowed some additional weight for the frame when incorporating the Geo. I think that the addition of a nylon web mesh and restraining cables on the engine should take care of that issue for less than 2 lbs. I have been considering the mesh for the Tecumseh unit as much to support the back of my helmet as stop the engine. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "jeremy_harris_uk" wrote: > Sounds great, but I have one slight worry. What restrains the engine > in the event of an accident/hard landing? > > I'd hate to think of something the weight of a Geo breaking free and > going through that frame gap to impact your head/neck............ > > Maybe I'm just worrying too much, here in the UK rear mounted engines > have to be proven to take 15g forwards as part of the test programme, > just for such an eventuality. > > Jeremy > SALISBURY > UK 264 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:03pm Subject: Re: mesh headrest captain_jims Offline Send Email Added the mesh as was being discussed just ahead of the engine. Turns out it makes a great headrest as well. Will get some photos posted soon. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > Excellent point. I have allowed some additional weight for the frame > when incorporating the Geo. I think that the addition of a nylon web > mesh and restraining cables on the engine should take care of that > issue for less than 2 lbs. > > I have been considering the mesh for the Tecumseh unit as much to > support the back of my helmet as stop the engine. > > Jim > 265 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2005 11:25am Subject: Updated photo on the home page captain_jims Offline Send Email Today, I updated the photo on the home page to show the nylon mesh in place that acts as an engine stop as well as a headrest. Worked out very well. In addition, I did some testing and was up to about 25-30 mph. Now ready for some pull tests to check the static pull. Still disappointed in the roughness of the single cylinder engine. May need to consider isolators so avoid frame cracking. But testing will continue without them. Jim 266 From: "mississippi_gambler" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2005 2:38pm Subject: Zenoah Exhaust mississippi_... Offline Send Email I am in need of an exhaust system for my Zenoah G25.I'm trying to avoid the "new price".It is inverted on a Skycycle type light trike. please somebody, Gary Redwine redwine@... 267 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Oct 9, 2005 7:53am Subject: Re: Torsionals - a tutorial - special section - continued captain_jims Offline Send Email We started this special section to analyze a simple drive where the engine was a direct drive to a prop with a fairly long shaft. Previously, I presented the equation for the natural frequency of this system. The exact dimensions of the parts in question have not been presented so lets make some assumptions to continue the example. Rotating Inertia of the engine - 1.0 in-lb-sec2 Rotating Inertia of the Prop/Hub assem - 4.0 in-lb-sec2 For the time being trust me on these inertia values. Later we will cover how to determine them for your system by actual measurement that you can do at home with no special equipment. For the shaft connecting the two main element, we will use a torsional spring rate of 18,000 in-lb/rad. Again, trust me. later I will show how to calculate this for your shafting. Now plugging all this into the equation presented previously and repeated here. f= sqr(k/(1/J1 + 1/J2))/(2 * 3.14159) f = sqr (18,000/(1/1 +1/4))/2 * 6.28 Solving in steps so you can follow f = sqr(18000/1.25)/6.28 f = sqr(14400)/6.28 f = 120/6.28 = 19.1 cycles per sec Now multiply by 60 to get cycles per min since we are used to rev per min. f = 1146 cycles per min Now, what does this tell us. It says that we are very likely to have a torsional issue at 1150 rpm and 2300 rpm. We may have difficulty getting thru 1150 rpm but probably can with just a rough spot, but continued operation at or near 2300 rpm will be an issue. Since this is near a desirable speed for a direct drive prop, we probably have an issue to resolve. Next time, we will evaluate changes and see there effect on resolving this issue. Hope you followed this. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > > This special section of the torsional tutorial is to address the > question raised by Bill. His thought is right on, that system will > have a fundamental mode where the driveshaft is the primary spring and > it will have several secondary modes. When we complete the series of > tutorials, we will know how to calculate all of them. But in the > early design phase, it is wise to use a simple analysis to pinpoint a > probable issue. > > Fortunately, a system like we have here. Prop mass and Engine mass > separated by a well definded drive shaft that is the spring, it is > easily calculated. > > The basic equation that we will use is > > f= sqr(k/(1/J1 + 1/J2))/(2 * 3.14159) > > In english, this is the square root of the spring rate of the drive > shaft divided by the sum of the inverse of the two mass inertias all > divided by 2 pi. > > So, what we need now are > 1. the spring rate of the drive shaft > 2. the moment of inertia of the engine/redrive > 3. the moment of inertia of the prop and flange. > 269 From: Robert Moore Date: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:39am Subject: New member seeks help wantofly43 Offline Send Email Hello everyone, I'm new here and want to tell you a little about why I Joined. I am a 48 year old former Hang-Glider pilot with what feels like 80 year old knees. I havn't flown in 6 years and don't ever see myself foot launching again. I would like as much information I can get about building a trike. Here in the U.S. The thought of building your own seems to be frowned on a lot, so getting information is very difficult. Can anyone help me? Mabe direct me with dimensions, material suggestions, suppliers, plans, etc... anything will help. Thank you all in agvanced. Bob. My e-mail is bobmoore10@juno.com -- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. 270 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:42am Subject: Re: New member seeks help captain_jims Offline Send Email You have made a very broad request. ""about building a trike". Lots of decisions to be made before your questions can be answered. I will be glad to spend time answering them or directing you to where the information is available. But first, what do you want to fly, how do you want to fly, and what is your objective? Cross-country, carry a passenger, soar, in-flight restarts, water operations, etc, etc. I have three trikes, each has a different objective and each is designed differently. One size does NOT fit all needs. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Robert Moore wrote: > > Hello everyone, I'm new here and want to tell you a little about why I Joined. > I am a 48 year old former Hang-Glider pilot with what feels like 80 year old knees. I havn't flown in 6 years and don't ever see myself foot launching again. I would like as much information I can get about building a trike. Here in the U.S. The thought of building your own seems to be frowned on a lot, so getting information is very difficult. Can anyone help me? Mabe direct me with dimensions, material suggestions, suppliers, plans, etc... anything will help. > Thank you all in agvanced. > Bob. > My e-mail is bobmoore10@j... > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. > 271 From: "captain_jims" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:15pm Subject: Started Static thrust testing captain_jims Offline Send Email Conducted the first static thrust tests two days ago. Could not find a readily available spring or electronic scale to go in a rope to pull against, so I bought a large bathroom scale, set it up vertically with a 2x6 to take the load and ppushed against it. Worked out well since I could see the dial all the time. However, the results did not go too well. The engine leaned out way before full power was reached and the thrust never got over 50#. I want to see at least 90#. Might know that this model Tecumseh engine has an EPA carb on it without any adjustments for fuel flow. After examining some other carbs I had, decided that I did not have a good substitute, so I disassembled the carb, found the drilled jets, and filed them out a small amount using a torch nozzle file. I will keep at this routine until I get it rich enough to get to 3200 rpm. Still have some good weather left and may get this to the hanger yet this year. Jim 272 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:24am Subject: Continued testing captain_jims Offline Send Email Made some progress. Filed out the fixed orifices in the Tecumseh carb and got more power, but the vibration from the single cylinder engine (24 cubin inch disp) is now requiring some attention before I push the rpm higher. I will take time out from the thrust testing to add a rubber mounting system for the engine. Some will say, why didnt you add that in the beginning? I considered it, but when building for the lightest weight, it is best practice to leave out features and only add then when there is an absolute requirement. Well, it is now. By the way, now that the engine is breaking in, it is starting easier and easier, so that concern is resolving itself. Still cant start it with the overhead pull, the rope angle is wrong. May rework that and move it along side the seat where it is more convenient anyway. But, that will wait until I meet the static thrust requirement. I hope that you are getting something out of these minor posts as I work thru the development issues. Should give you an idea of how problems surface and are resolved. I spent 10 years as a Test Engineer for a major company on testing of earthmoving tractors. As a result, I enjoy letting the tests results lead me to the improvements and the sequence that they must be made. One more point, I demonstrated the Tecumseh trike to the local ultralight chapter yesterday. All seemed impressed with the speed and acceleration. Did not have the wing on since I hauled it 70 miles to the meeting. Good to get others opinions like that, And I do not yet have full thrust. Did learn that I need a foot strap on the steering control bar. The runway was rougher that I had been testing on and my feet were thrown off several times. So. a trip to the bicycle shop should add less than a half pound to solve that problem. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > > Conducted the first static thrust tests two days ago. > However, the results did not go too well. The engine leaned out way > before full power was reached and the thrust never got over 50#. I > want to see at least 90#. Might know that this model Tecumseh > engine has an EPA carb on it without any adjustments for fuel flow. > > 273 From: "Mitchell Couch" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:34pm Subject: Couple of questions for the capt mitchcouch Offline Send Email Jim, I saw on one post that the tecumseh was 14 hp. Is it really that or is it the 13 hp one? Also, what size prop and pitch are you using? Do you think the thrust can get up to 65# (5# per hp or is it stuck at around 4#)? Let me know, Mitchell Couch 274 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:10pm Subject: Re: Started Static thrust testing microsoar Offline Send Email I presume by "#" in the thrust measurement you mean pounds? Even 90 lbs seems a mite low. My Solo 210 (supposedly 14hp, but I've only got the standard box exhaust and a very cheap $AUD180 115cm Thai propeller on it) acheives 100lb of static thrust, and with a better prop (since lost) it used to get better than 110lb. As a guide, this config (cheap prop) is enough to give me a 250fpm climb rate using my ATOS in still air. I'd work toward getting my lost 10lb of thrust back, but I don't have the time to stuff about and the current climb "rate" is generally adequate for my purposes. As regards engine mounts, I use 4 captive Lord mounts (150P30). In flight vibration in the trike frame is minimal, and you certainly can't feel any transmitted through the control bar. It's only at rough idle (idling too slow) on the ground that you get a bit of shake. I'm paranoid about engine-induced fatigue, so I went for a good, radially soft mounting arrangement. PS: Now blogging the flying season: see: http://360.yahoo.com/microsoar John Reynoldson -- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > > Conducted the first static thrust tests two days ago. >... > However, the results did not go too well. The engine leaned out way > before full power was reached and the thrust never got over 50#. I > want to see at least 90#. 275 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:17pm Subject: Re: Couple of questions for the capt captain_jims Offline Send Email The engine is actually an OHSK130 which is rated at 13 hp. I started using 14 hp to account for the gain from removing the very restrictive muffler and inlet system. I am expecting 90-100# thrust based on input from the prop manufacturer and the program "PropSelecter.exe". When I ran it against the scale last week, I was getting 40-45# and it was running way too lean. Did not sound good. I richened the carb and ran it Saturday, although without the scale. Was a lot stronger, but still needs more fuel. I will be ordering a Tiny Tach and installing a vibration mount before further testing. But I am still optimistic on at least 90# Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Mitchell Couch" wrote: > > Jim, > > I saw on one post that the tecumseh was 14 hp. Is it really that or > is it the 13 hp one? > > Also, what size prop and pitch are you using? > > Do you think the thrust can get up to 65# (5# per hp or is it stuck at > around 4#)? > > Let me know, > > Mitchell Couch > 276 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:30pm Subject: Re: Started Static thrust testing captain_jims Offline Send Email Your are correct # = pounds. I would be very happy to match your numbers. Since I am a little heavier than you, ie, body weight, I may need to push the power up a little with a compression boost to get 15-16 hp. I have been hoping for the 110 lbs to get that 200-250 fpm climb rate. My first flights will be under a Sabre Trike wing of 16M size. Fairly large, but will allow a slow climb. I have that wing and enjoy its flying characteristics, but there is no question it is a floater. But about 4 months a year April, May, Sept, Oct, we get good thermal activity off the prairie with tight spacing. So, I dont expect to have too much difficulty getting endurance time then. Thanks for the detail. Always nice to have some numbers like yours so we know we are on a track that can work. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "John W Reynoldson" wrote: > > I presume by "#" in the thrust measurement you mean pounds? > > Even 90 lbs seems a mite low. My Solo 210 (supposedly 14hp, but I've > only got the standard box exhaust and a very cheap $AUD180 115cm Thai > propeller on it) acheives 100lb of static thrust, and with a better > prop (since lost) it used to get better than 110lb. As a guide, this > config (cheap prop) is enough to give me a 250fpm climb rate using my > ATOS in still air. I'd work toward getting my lost 10lb of thrust > back, but I don't have the time to stuff about and the current climb > "rate" is generally adequate for my purposes. > > As regards engine mounts, I use 4 captive Lord mounts (150P30). In > flight vibration in the trike frame is minimal, and you certainly > can't feel any transmitted through the control bar. It's only at > rough idle (idling too slow) on the ground that you get a bit of > shake. I'm paranoid about engine-induced fatigue, so I went for a > good, radially soft mounting arrangement. > > PS: Now blogging the flying season: > see: http://360.yahoo.com/microsoar > > John Reynoldson > 277 From: "Mitchell Couch" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2005 0:15pm Subject: Re: Started Static thrust testing mitchcouch Offline Send Email --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > I think the reason you are getting so much thrust from your Solo is that it is a two stroke with a redrive. I would be happy to get 5# of thrust per hp with the tecumseh. Jim, what size prop and pitch were you using on the tecumseh? Mitchell > Your are correct # = pounds. > > I would be very happy to match your numbers. Since I am a little > heavier than you, ie, body weight, I may need to push the power up a > little with a compression boost to get 15-16 hp. I have been hoping > for the 110 lbs to get that 200-250 fpm climb rate. > > My first flights will be under a Sabre Trike wing of 16M size. Fairly > large, but will allow a slow climb. I have that wing and enjoy its > flying characteristics, but there is no question it is a floater. But > about 4 months a year April, May, Sept, Oct, we get good thermal > activity off the prairie with tight spacing. So, I dont expect to have > too much difficulty getting endurance time then. > > Thanks for the detail. Always nice to have some numbers like yours so > we know we are on a track that can work. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "John W Reynoldson" > wrote: > > > > I presume by "#" in the thrust measurement you mean pounds? > > > > Even 90 lbs seems a mite low. My Solo 210 (supposedly 14hp, but I've > > only got the standard box exhaust and a very cheap $AUD180 115cm Thai > > propeller on it) acheives 100lb of static thrust, and with a better > > prop (since lost) it used to get better than 110lb. As a guide, this > > config (cheap prop) is enough to give me a 250fpm climb rate using my > > ATOS in still air. I'd work toward getting my lost 10lb of thrust > > back, but I don't have the time to stuff about and the current climb > > "rate" is generally adequate for my purposes. > > > > As regards engine mounts, I use 4 captive Lord mounts (150P30). In > > flight vibration in the trike frame is minimal, and you certainly > > can't feel any transmitted through the control bar. It's only at > > rough idle (idling too slow) on the ground that you get a bit of > > shake. I'm paranoid about engine-induced fatigue, so I went for a > > good, radially soft mounting arrangement. > > > > PS: Now blogging the flying season: > > see: http://360.yahoo.com/microsoar > > > > John Reynoldson > > > 278 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:58pm Subject: Re: Started Static thrust testing captain_jims Offline Send Email My prop is a 45-16. The prop manufacturer quoted the same numbers for thrust as John is getting. Even though John has a redrive, I dont believe that he is running a prop much bigger than the 45". Most of the props for the Solo engine are fairly small due to the powered parachute usage. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Mitchell Couch" wrote: > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > > I think the reason you are getting so much thrust from your Solo is > that it is a two stroke with a redrive. I would be happy to get 5# > of thrust per hp with the tecumseh. Jim, what size prop and pitch > were you using on the tecumseh? > > Mitchell > 279 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:59pm Subject: Re: Started Static thrust testing microsoar Offline Send Email Are you not using a redrive, Jim? I thought you were... John Reynoldson. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Mitchell Couch" wrote: > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > > I think the reason you are getting so much thrust from your Solo is > that it is a two stroke with a redrive. I would be happy to get 5# > of thrust per hp with the tecumseh. Jim, what size prop and pitch > were you using on the tecumseh? > > Mitchell > 280 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:07pm Subject: Re: Started Static thrust testing captain_jims Offline Send Email No, I am currently direct drive. A redrive is part of my backup plan, but with the prop manufacturer quoting 110 lbs thrust at 3400 rpm direct drive, I am still hoping to avoid the redrive issues. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "John W Reynoldson" wrote: > > Are you not using a redrive, Jim? I thought you were... > John Reynoldson. > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Mitchell Couch" > wrote: 281 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:38pm Subject: Re: Started Static thrust testing microsoar Offline Send Email I hope he's offering a refund if it can't be acheived... :-) cheers, John. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > > No, I am currently direct drive. A redrive is part of my backup plan, > but with the prop manufacturer quoting 110 lbs thrust at 3400 rpm > direct drive, I am still hoping to avoid the redrive issues. > > Jim 282 From: "Mitchell Couch" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2005 0:25am Subject: Re: Started Static thrust testing mitchcouch Offline Send Email Was the prop hub hard to come by or did you make your own? Also, can I ask about who made the prop? I would like to check prices. Thanks, Mitchell --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "John W Reynoldson" wrote: > > I hope he's offering a refund if it can't be acheived... > :-) > cheers, > John. > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" > wrote: > > > > No, I am currently direct drive. A redrive is part of my backup plan, > > but with the prop manufacturer quoting 110 lbs thrust at 3400 rpm > > direct drive, I am still hoping to avoid the redrive issues. > > > > Jim > 283 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:16am Subject: Re: Started Static thrust testing captain_jims Offline Send Email The prop was custom carved by Beres & Hirsch. I cant find a current website for them. The prop flange was made from a cast pulley and taperlock bushing per their drawings. It started as a commercial 7" cast iron pulley. The belt flanges were cut off and the prop face machined flat. All done on a 12" lathe in about 20 minutes. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Mitchell Couch" wrote: > > Was the prop hub hard to come by or did you make your own? > > Also, can I ask about who made the prop? I would like to check > prices. > > Thanks, > > Mitchell > > 284 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:12pm Subject: Re: Started Static thrust testing microsoar Offline Send Email If folks are looking for inexpensive (good quality) props,try www.nipon-propeller.com They may have one to suit your applicatuon. I had mine within 2 weeks of ordering and the finish is superb. John. --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Mitchell Couch" wrote: > > Was the prop hub hard to come by or did you make your own? > > Also, can I ask about who made the prop? I would like to check > prices. > > Thanks, > > Mitchell > 285 From: "mario mohl" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:46am Subject: Re: Re: Started Static thrust testing mariomohl Offline Send Email As you probably know, Dave Beres died a few years ago. Kathy, the widow, ran the company for a while after renaming it White Wing Propeller. Last I heard she was selling the whole thing, company, patterns, equipment, etc. Never got the last chapter of the story. Mario ----- Original Message ----- From: captain_jims To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 06:16 Subject: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Re: Started Static thrust testing The prop was custom carved by Beres & Hirsch. I cant find a current website for them. The prop flange was made from a cast pulley and taperlock bushing per their drawings. It started as a commercial 7" cast iron pulley. The belt flanges were cut off and the prop face machined flat. All done on a 12" lathe in about 20 minutes. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Mitchell Couch" wrote: > > Was the prop hub hard to come by or did you make your own? > > Also, can I ask about who made the prop? I would like to check > prices. > > Thanks, > > Mitchell > > 286 From: "konigfan" Date: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:21am Subject: Nanolight konigfan Offline Send Email Dear Sirs: I am a 500 hour hanglider pilot in Uruguay, South America since 1990 and fly paragliders 80 hrs and paramotors 192hrs (many home) made since 94. Love paramotoring but began considering making a small trike for fun. I have been looking at many planforms but I cant find one to go well with a Dream 220 hanglider. This glider has very long rear wires and the props plane will cross them, so if by any chance the prop blows up it might take a wire with it... I dont want to re locate or modify the wires so it seems that I have to use an engine reduction with an extension like the old Soarmaster (obviously shorter) so as to be on the safe side. The Dream has an enourmous chord at the center making it worst. Has anyone have any experience with a Dream 200 trike? Does the Dream need to have its keel reinforced? Thanks, Alan. 287 From: "mario mohl" Date: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:39am Subject: Re: Nanolight mariomohl Offline Send Email alanh@tinglesa.com.uy is that you? ----- Original Message ----- From: konigfan To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:21 Subject: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Nanolight Dear Sirs: I am a 500 hour hanglider pilot in Uruguay, South America since 1990 and fly paragliders 80 hrs and paramotors 192hrs (many home) made since 94. Love paramotoring but began considering making a small trike for fun. I have been looking at many planforms but I cant find one to go well with a Dream 220 hanglider. This glider has very long rear wires and the props plane will cross them, so if by any chance the prop blows up it might take a wire with it... I dont want to re locate or modify the wires so it seems that I have to use an engine reduction with an extension like the old Soarmaster (obviously shorter) so as to be on the safe side. The Dream has an enourmous chord at the center making it worst. Has anyone have any experience with a Dream 200 trike? Does the Dream need to have its keel reinforced? Thanks, Alan. 288 From: noa nisinbaum Date: Sat Oct 29, 2005 5:57am Subject: Re: Nanolight noa_nis Offline Send Email hello Elen, I am from Israel and I have build my own Nanolite per my needs and I fit it to Profille-15 and 17 withour any modifications. I have used Zanzoterra MZ34 engine with 48" prop no problems at all. Flew with it about 200 flights until a friend broke it while tuff landing. As a General - As much as you lockate the engine more behind then it will be in more distance from the wires. If you will want more information I'll be happy to send you with pictures. Please contact me via E-mail : aharonn@segtec.co.il may the wind be with you. Aharon Nissinbaum Israel. konigfan wrote: Dear Sirs: I am a 500 hour hanglider pilot in Uruguay, South America since 1990 and fly paragliders 80 hrs and paramotors 192hrs (many home) made since 94. Love paramotoring but began considering making a small trike for fun. I have been looking at many planforms but I cant find one to go well with a Dream 220 hanglider. This glider has very long rear wires and the props plane will cross them, so if by any chance the prop blows up it might take a wire with it... I dont want to re locate or modify the wires so it seems that I have to use an engine reduction with an extension like the old Soarmaster (obviously shorter) so as to be on the safe side. The Dream has an enourmous chord at the center making it worst. Has anyone have any experience with a Dream 200 trike? Does the Dream need to have its keel reinforced? Thanks, Alan. -- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Attachment: (image/pjpeg) engine mount.JPG [not stored] Attachment: (image/pjpeg) P0026357.JPG [not stored] Attachment: (image/pjpeg) éñä áâåáä ðîåê.JPG [not stored] 289 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:17am Subject: Re: Nanolight captain_jims Offline Send Email Thanks for the information. You may post some photos in the photo section of this group. Plenty of space. We are anxious to see your trike. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, noa nisinbaum wrote: > > hello Elen, > > I am from Israel and I have build my own Nanolite per my needs and I fit it to Profille-15 and 17 withour any modifications. > > I have used Zanzoterra MZ34 engine with 48" prop no problems at all. > > Flew with it about 200 flights until a friend broke it while tuff landing. > > As a General - As much as you lockate the engine more behind then it will be in more distance from the wires. > > If you will want more information I'll be happy to send you with pictures. > > Please contact me via E-mail : aharonn@s... > > may the wind be with you. > > Aharon Nissinbaum > Israel. > > 290 From: "noa_nis" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:01pm Subject: I have posted some pics of my trike new albom . please note the new prop. noa_nis Offline Send Email I have made a try and took multiwing prop - 3 blades with this round hub which designed to work as a fun and ducted and I just put it on my MZ34 engine- open not ducted and flue. it is about 45" diameter and I must say I was extrimlly surprise. It worked very well. This 3 blade prop cost me less then 100$ 15$/ea blade and 40$/Hub which means it cost 15$ to replace blade. It has a ground pitch adjusable. I did cut abit the prop sides ti reduce pitch. Regards Aharon. 291 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:01pm Subject: Re: I have posted some pics of my trike new albom . please note the new prop. captain_jims Offline Send Email Thanks for posting the photos. I think that all of us will learn something. Great to see the innovative design and your desire to try some new things. Good example of a liteTrike. I have often read that the center few inches of a prop don't do anything besides absorb power. Now you have a good example to show that the prop works without the center 8-10 inches. Glad to see that you were able to match it to your engine. Thanks, Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "noa_nis" wrote: > > I have made a try and took multiwing prop - 3 blades with this round > hub which designed to work as a fun and ducted and I just put it on > my MZ34 engine- open not ducted and flue. > > it is about 45" diameter and I must say I was extrimlly surprise. > It worked very well. > > This 3 blade prop cost me less then 100$ 15$/ea blade and 40$/Hub > which means it cost 15$ to replace blade. > > It has a ground pitch adjusable. > > I did cut abit the prop sides ti reduce pitch. > > Regards > Aharon. > 292 From: noa nisinbaum Date: Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:26pm Subject: Re: Re: I have posted some pics of my trike new albom . please note the new prop. noa_nis Offline Send Email Dear Jim, 1. This hub is 12" not 8 or 10" 2. next step is to make hub which will be 16" to create a total prop diameter of 49" to get more trust and also a lighter wight hub. 3. This multiwing prop idea is already being used by hovercrafts with Rotax 582 engines and bigger ones. infact this is wher I have seen it first "close" to our application. regards Aharon. captain_jims wrote: Thanks for posting the photos. I think that all of us will learn something. Great to see the innovative design and your desire to try some new things. Good example of a liteTrike. I have often read that the center few inches of a prop don't do anything besides absorb power. Now you have a good example to show that the prop works without the center 8-10 inches. Glad to see that you were able to match it to your engine. Thanks, Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "noa_nis" wrote: > > I have made a try and took multiwing prop - 3 blades with this round > hub which designed to work as a fun and ducted and I just put it on > my MZ34 engine- open not ducted and flue. > > it is about 45" diameter and I must say I was extrimlly surprise. > It worked very well. > > This 3 blade prop cost me less then 100$ 15$/ea blade and 40$/Hub > which means it cost 15$ to replace blade. > > It has a ground pitch adjusable. > > I did cut abit the prop sides ti reduce pitch. > > Regards > Aharon. > -- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 293 From: george_rf Date: Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:43pm Subject: Re: Re: I have posted some pics of my trike new albom . please note the new prop. george_rf1 Offline Send Email Did you give it any thought about how much drag such a big hub makes ? George noa nisinbaum wrote: Dear Jim, 1. This hub is 12" not 8 or 10" 2. next step is to make hub which will be 16" to create a total prop diameter of 49" to get more trust and also a lighter wight hub. 3. This multiwing prop idea is already being used by hovercrafts with Rotax 582 engines and bigger ones. infact this is wher I have seen it first "close" to our application. regards Aharon. captain_jims wrote: Thanks for posting the photos. I think that all of us will learn something. Great to see the innovative design and your desire to try some new things. Good example of a liteTrike. I have often read that the center few inches of a prop don't do anything besides absorb power. Now you have a good example to show that the prop works without the center 8-10 inches. Glad to see that you were able to match it to your engine. Thanks, Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "noa_nis" wrote: > > I have made a try and took multiwing prop - 3 blades with this round > hub which designed to work as a fun and ducted and I just put it on > my MZ34 engine- open not ducted and flue. > > it is about 45" diameter and I must say I was extrimlly surprise. > It worked very well. > > This 3 blade prop cost me less then 100$ 15$/ea blade and 40$/Hub > which means it cost 15$ to replace blade. > > It has a ground pitch adjusable. > > I did cut abit the prop sides ti reduce pitch. > > Regards > Aharon. > -- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Disclaimer ; opinions of others will vary depending on what they're selling This is my website http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/index.html Look all you want but don't touch -- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 294 From: noa nisinbaum Date: Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:09pm Subject: Re: Re: I have posted some pics of my trike new albom . please note the new prop. noa_nis Offline Send Email Hello George, This hub drag is one of the problems I'll have to deall with . The hub I 'll am thoinking about should be designed as dragless as possible. I am thinking of making the first one like a sandwitch if aluminum plates so the air will pass via most of it. Please understand that I am not a factory of manufacturer. I have designed this trike and build it in 6*5 meter portch in my house , Tested the balance of the trike by hanging all the system from the silling (including engine work and my self in it). I have no wing tunnel nor experiance on designing a prop so every advise from anyone with experiance for the hub may be a help. Next step may be making a folding wing hub but this will be after the hub will be succesfully designed. As you see in the picture with the current hub -which is not the best design (or maby it is a good design) (12") it worked not bad. Regards Aharon. george_rf wrote: Did you give it any thought about how much drag such a big hub makes ? George noa nisinbaum wrote: Dear Jim, 1. This hub is 12" not 8 or 10" 2. next step is to make hub which will be 16" to create a total prop diameter of 49" to get more trust and also a lighter wight hub. 3. This multiwing prop idea is already being used by hovercrafts with Rotax 582 engines and bigger ones. infact this is wher I have seen it first "close" to our application. regards Aharon. captain_jims wrote: Thanks for posting the photos. I think that all of us will learn something. Great to see the innovative design and your desire to try some new things. Good example of a liteTrike. I have often read that the center few inches of a prop don't do anything besides absorb power. Now you have a good example to show that the prop works without the center 8-10 inches. Glad to see that you were able to match it to your engine. Thanks, Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "noa_nis" wrote: > > I have made a try and took multiwing prop - 3 blades with this round > hub which designed to work as a fun and ducted and I just put it on > my MZ34 engine- open not ducted and flue. > > it is about 45" diameter and I must say I was extrimlly surprise. > It worked very well. > > This 3 blade prop cost me less then 100$ 15$/ea blade and 40$/Hub > which means it cost 15$ to replace blade. > > It has a ground pitch adjusable. > > I did cut abit the prop sides ti reduce pitch. > > Regards > Aharon. > -- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Disclaimer ; opinions of others will vary depending on what they're selling This is my website http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/index.html Look all you want but don't touch -- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. -- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 295 From: "Mitchell Couch" Date: Mon Nov 7, 2005 4:05pm Subject: ANY NEW TESTS mitchcouch Offline Send Email Jim, Have you done any more tests on the engine. I was wondering was thrust you might be up to on the engine. Mitchell 296 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Nov 7, 2005 5:34pm Subject: Re: ANY NEW TESTS captain_jims Offline Send Email Yes, I have done some minor tests. Since my last post, I have mounted the engine on a vibration isolation system, opened the jets in the carb, and run the engine to check all that. My current hold up is a need to balance the prop, I took a small chunk out of it by hitting a small foreign object while taxiing it. At this point I am pleased with the vibration mounting. I will post photos later, but let me describe it. I had some 1.50" ID polyurethane tubing. This is heavy wall of about .18" wall from the farm store, so it is moderatedly stiff when compressed side to side. I cut two 7" pcs, drilled 4 holes each, and then installed the tubes laying down. Two bolts go down into the original engine mounting holes, and two go upward into the engine base in each pc. Now, I will be buying a small tapered bushing to go into the prop flange, in order to balance the prop, flange assembly hanging from 2 strings. The prop flange was made from a pulley that had a tapered bore and the bushings are available from .50" up to 1.50" diameter. I dont want to remove the one from the engine since I have a good fit with the key in the id. On the carb situation, I dont know if I have the jets opened enough, but it definitely sounds better. I believe that I was getting more engine speed, but the tach I had did not work so I need to get a tiny tach for testing as well. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Mitchell Couch" wrote: > > Jim, > > Have you done any more tests on the engine. I was wondering was > thrust you might be up to on the engine. > > Mitchell > 297 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2005 0:45pm Subject: Question: Why are trike engine on the rear? captain_jims Offline Send Email We have had some cold weather and I have been scratching at design concepts. So the question that I am wondering about now is why is the engine on the rear of a trike? This becomes more of an issue when a heavy engine like the 4 cyl Geo is right behind your head and shoulders. I did some sketching of an engine on the front and there are several advantages. 1. Prop clearance to the ground is not reduced on takeoff or landing. 2. Clearance to the wing is a lot greater since the wing does not come down as far in the front as it does in the rear. 3. Cooling air flow is better 4. If anything falls off or is dropped, it does not go into the prop. There are some disadvantages: 1. Visibility, but similiar to a light fixed wing. 2. Cowling, but similiar to a light fixed wing. 3. Pilot must be further behind the wing pivot to balance the engine weight. What have I missed????? Jim 298 From: george_rf Date: Sun Dec 4, 2005 1:07pm Subject: Re: Question: Why are trike engine on the rear? george_rf1 Offline Send Email I guess we would have to see those sketches. George captain_jims wrote: We have had some cold weather and I have been scratching at design concepts. So the question that I am wondering about now is why is the engine on the rear of a trike? This becomes more of an issue when a heavy engine like the 4 cyl Geo is right behind your head and shoulders. I did some sketching of an engine on the front and there are several advantages. 1. Prop clearance to the ground is not reduced on takeoff or landing. 2. Clearance to the wing is a lot greater since the wing does not come down as far in the front as it does in the rear. 3. Cooling air flow is better 4. If anything falls off or is dropped, it does not go into the prop. There are some disadvantages: 1. Visibility, but similiar to a light fixed wing. 2. Cowling, but similiar to a light fixed wing. 3. Pilot must be further behind the wing pivot to balance the engine weight. What have I missed????? Jim Disclaimer ; opinions of others will vary depending on what they're selling This is my website http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/index.html Look all you want but don't touch -- Yahoo! Personals Let fate take it's course directly to your email. See who's waiting for you Yahoo! Personals 299 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2005 4:20pm Subject: Re: Question: Why are trike engines on the rear? captain_jims Offline Send Email I put a pdf of a sketch/drawing in the Files section. I did a pdf of the drawing to avoid a special viewer requirement. Anxious to hear your comments. The pivot point may need to move further forward, and the engine up a little. It is shown with a 60" prop with everything else to an appropriate scale. The engine outline shown is representative of the envelope of a typical 2 cyl 2 cycle. I added an egg shaped fuselage to make it easy to see how the front cowl must be raised a little. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, george_rf wrote: > > I guess we would have to see those sketches. > > George > 300 From: Bob Date: Sun Dec 4, 2005 5:38pm Subject: Re: Re: Question: Why are trike engines on the rear? turbometaspider Offline Send Email Hi Jim, I think you will have to move the pilot much further to the rear of the hang point than show in drawing. Bob in FL captain_jims wrote: > I put a pdf of a sketch/drawing in the Files section. I did a pdf of > the drawing to avoid a special viewer requirement. > > Anxious to hear your comments. > > The pivot point may need to move further forward, and the engine up a > little. It is shown with a 60" prop with everything else to an > appropriate scale. The engine outline shown is representative of the > envelope of a typical 2 cyl 2 cycle. I added an egg shaped fuselage > to make it easy to see how the front cowl must be raised a little. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, george_rf > wrote: > > > > I guess we would have to see those sketches. > > > > George > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders > " on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 301 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2005 6:17pm Subject: Re: Question: Why are trike engines on the rear? captain_jims Offline Send Email I have the wing pivot point too far to the rear, but I think by about 12" at the most. Here is how I calculate that. 1. Assume that the carriage frame only is balanced at the pivot 2. Then we need to balance the engine and the pilot. 3. I have 48" between the pilot cg and the engine cg 4. The pilot cg is approximately at the tail bone 5. The pilot is approx 3 times the weight of the engine. 200 vs 65 6. The engine moment arm must be 3 times the pilot moment arm to balance. 7. if the pilot moment arm is 12" behind the pivot and the engine is 36" ahead of the pivot, that adds to 48" and is balanced. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Bob wrote: > > Hi Jim, > I think you will have to move the pilot much further to the rear of the > hang point than show in drawing. > Bob in FL > > captain_jims wrote: > > > I put a pdf of a sketch/drawing in the Files section. I did a pdf of > > the drawing to avoid a special viewer requirement. > > > > Anxious to hear your comments. > > > > The pivot point may need to move further forward, and the engine up a > > little. It is shown with a 60" prop with everything else to an > > appropriate scale. The engine outline shown is representative of the > > envelope of a typical 2 cyl 2 cycle. I added an egg shaped fuselage > > to make it easy to see how the front cowl must be raised a little. > > > > Jim > > > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, george_rf > > wrote: > > > > > > I guess we would have to see those sketches. > > > > > > George > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > * Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders > > " on the web. > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > Service . > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 302 From: Bob Date: Sun Dec 4, 2005 10:48pm Subject: Re: Question: Why are trike engine on the rear? turbometaspider Offline Send Email Pro: Prop runs in cleaner air. Con: More parasitic drag and fuselage is exposed to spiraling slip stream. Possibly excessive weight on nose wheel. Main gear could be moved froward to carry more of the load. Most trikes have the main gear further back because of the need to keep the front wheel on the ground when empty. In a 2 place trike the variable load (passenger) would need to be in front of the pilot. Bob in FL captain_jims wrote: > We have had some cold weather and I have been scratching at design > concepts. So the question that I am wondering about now is why is the > engine on the rear of a trike? This becomes more of an issue when a > heavy engine like the 4 cyl Geo is right behind your head and shoulders. > > I did some sketching of an engine on the front and there are several > advantages. > 1. Prop clearance to the ground is not reduced on takeoff or landing. > 2. Clearance to the wing is a lot greater since the wing does not come > down as far in the front as it does in the rear. > 3. Cooling air flow is better > 4. If anything falls off or is dropped, it does not go into the prop. > > There are some disadvantages: > 1. Visibility, but similiar to a light fixed wing. > 2. Cowling, but similiar to a light fixed wing. > 3. Pilot must be further behind the wing pivot to balance the engine > weight. > > What have I missed????? > > Jim > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders > " on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 303 From: Bob Date: Sun Dec 4, 2005 10:57pm Subject: Ducted Fan for a Trike? turbometaspider Offline Send Email Has anyone considered a direct drive ducted fan for a trike. I have thought about a VW engine mounted in the inlet duct. Since free air cooled engines don't cool well on trikes and ducted fans can generate more static thrust than an un-shrouded prop, it might be a different solution. Bob in FL 304 From: "steve lyons" Date: Mon Dec 5, 2005 0:34am Subject: Re: Ducted Fan for a Trike? skywarriortr... Offline Send Email Hi Bob: I use to own a "state of the art" Hovercraft that used a ducted fan. There were several other hovercraft designs (and there still is) that used ducted fans. The hovercraft that perform the best (put out the most thrust) are the "open prop" type that, for example, swing a large 2 blade prop. My single place "heavy" trike project uses a 48hp engine that swings a 2 blade 72" wood prop using a 3.22 to 1 cog belt reduction drive. It will move lots more air than a ducted fan design. There is a big annual hovercraft convention up North somewhere every year (which I have been to). Go to that and observe the performance differences between the ducted fan craft and the open prop type of craft. Going down the ducted fan road is a big waste of time and money. The VW engine project is just too heavy. There was a fellow out in Arizona who had a very nice VW conversion on a 2 place Aeros trike. It sure sounded nice but it was really heavy. He ended up going back to a Rotax. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:57 AM Subject: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Ducted Fan for a Trike? Has anyone considered a direct drive ducted fan for a trike. I have thought about a VW engine mounted in the inlet duct. Since free air cooled engines don't cool well on trikes and ducted fans can generate more static thrust than an un-shrouded prop, it might be a different solution. Bob in FL -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 11/25/2005 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 11/25/2005 305 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Dec 5, 2005 3:29am Subject: Re: Ducted Fan for a Trike? captain_jims Offline Send Email Take a look in the photo section in the 'aharon' folder. This builder used a ducted fan without the duct and reports good performance on his trike. See past messages for his report. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Bob wrote: > > Has anyone considered a direct drive ducted fan for a trike. I have > thought about a VW engine mounted in the inlet duct. Since free air > cooled engines don't cool well on trikes and ducted fans can generate > more static thrust than an un-shrouded prop, it might be a different > solution. > > Bob in FL > 306 From: "Dr. Perry Morrison" Date: Mon Dec 5, 2005 4:32am Subject: Front engined trike perrymorrison Offline Send Email Problems: 1. More complex engine mount (heavier). Hanging off the mast is a lot easier to make a single strong structure to suspend trike base, engine, seat and seat belts. 2. Need firewall as well. 3. Nose gear supports need reinforcing to take landing loads. 4. Most trikes are not nose up enough for prop clearance. You will need a long nose wheel to prevent prop strikes on bad landings. 5. conventional trike config is very efficient. a tractor engine blowing over a pod, bars and wires seems silly when a pusher thrusts into clean air- especially since trikes have no empennage. tractor=pain for no gain. 307 From: "captain_jims" Date: Mon Dec 5, 2005 10:23am Subject: Re: Front engined trike captain_jims Offline Send Email Interesting points. Lets respond one at a time. 1. Look at the engine mount on a Weedhopper ultralight. Engine hangs from a single tube. Many flying. 2. Maybe we need firewalls on rear engine trikes. No protection between engine and fuel tank on most. Bad news with the commerical plastic tanks. I used a steel tank on my Geo Trike for this reason. But a fuel tank leak still blows on a hot engine. Rather have the engine in front of the tank. 3. Yes, nose wheel would need to be stronger, but most should be stonger now. What fails today on a hard landing. Nosewheel structure. 4. My sketch shows that a 60" prop would clear. The engine could be higher that I have show. or more reduction offset. 5. More drag from the prop is a common misperception. It has been shown many times that it is better to blow air on a clean shape, than feed air to the prop from a leading shape. Drag may go up, the the prop effeciency goes up a lot more. And less noise in clean air. The dirty air off the trike causes a lot of the prop noise since the prop is chopping thru dirty air. The primary gain is not having the heavy engine right behind you. A hard for forced landing can put that engine right into the pilot and maybe the passenger. I think that might be the key gain. But the more I work on my Geo Trike, the more worried I am about 150 lbs coming forward. Even the 65 lbs of a Rotax is not insignificant. I see the Dr. on your name. Is that MD and if so do you see many avoidable head and neck injuries? Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Perry Morrison" wrote: > > Problems: > > 1. More complex engine mount (heavier). Hanging off the mast is a > lot easier to make a single strong structure to suspend trike base, > engine, seat and seat belts. > > 2. Need firewall as well. > > 3. Nose gear supports need reinforcing to take landing loads. > > 4. Most trikes are not nose up enough for prop clearance. You will need > a long nose wheel to prevent prop strikes on bad landings. > > 5. conventional trike config is very efficient. a tractor engine blowing > over a pod, bars and wires seems silly when a pusher thrusts into clean > air- especially since trikes have no empennage. > > tractor=pain for no gain. > 308 From: Bob Date: Mon Dec 5, 2005 8:29pm Subject: Re: Re: Front engined trike turbometaspider Offline Send Email captain_jims wrote: Interesting points. Lets respond one at a time. 1. Look at the engine mount on a Weedhopper ultralight. Engine hangs from a single tube. Many flying. In the Weedhopper the engine is mounted on a major part of the airframe. In a trike no major airframes in the area to mount the engine to, thus it will be necessary to go to the carriage keel for support. I think this would weigh more than the existing engine mounts in use on trike now. 2. Maybe we need firewalls on rear engine trikes. No protection between engine and fuel tank on most. Bad news with the commerical plastic tanks. I used a steel tank on my Geo Trike for this reason. But a fuel tank leak still blows on a hot engine. Rather have the engine in front of the tank. But the flames off the burning engine is in your face. 3. Yes, nose wheel would need to be stronger, but most should be stonger now. What fails today on a hard landing. Nosewheel structure. It will also require a larger tire to reduce the ground pressure with the added weight. I also think the overturning forces would be worse with a large weight mounted above one corner. Maybe a tail dragger geared trike could be built to over come this, but that might be a giant step backwards. 4. My sketch shows that a 60" prop would clear. The engine could be higher that I have show. or more reduction offset. I believe the major mass of the engine would be in the middle of your field of view. Not like the Weedhopper where you are below the engine. Thinking about a Weedhopper in a hard pancake landing. What happens if the boom extension buckled with the engine still running, could the prop cut you? 5. More drag from the prop is a common misperception. It has been shown many times that it is better to blow air on a clean shape, than feed air to the prop from a leading shape. Drag may go up, the the prop effeciency goes up a lot more. And less noise in clean air. The dirty air off the trike causes a lot of the prop noise since the prop is chopping thru dirty air. I don't think trike rigging or your head would really qualify as clean. The primary gain is not having the heavy engine right behind you. A hard for forced landing can put that engine right into the pilot and maybe the passenger. I think that might be the key gain. But the more I work on my Geo Trike, the more worried I am about 150 lbs coming forward. Even the 65 lbs of a Rotax is not insignificant. That is definitely a concern, no argument from me. I see the Dr. on your name. Is that MD and if so do you see many avoidable head and neck injuries? Jim These are the problems I foresee now, but all problems can be over come. The question is: "Is the solution worst than the problem?" Bob in FL --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Perry Morrison" wrote: > > Problems: > > 1. More complex engine mount (heavier). Hanging off the mast is a > lot easier to make a single strong structure to suspend trike base, > engine, seat and seat belts. > > 2. Need firewall as well. > > 3. Nose gear supports need reinforcing to take landing loads. > > 4. Most trikes are not nose up enough for prop clearance. You will need > a long nose wheel to prevent prop strikes on bad landings. > > 5. conventional trike config is very efficient. a tractor engine blowing > over a pod, bars and wires seems silly when a pusher thrusts into clean > air- especially since trikes have no empennage. > > tractor=pain for no gain. > 309 From: "John W Reynoldson" Date: Mon Dec 5, 2005 10:58pm Subject: Re: Front engined trike microsoar Offline Send Email One more unknown.... It's well recognised that propeller wash accelerated flow has significant effects in 3 axis aircraft in providing additional effectiveness for the tail control surfaces. The question is.... will the accelerated flow beneath the lower surface of a flex wing have a positive or negative effect on stability and/or control. Me, I'd be packing a good ballistic chute on the test flights! As an aside, the "Narglfly" powered hang glider does use a front-mounted prop. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lejair/narglfly.htm It's not a popular configuation, and I'm unaware of any stability studies. The rear prop powered hang glider harnesses are far more popular. John. 310 From: "captain_jims" Date: Tue Dec 6, 2005 4:21am Subject: Re: Front engined trike captain_jims Offline Send Email In analyzing this kind of design decision, we must group the potential problems into two types. 1, Those that are resolvable with some effort, albeit, significant 2. Those that are so fundamental that resolution is so difficult as to require a basic change to the concept. It would seem to me that most of the issues raised so far fall into category 1. John's concern about the air flow beneath the flex wing may be a valid category 2, but we need to do some investigation. My gut feel is that it wont be in the speed range we are considering. We tend to think about the structure of such a new config as necessarily developing from the previous structure, this thought process is not valid. The engine is a fixed mass that we can have little impact on, except for the reduction offset. The pilot's body is a fixed mass that we have little ability to modify. The wheels and wing have fairly well defined locations. But given those constraints, the frame structure can vary substantially from the current triangle, 3 stick common designs. My Tecumseh trike uses a frame that demostrates that, and the basic frame weighs just 15 lbs. Further, it is a given in my view that you cannot put the pilot in the prop wash, so he must be enclosed with a forward cowl and windshield at the least. That will also work to provide the smooth flow for the prop wash. On the question of visibility, I owned an experimental for 17 years that had NO forward visibility. I flew from the back seat behind a large Lycoming and never saw where I was going. We adapt, so I dont see that as an issue. A Stearman pilot never does see forward and they have been flying for 60 years. Bottom Line: What are the fundamental issues that must be considered that could be real show stoppers? And what are the issues that will simply require some design effort? Jim 311 From: "Dr. Perry Morrison" Date: Tue Dec 6, 2005 5:54am Subject: Re: Digest Number 137 perrymorrison Offline Send Email > > Interesting points. Lets respond one at a time. > 1. Look at the engine mount on a Weedhopper ultralight. Engine hangs > from a single tube. Many flying. Yes, but easily mounted to an existing boom/fuse structure. Your engine would need to MUCH higher than the bottom/seat tube and that requires more structure than just some vibration dampeners and bolts to an already existing tube. If it isn't a high mount, prop strike will occur. The average trike sites pretty low. > > 2. Maybe we need firewalls on rear engine trikes. No protection > between engine and fuel tank on most. Bad news with the commerical > plastic tanks. I used a steel tank on my Geo Trike for this reason. > But a fuel tank leak still blows on a hot engine. Rather have the > engine in front of the tank. Fire blown behind you is much better than fire/smoke/fumes in your face. hence firewalls in tractors. In a pusher, slipstream is a more effective firewall (ie. temp barrier) than most real firewalls. Especially with an absence of tail feathers to burn to a crisp. > > 3. Yes, nose wheel would need to be stronger, but most should be > stonger now. What fails today on a hard landing. Nosewheel structure. Multiply that by the weight of the engine and arm and you have significant loads to deal with on a boom that generally only has loads close to the mast. With conventional trikes, one load structure handles engine, pilot, wing, fuel. A tractor would split the load locations significantly, complicating the stress pattern. Probably also make it harder to retain c of g for different pilot weights. current trikes load close to the c of g. most tandems with engine out front are more load sensitive. > > 4. My sketch shows that a 60" prop would clear. The engine could be > higher that I have show. or more reduction offset. Again it could be done but mounting an engine on a mast gives huge choice on clearance and other issues. You will basically have to build an engine mount on top of the bottom tube(s) with a tractor. Why build extra structure? With conventional trikes, prop strike is v unlikely because of the structures there whereas with a tractor prop the moments involved are very significant. consider that a trigear only has to hit a hole and lose its nosewheel. on conventional trikes that's only damage to nosegear and pod. With a tractor engine it's that plus prop plus possibly crankshaft and engine mounts as well. > 5. More drag from the prop is a common misperception. It has been > shown many times that it is better to blow air on a clean shape, than > > feed air to the prop from a leading shape. Drag may go up, the the > prop effeciency goes up a lot more. And less noise in clean air. > The dirty air off the trike causes a lot of the prop noise since the > prop is chopping thru dirty air. You could be right there. but some of the most efficient aircraft built are pushers such as the Long Eze, varieze etc. i supect the efficiency also comes from a canard in clean air. > > The primary gain is not having the heavy engine right behind you. A > hard for forced landing can put that engine right into the pilot and > maybe the passenger. I think that might be the key gain. But the > more I work on my Geo Trike, the more worried I am about 150 lbs > coming forward. Even the 65 lbs of a Rotax is not insignificant. I think the "engine in the back of the head" fear has always been exaggerated. Energy sufficient to break the engine mount and mast is more likely to twist the vehicle in some way a la ground loop or tumble than to simply go straight thru the mounts, mast, seat and pilot. If the energy involved in the crash is so large and perpendicular to the line of flight (i.e. head on into a cliff or something) then the crash would probably not be survivable anyway without massively increasing the rest of the crash structure as well. We had a local crash in a trike, 2 up which had sufficient energy to leave a 200m debris trail (landing WITH a 35 kot wind). The occupants were not flung out and the engine stayed in place. 1 died and 1 lived. > > I see the Dr. on your name. Is that MD and if so do you see many > avoidable head and neck injuries? No i started as a psychologist and ended up a computer scientist which makes me unqualifies to discuss anything aeronautical! __________________________ Dr. Perry Morrison Morrison Associates Pty Ltd 0408892638 perrymorrison@... __________________________ 312 From: "steve lyons" Date: Tue Dec 6, 2005 7:12am Subject: Re: Digest Number 137 skywarriortr... Offline Send Email My personal opinion is that one should concentrate on improving features of existing conventionally designed trikes and not try to totally re-engineer them (pusher vs tractor). I am doing something a little different with my single place trike design in that I am adding another wheel to the front making it a 4 wheeled design. I use rubber torsion axles on all 4 wheels. Front steering is dampened with gas struts. Initial ground testing has been very positive. Ground handling is outstanding and there is no "tipping" tendency like one experiences from a 3 wheeled design. The 4 wheel design is being used on the ParaSki PPC and seems to be working OK. There are also some European trike designs that use 4 wheels. I really like the 4 wheel concept and will continue to do more testing. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Perry Morrison To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Digest Number 137 > > Interesting points. Lets respond one at a time. > 1. Look at the engine mount on a Weedhopper ultralight. Engine hangs > from a single tube. Many flying. Yes, but easily mounted to an existing boom/fuse structure. Your engine would need to MUCH higher than the bottom/seat tube and that requires more structure than just some vibration dampeners and bolts to an already existing tube. If it isn't a high mount, prop strike will occur. The average trike sites pretty low. > > 2. Maybe we need firewalls on rear engine trikes. No protection > between engine and fuel tank on most. Bad news with the commerical > plastic tanks. I used a steel tank on my Geo Trike for this reason. > But a fuel tank leak still blows on a hot engine. Rather have the > engine in front of the tank. Fire blown behind you is much better than fire/smoke/fumes in your face. hence firewalls in tractors. In a pusher, slipstream is a more effective firewall (ie. temp barrier) than most real firewalls. Especially with an absence of tail feathers to burn to a crisp. > > 3. Yes, nose wheel would need to be stronger, but most should be > stonger now. What fails today on a hard landing. Nosewheel structure. Multiply that by the weight of the engine and arm and you have significant loads to deal with on a boom that generally only has loads close to the mast. With conventional trikes, one load structure handles engine, pilot, wing, fuel. A tractor would split the load locations significantly, complicating the stress pattern. Probably also make it harder to retain c of g for different pilot weights. current trikes load close to the c of g. most tandems with engine out front are more load sensitive. > > 4. My sketch shows that a 60" prop would clear. The engine could be > higher that I have show. or more reduction offset. Again it could be done but mounting an engine on a mast gives huge choice on clearance and other issues. You will basically have to build an engine mount on top of the bottom tube(s) with a tractor. Why build extra structure? With conventional trikes, prop strike is v unlikely because of the structures there whereas with a tractor prop the moments involved are very significant. consider that a trigear only has to hit a hole and lose its nosewheel. on conventional trikes that's only damage to nosegear and pod. With a tractor engine it's that plus prop plus possibly crankshaft and engine mounts as well. > 5. More drag from the prop is a common misperception. It has been > shown many times that it is better to blow air on a clean shape, than > > feed air to the prop from a leading shape. Drag may go up, the the > prop effeciency goes up a lot more. And less noise in clean air. > The dirty air off the trike causes a lot of the prop noise since the > prop is chopping thru dirty air. You could be right there. but some of the most efficient aircraft built are pushers such as the Long Eze, varieze etc. i supect the efficiency also comes from a canard in clean air. > > The primary gain is not having the heavy engine right behind you. A > hard for forced landing can put that engine right into the pilot and > maybe the passenger. I think that might be the key gain. But the > more I work on my Geo Trike, the more worried I am about 150 lbs > coming forward. Even the 65 lbs of a Rotax is not insignificant. I think the "engine in the back of the head" fear has always been exaggerated. Energy sufficient to break the engine mount and mast is more likely to twist the vehicle in some way a la ground loop or tumble than to simply go straight thru the mounts, mast, seat and pilot. If the energy involved in the crash is so large and perpendicular to the line of flight (i.e. head on into a cliff or something) then the crash would probably not be survivable anyway without massively increasing the rest of the crash structure as well. We had a local crash in a trike, 2 up which had sufficient energy to leave a 200m debris trail (landing WITH a 35 kot wind). The occupants were not flung out and the engine stayed in place. 1 died and 1 lived. > > I see the Dr. on your name. Is that MD and if so do you see many > avoidable head and neck injuries? No i started as a psychologist and ended up a computer scientist which makes me unqualifies to discuss anything aeronautical! __________________________ Dr. Perry Morrison Morrison Associates Pty Ltd 0408892638 perrymorrison@yahoo.com __________________________ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 11/25/2005 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 11/25/2005 313 From: Bob Date: Tue Dec 6, 2005 8:48pm Subject: Re: Re: Front engined trike turbometaspider Offline Send Email Jim, Ask that Stearman pilot if he would like to see out the front though. :-) Bob in FL 314 From: "Dr. Perry Morrison" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 6:09am Subject: Re: Digest Number 138 perrymorrison Offline Send Email Probably the first step is to have a clear set of design goals you want to meet. These might be performance goals, cost, ease of construction, crash survivability etc. You've mentioned your discomfort with rear mounted engines in terms of their potential to impact the pilot(s). This might be a valid concern. One way to validate it is to look at the crash records of pushers to find what % of crashes in pushers would have been survivable if the engine had not dislodged and crushed the crew. My hunch is that there would be very few. I simply guess that any impact powerful enough to rip out a rear mounted engine would probably not be survivable anyway without sugnificant beefing up of existing crash protection. Also, the incidence of these events would be a very tiny fraction of accidents because of low stall speed, light engines and strong mounts. But that's just my hunch and real data is the only way to go. This is not to discourage you from a new design. In the end if you are interested enough to overome the frustration and costs involved in any new design, that's all the matters. Thats the essence of experimentation i guess. Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com wrote: ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> There are 4 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Re: Front engined trike From: "captain_jims" 2. Re: Digest Number 137 From: "Dr. Perry Morrison" 3. Re: Digest Number 137 From: "steve lyons" 4. Re: Re: Front engined trike From: Bob ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:21:09 -0000 From: "captain_jims" Subject: Re: Front engined trike In analyzing this kind of design decision, we must group the potential problems into two types. 1, Those that are resolvable with some effort, albeit, significant 2. Those that are so fundamental that resolution is so difficult as to require a basic change to the concept. It would seem to me that most of the issues raised so far fall into category 1. John's concern about the air flow beneath the flex wing may be a valid category 2, but we need to do some investigation. My gut feel is that it wont be in the speed range we are considering. We tend to think about the structure of such a new config as necessarily developing from the previous structure, this thought process is not valid. The engine is a fixed mass that we can have little impact on, except for the reduction offset. The pilot's body is a fixed mass that we have little ability to modify. The wheels and wing have fairly well defined locations. But given those constraints, the frame structure can vary substantially from the current triangle, 3 stick common designs. My Tecumseh trike uses a frame that demostrates that, and the basic frame weighs just 15 lbs. Further, it is a given in my view that you cannot put the pilot in the prop wash, so he must be enclosed with a forward cowl and windshield at the least. That will also work to provide the smooth flow for the prop wash. On the question of visibility, I owned an experimental for 17 years that had NO forward visibility. I flew from the back seat behind a large Lycoming and never saw where I was going. We adapt, so I dont see that as an issue. A Stearman pilot never does see forward and they have been flying for 60 years. Bottom Line: What are the fundamental issues that must be considered that could be real show stoppers? And what are the issues that will simply require some design effort? Jim ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 05:54:14 -0800 (PST) From: "Dr. Perry Morrison" Subject: Re: Digest Number 137 > > Interesting points. Lets respond one at a time. > 1. Look at the engine mount on a Weedhopper ultralight. Engine hangs > from a single tube. Many flying. Yes, but easily mounted to an existing boom/fuse structure. Your engine would need to MUCH higher than the bottom/seat tube and that requires more structure than just some vibration dampeners and bolts to an already existing tube. If it isn't a high mount, prop strike will occur. The average trike sites pretty low. > > 2. Maybe we need firewalls on rear engine trikes. No protection > between engine and fuel tank on most. Bad news with the commerical > plastic tanks. I used a steel tank on my Geo Trike for this reason. > But a fuel tank leak still blows on a hot engine. Rather have the > engine in front of the tank. Fire blown behind you is much better than fire/smoke/fumes in your face. hence firewalls in tractors. In a pusher, slipstream is a more effective firewall (ie. temp barrier) than most real firewalls. Especially with an absence of tail feathers to burn to a crisp. > > 3. Yes, nose wheel would need to be stronger, but most should be > stonger now. What fails today on a hard landing. Nosewheel structure. Multiply that by the weight of the engine and arm and you have significant loads to deal with on a boom that generally only has loads close to the mast. With conventional trikes, one load structure handles engine, pilot, wing, fuel. A tractor would split the load locations significantly, complicating the stress pattern. Probably also make it harder to retain c of g for different pilot weights. current trikes load close to the c of g. most tandems with engine out front are more load sensitive. > > 4. My sketch shows that a 60" prop would clear. The engine could be > higher that I have show. or more reduction offset. Again it could be done but mounting an engine on a mast gives huge choice on clearance and other issues. You will basically have to build an engine mount on top of the bottom tube(s) with a tractor. Why build extra structure? With conventional trikes, prop strike is v unlikely because of the structures there whereas with a tractor prop the moments involved are very significant. consider that a trigear only has to hit a hole and lose its nosewheel. on conventional trikes that's only damage to nosegear and pod. With a tractor engine it's that plus prop plus possibly crankshaft and engine mounts as well. > 5. More drag from the prop is a common misperception. It has been > shown many times that it is better to blow air on a clean shape, than > > feed air to the prop from a leading shape. Drag may go up, the the > prop effeciency goes up a lot more. And less noise in clean air. > The dirty air off the trike causes a lot of the prop noise since the > prop is chopping thru dirty air. You could be right there. but some of the most efficient aircraft built are pushers such as the Long Eze, varieze etc. i supect the efficiency also comes from a canard in clean air. > > The primary gain is not having the heavy engine right behind you. A > hard for forced landing can put that engine right into the pilot and > maybe the passenger. I think that might be the key gain. But the > more I work on my Geo Trike, the more worried I am about 150 lbs > coming forward. Even the 65 lbs of a Rotax is not insignificant. I think the "engine in the back of the head" fear has always been exaggerated. Energy sufficient to break the engine mount and mast is more likely to twist the vehicle in some way a la ground loop or tumble than to simply go straight thru the mounts, mast, seat and pilot. If the energy involved in the crash is so large and perpendicular to the line of flight (i.e. head on into a cliff or something) then the crash would probably not be survivable anyway without massively increasing the rest of the crash structure as well. We had a local crash in a trike, 2 up which had sufficient energy to leave a 200m debris trail (landing WITH a 35 kot wind). The occupants were not flung out and the engine stayed in place. 1 died and 1 lived. > > I see the Dr. on your name. Is that MD and if so do you see many > avoidable head and neck injuries? No i started as a psychologist and ended up a computer scientist which makes me unqualifies to discuss anything aeronautical! __________________________ Dr. Perry Morrison Morrison Associates Pty Ltd 0408892638 perrymorrison@yahoo.com __________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:12:14 -0600 From: "steve lyons" Subject: Re: Digest Number 137 My personal opinion is that one should concentrate on improving features of existing conventionally designed trikes and not try to totally re-engineer them (pusher vs tractor). I am doing something a little different with my single place trike design in that I am adding another wheel to the front making it a 4 wheeled design. I use rubber torsion axles on all 4 wheels. Front steering is dampened with gas struts. Initial ground testing has been very positive. Ground handling is outstanding and there is no "tipping" tendency like one experiences from a 3 wheeled design. The 4 wheel design is being used on the ParaSki PPC and seems to be working OK. There are also some European trike designs that use 4 wheels. I really like the 4 wheel concept and will continue to do more testing. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Perry Morrison To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Digest Number 137 > > Interesting points. Lets respond one at a time. > 1. Look at the engine mount on a Weedhopper ultralight. Engine hangs > from a single tube. Many flying. Yes, but easily mounted to an existing boom/fuse structure. Your engine would need to MUCH higher than the bottom/seat tube and that requires more structure than just some vibration dampeners and bolts to an already existing tube. If it isn't a high mount, prop strike will occur. The average trike sites pretty low. > > 2. Maybe we need firewalls on rear engine trikes. No protection > between engine and fuel tank on most. Bad news with the commerical > plastic tanks. I used a steel tank on my Geo Trike for this reason. > But a fuel tank leak still blows on a hot engine. Rather have the > engine in front of the tank. Fire blown behind you is much better than fire/smoke/fumes in your face. hence firewalls in tractors. In a pusher, slipstream is a more effective firewall (ie. temp barrier) than most real firewalls. Especially with an absence of tail feathers to burn to a crisp. > > 3. Yes, nose wheel would need to be stronger, but most should be > stonger now. What fails today on a hard landing. Nosewheel structure. Multiply that by the weight of the engine and arm and you have significant loads to deal with on a boom that generally only has loads close to the mast. With conventional trikes, one load structure handles engine, pilot, wing, fuel. A tractor would split the load locations significantly, complicating the stress pattern. Probably also make it harder to retain c of g for different pilot weights. current trikes load close to the c of g. most tandems with engine out front are more load sensitive. > > 4. My sketch shows that a 60" prop would clear. The engine could be > higher that I have show. or more reduction offset. Again it could be done but mounting an engine on a mast gives huge choice on clearance and other issues. You will basically have to build an engine mount on top of the bottom tube(s) with a tractor. Why build extra structure? With conventional trikes, prop strike is v unlikely because of the structures there whereas with a tractor prop the moments involved are very significant. consider that a trigear only has to hit a hole and lose its nosewheel. on conventional trikes that's only damage to nosegear and pod. With a tractor engine it's that plus prop plus possibly crankshaft and engine mounts as well. > 5. More drag from the prop is a common misperception. It has been > shown many times that it is better to blow air on a clean shape, than > > feed air to the prop from a leading shape. Drag may go up, the the > prop effeciency goes up a lot more. And less noise in clean air. > The dirty air off the trike causes a lot of the prop noise since the > prop is chopping thru dirty air. You could be right there. but some of the most efficient aircraft built are pushers such as the Long Eze, varieze etc. i supect the efficiency also comes from a canard in clean air. > > The primary gain is not having the heavy engine right behind you. A > hard for forced landing can put that engine right into the pilot and > maybe the passenger. I think that might be the key gain. But the > more I work on my Geo Trike, the more worried I am about 150 lbs > coming forward. Even the 65 lbs of a Rotax is not insignificant. I think the "engine in the back of the head" fear has always been exaggerated. Energy sufficient to break the engine mount and mast is more likely to twist the vehicle in some way a la ground loop or tumble than to simply go straight thru the mounts, mast, seat and pilot. If the energy involved in the crash is so large and perpendicular to the line of flight (i.e. head on into a cliff or something) then the crash would probably not be survivable anyway without massively increasing the rest of the crash structure as well. We had a local crash in a trike, 2 up which had sufficient energy to leave a 200m debris trail (landing WITH a 35 kot wind). The occupants were not flung out and the engine stayed in place. 1 died and 1 lived. > > I see the Dr. on your name. Is that MD and if so do you see many > avoidable head and neck injuries? No i started as a psychologist and ended up a computer scientist which makes me unqualifies to discuss anything aeronautical! __________________________ Dr. Perry Morrison Morrison Associates Pty Ltd 0408892638 perrymorrison@yahoo.com __________________________ SPONSORED LINKS Sports pilots Single cylinder Aviation Aviation school Experimental aircraft Experimental music YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 11/25/2005 ---------- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 11/25/2005 [This message contained attachments] ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:48:05 -0600 From: Bob Subject: Re: Re: Front engined trike Jim, Ask that Stearman pilot if he would like to see out the front though. :-) Bob in FL ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lite_Trike_Builders/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ __________________________ Dr. Perry Morrison Morrison Associates Pty Ltd 0408892638 perrymorrison@yahoo.com __________________________ 315 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 8:21am Subject: Front Engine Discussion captain_jims Offline Send Email The rear engine location has more issues than pilot injury that concern me. 1. Prop damage from rocks from the wheels. 2. Prop damage from anything that comes off the engine or trike, or is accidentally dropped. I already have more dings in my props that I ever had with my front engine airplane. 3. While not applicable to lite trikes, I have to wonder how much of the instability that folks are seeing at higher speeds is due to pushing and not pulling. We are seeing more and more fins on trikes as speeds go up. 4. The fuel location with respect to the engine is an issue. Any tank leak will allow fuel to blow onto a hot engine On the visibility issue, I put a photo of an inverted cycle engine mounted in the photo section. You can see that there is no engine above the prop center line to block the view. This mounting is similar to my Sabre and would keep the engine below the line of sight. Basically puts the cylinder head down near the pilots feet. But, the bottom line is that I certainly agree with your first statement that you can outline design objectives and then develop the best design to meet them. That is the nature of the development process. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Perry Morrison" wrote: > > Probably the first step is to have a clear set of design goals you want > to meet. These might be performance goals, cost, ease of construction, > crash survivability etc. You've mentioned your discomfort with rear > mounted engines in terms of their potential to impact the pilot(s). > 316 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 8:27am Subject: What is a trike with 4 wheels? captain_jims Offline Send Email First, let me say clearly that I applaud your development efforts. With luck one of the many ideas mentioned will blossom into a significant improvement that is accepted by many. But, I do have to chuckle at your first line that we should concentrate on improving existing trikes and then compare that to what you are doing. I agree with your 4 wheel argument and dont like the tippiness during a crosswind landing, but that is a major change with a lot of ramifications. Hardly meets your first statement. But, I stress, I will follow your work with great interest. Besides, two front wheels will carry the front engine with ease. ps. dont get trapped into considering rear wheel steering. The overstear due to the inherent instability of that system is not solvable. Years ago, I had the chance to test steering stability on some rear steer vehicles, all ok until you need to make a fast turn. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "steve lyons" wrote: > > My personal opinion is that one should concentrate on improving features of existing conventionally designed trikes and not try to totally re-engineer them (pusher vs tractor). I am doing something a little different with my single place trike design in that I am adding another wheel to the front making it a 4 wheeled design. I use rubber torsion axles on all 4 wheels. Front steering is dampened with gas struts. Initial ground testing has been very positive. Ground handling is outstanding and there is no "tipping" tendency like one experiences from a 3 wheeled design. The 4 wheel design is being used on the ParaSki PPC and seems to be working OK. There are also some European trike designs that use 4 wheels. I really like the 4 wheel concept and will continue to do more testing. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dr. Perry Morrison > To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 7:54 AM > Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Digest Number 137 > > 317 From: george_rf Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 9:38am Subject: Re: Digest Number 138 george_rf1 Offline Send Email Even if the engine doesn't' rip out as you say the energy of deceleration the engine weight has to be absorbed by the front cockpit that's why they end up severely crunched up, You can observe this on crashed airplanes like Kolb, Titan , T-bird, where the engines do not separate and hit the crew but the cockpits get completely squished. Which is what kills the people not the impact itself. George "Dr. Perry Morrison" wrote: Probably the first step is to have a clear set of design goals you want to meet. These might be performance goals, cost, ease of construction, crash survivability etc. You've mentioned your discomfort with rear mounted engines in terms of their potential to impact the pilot(s). This might be a valid concern. One way to validate it is to look at the crash records of pushers to find what % of crashes in pushers would have been survivable if the engine had not dislodged and crushed the crew. My hunch is that there would be very few. I simply guess that any impact powerful enough to rip out a rear mounted engine would probably not be survivable anyway without sugnificant beefing up of existing crash protection. Also, the incidence of these events would be a very tiny fraction of accidents because of low stall speed, light engines and strong mounts. But that's just my hunch and real data is the only way to go. This is not to discourage you from a new design. In the end if you are interested enough to overome the frustration and costs involved in any new design, that's all the matters. Thats the essence of experimentation i guess. Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com wrote: ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> There are 4 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Re: Front engined trike From: "captain_jims" 2. Re: Digest Number 137 From: "Dr. Perry Morrison" 3. Re: Digest Number 137 From: "steve lyons" 4. Re: Re: Front engined trike From: Bob ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:21:09 -0000 From: "captain_jims" Subject: Re: Front engined trike In analyzing this kind of design decision, we must group the potential problems into two types. 1, Those that are resolvable with some effort, albeit, significant 2. Those that are so fundamental that resolution is so difficult as to require a basic change to the concept. It would seem to me that most of the issues raised so far fall into category 1. John's concern about the air flow beneath the flex wing may be a valid category 2, but we need to do some investigation. My gut feel is that it wont be in the speed range we are considering. We tend to think about the structure of such a new config as necessarily developing from the previous structure, this thought process is not valid. The engine is a fixed mass that we can have little impact on, except for the reduction offset. The pilot's body is a fixed mass that we have little ability to modify. The wheels and wing have fairly well defined locations. But given those constraints, the frame structure can vary substantially from the current triangle, 3 stick common designs. My Tecumseh trike uses a frame that demostrates that, and the basic frame weighs just 15 lbs. Further, it is a given in my view that you cannot put the pilot in the prop wash, so he must be enclosed with a forward cowl and windshield at the least. That will also work to provide the smooth flow for the prop wash. On the question of visibility, I owned an experimental for 17 years that had NO forward visibility. I flew from the back seat behind a large Lycoming and never saw where I was going. We adapt, so I dont see that as an issue. A Stearman pilot never does see forward and they have been flying for 60 years. Bottom Line: What are the fundamental issues that must be considered that could be real show stoppers? And what are the issues that will simply require some design effort? Jim ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 05:54:14 -0800 (PST) From: "Dr. Perry Morrison" Subject: Re: Digest Number 137 > > Interesting points. Lets respond one at a time. > 1. Look at the engine mount on a Weedhopper ultralight. Engine hangs > from a single tube. Many flying. Yes, but easily mounted to an existing boom/fuse structure. Your engine would need to MUCH higher than the bottom/seat tube and that requires more structure than just some vibration dampeners and bolts to an already existing tube. If it isn't a high mount, prop strike will occur. The average trike sites pretty low. > > 2. Maybe we need firewalls on rear engine trikes. No protection > between engine and fuel tank on most. Bad news with the commerical > plastic tanks. I used a steel tank on my Geo Trike for this reason. > But a fuel tank leak still blows on a hot engine. Rather have the > engine in front of the tank. Fire blown behind you is much better than fire/smoke/fumes in your face. hence firewalls in tractors. In a pusher, slipstream is a more effective firewall (ie. temp barrier) than most real firewalls. Especially with an absence of tail feathers to burn to a crisp. > > 3. Yes, nose wheel would need to be stronger, but most should be > stonger now. What fails today on a hard landing. Nosewheel structure. Multiply that by the weight of the engine and arm and you have significant loads to deal with on a boom that generally only has loads close to the mast. With conventional trikes, one load structure handles engine, pilot, wing, fuel. A tractor would split the load locations significantly, complicating the stress pattern. Probably also make it harder to retain c of g for different pilot weights. current trikes load close to the c of g. most tandems with engine out front are more load sensitive. > > 4. My sketch shows that a 60" prop would clear. The engine could be > higher that I have show. or more reduction offset. Again it could be done but mounting an engine on a mast gives huge choice on clearance and other issues. You will basically have to build an engine mount on top of the bottom tube(s) with a tractor. Why build extra structure? With conventional trikes, prop strike is v unlikely because of the structures there whereas with a tractor prop the moments involved are very significant. consider that a trigear only has to hit a hole and lose its nosewheel. on conventional trikes that's only damage to nosegear and pod. With a tractor engine it's that plus prop plus possibly crankshaft and engine mounts as well. > 5. More drag from the prop is a common misperception. It has been > shown many times that it is better to blow air on a clean shape, than > > feed air to the prop from a leading shape. Drag may go up, the the > prop effeciency goes up a lot more. And less noise in clean air. > The dirty air off the trike causes a lot of the prop noise since the > prop is chopping thru dirty air. You could be right there. but some of the most efficient aircraft built are pushers such as the Long Eze, varieze etc. i supect the efficiency also comes from a canard in clean air. > > The primary gain is not having the heavy engine right behind you. A > hard for forced landing can put that engine right into the pilot and > maybe the passenger. I think that might be the key gain. But the > more I work on my Geo Trike, the more worried I am about 150 lbs > coming forward. Even the 65 lbs of a Rotax is not insignificant. I think the "engine in the back of the head" fear has always been exaggerated. Energy sufficient to break the engine mount and mast is more likely to twist the vehicle in some way a la ground loop or tumble than to simply go straight thru the mounts, mast, seat and pilot. If the energy involved in the crash is so large and perpendicular to the line of flight (i.e. head on into a cliff or something) then the crash would probably not be survivable anyway without massively increasing the rest of the crash structure as well. We had a local crash in a trike, 2 up which had sufficient energy to leave a 200m debris trail (landing WITH a 35 kot wind). The occupants were not flung out and the engine stayed in place. 1 died and 1 lived. > > I see the Dr. on your name. Is that MD and if so do you see many > avoidable head and neck injuries? No i started as a psychologist and ended up a computer scientist which makes me unqualifies to discuss anything aeronautical! __________________________ Dr. Perry Morrison Morrison Associates Pty Ltd 0408892638 perrymorrison@yahoo.com __________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:12:14 -0600 From: "steve lyons" Subject: Re: Digest Number 137 My personal opinion is that one should concentrate on improving features of existing conventionally designed trikes and not try to totally re-engineer them (pusher vs tractor). I am doing something a little different with my single place trike design in that I am adding another wheel to the front making it a 4 wheeled design. I use rubber torsion axles on all 4 wheels. Front steering is dampened with gas struts. Initial ground testing has been very positive. Ground handling is outstanding and there is no "tipping" tendency like one experiences from a 3 wheeled design. The 4 wheel design is being used on the ParaSki PPC and seems to be working OK. There are also some European trike designs that use 4 wheels. I really like the 4 wheel concept and will continue to do more testing. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Perry Morrison To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Digest Number 137 > > Interesting points. Lets respond one at a time. > 1. Look at the engine mount on a Weedhopper ultralight. Engine hangs > from a single tube. Many flying. Yes, but easily mounted to an existing boom/fuse structure. Your engine would need to MUCH higher than the bottom/seat tube and that requires more structure than just some vibration dampeners and bolts to an already existing tube. If it isn't a high mount, prop strike will occur. The average trike sites pretty low. > > 2. Maybe we need firewalls on rear engine trikes. No protection > between engine and fuel tank on most. Bad news with the commerical > plastic tanks. I used a steel tank on my Geo Trike for this reason. > But a fuel tank leak still blows on a hot engine. Rather have the > engine in front of the tank. Fire blown behind you is much better than fire/smoke/fumes in your face. hence firewalls in tractors. In a pusher, slipstream is a more effective firewall (ie. temp barrier) than most real firewalls. Especially with an absence of tail feathers to burn to a crisp. > > 3. Yes, nose wheel would need to be stronger, but most should be > stonger now. What fails today on a hard landing. Nosewheel structure. Multiply that by the weight of the engine and arm and you have significant loads to deal with on a boom that generally only has loads close to the mast. With conventional trikes, one load structure handles engine, pilot, wing, fuel. A tractor would split the load locations significantly, complicating the stress pattern. Probably also make it harder to retain c of g for different pilot weights. current trikes load close to the c of g. most tandems with engine out front are more load sensitive. > > 4. My sketch shows that a 60" prop would clear. The engine could be > higher that I have show. or more reduction offset. Again it could be done but mounting an engine on a mast gives huge choice on clearance and other issues. You will basically have to build an engine mount on top of the bottom tube(s) with a tractor. Why build extra structure? With conventional trikes, prop strike is v unlikely because of the structures there whereas with a tractor prop the moments involved are very significant. consider that a trigear only has to hit a hole and lose its nosewheel. on conventional trikes that's only damage to nosegear and pod. With a tractor engine it's that plus prop plus possibly crankshaft and engine mounts as well. > 5. More drag from the prop is a common misperception. It has been > shown many times that it is better to blow air on a clean shape, than > > feed air to the prop from a leading shape. Drag may go up, the the > prop effeciency goes up a lot more. And less noise in clean air. > The dirty air off the trike causes a lot of the prop noise since the > prop is chopping thru dirty air. You could be right there. but some of the most efficient aircraft built are pushers such as the Long Eze, varieze etc. i supect the efficiency also comes from a canard in clean air. > > The primary gain is not having the heavy engine right behind you. A > hard for forced landing can put that engine right into the pilot and > maybe the passenger. I think that might be the key gain. But the > more I work on my Geo Trike, the more worried I am about 150 lbs > coming forward. Even the 65 lbs of a Rotax is not insignificant. I think the "engine in the back of the head" fear has always been exaggerated. Energy sufficient to break the engine mount and mast is more likely to twist the vehicle in some way a la ground loop or tumble than to simply go straight thru the mounts, mast, seat and pilot. If the energy involved in the crash is so large and perpendicular to the line of flight (i.e. head on into a cliff or something) then the crash would probably not be survivable anyway without massively increasing the rest of the crash structure as well. We had a local crash in a trike, 2 up which had sufficient energy to leave a 200m debris trail (landing WITH a 35 kot wind). The occupants were not flung out and the engine stayed in place. 1 died and 1 lived. > > I see the Dr. on your name. Is that MD and if so do you see many > avoidable head and neck injuries? No i started as a psychologist and ended up a computer scientist which makes me unqualifies to discuss anything aeronautical! __________________________ Dr. Perry Morrison Morrison Associates Pty Ltd 0408892638 perrymorrison@yahoo.com __________________________ SPONSORED LINKS Sports pilots Single cylinder Aviation Aviation school Experimental aircraft Experimental music YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 11/25/2005 ---------- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 11/25/2005 [This message contained attachments] ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:48:05 -0600 From: Bob Subject: Re: Re: Front engined trike Jim, Ask that Stearman pilot if he would like to see out the front though. :-) Bob in FL ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lite_Trike_Builders/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ __________________________ Dr. Perry Morrison Morrison Associates Pty Ltd 0408892638 perrymorrison@yahoo.com __________________________ Disclaimer ; opinions of others will vary depending on what they're selling This is my website http://curedcomposites.netfirms.com/index.html Look all you want but don't touch -- Yahoo! Personals Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free 318 From: "jeremy_harris_uk" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 0:25pm Subject: Re: Question: Why are trike engine on the rear? jeremy_harri... Offline Send Email --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "captain_jims" wrote: > > We have had some cold weather and I have been scratching at design > concepts. So the question that I am wondering about now is why is the > engine on the rear of a trike? This becomes more of an issue when a > heavy engine like the 4 cyl Geo is right behind your head and shoulders. > > I did some sketching of an engine on the front and there are several > advantages. > 1. Prop clearance to the ground is not reduced on takeoff or landing. > 2. Clearance to the wing is a lot greater since the wing does not come > down as far in the front as it does in the rear. > 3. Cooling air flow is better > 4. If anything falls off or is dropped, it does not go into the prop. > > There are some disadvantages: > 1. Visibility, but similiar to a light fixed wing. > 2. Cowling, but similiar to a light fixed wing. > 3. Pilot must be further behind the wing pivot to balance the engine > weight. > > What have I missed????? > > Jim > Jim, you are a man after my own heart. I've often pondered this, just as you have. The only thiong I could come up with as a downside was the prop slipstream. It'd be no worse than a conventional aircraft, excepting the greater exposure, and as you note, would be safer in an accident. As you know, the UK BCAR Section S airworthiness requirements for trikes insist that rear engines get tested to 15g forward loads, to deal with the extreme crash case. A front engined microlight only has to handle 9g forwards, a big difference. In fact, there is a positive advantage in having a weaker engine mount up front, as Wayne Ison has always said. Letting the engine and prop break free in an accident is a good thing, as it absorbs energy and is one less thing trapping you in the wreckage. Jeremy SALISBURY UK 319 From: "jeremy_harris_uk" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 0:34pm Subject: Re: Front engined trike jeremy_harri... Offline Send Email --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Perry Morrison" wrote: > > Problems: > > 1. More complex engine mount (heavier). Hanging off the mast is a > lot easier to make a single strong structure to suspend trike base, > engine, seat and seat belts. > > 2. Need firewall as well. > > 3. Nose gear supports need reinforcing to take landing loads. > > 4. Most trikes are not nose up enough for prop clearance. You will need > a long nose wheel to prevent prop strikes on bad landings. > > 5. conventional trike config is very efficient. a tractor engine blowing > over a pod, bars and wires seems silly when a pusher thrusts into clean > air- especially since trikes have no empennage. > > tractor=pain for no gain. > Hmmmm.... Some dodgy science here. The inflow to a prop is far, far more critical to performance than the outflow. This might seem counter-intuitive, but it's been shown to be true. A well designed tractor trike, perhaps with two front wheels and one at the rear, has the potential to work well. There would even be the possibility of experimenting with "trike" stabilising surfaces at the rear. These may well improve directional stability and increase overall efficiency as well. the thrust line on a conventional trike is rarely optimal, using a stabiliser at the back might make a useful improvement. I'd hazard a guess that such an arranegment would make the "trike" more tumble resistant, which might well be a goo enough reason on it's own to try the experiment. Thanks for being so bold as to suggest this Jim, the debate has been very stimulating! Jeremy SALISBURY UK 320 From: "captain_jims" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 1:54pm Subject: Re: Question: Why are trike engine on the rear? captain_jims Offline Send Email Now that we have had some discussion on this subject, I want to show you what sparked the idea. http://www.flyingflea.org/docs/SprattControlwing.htm This page discusses and has some vids of the Spratt Controllwing aircraft. Basically a tilt wing boat with a rigid wing on a pivot. Now he had a rear prop due to the boat appearance and water operation, but it makes for interesting reading. Jim ps. Thanks for the input below Jeremy. You always have a great way of making a point on various groups. Your input is appreciated. > > > > Jim, you are a man after my own heart. I've often pondered this, > just as you have. The only thiong I could come up with as a > downside was the prop slipstream. It'd be no worse than a > conventional aircraft, excepting the greater exposure, and as you > note, would be safer in an accident. > > As you know, the UK BCAR Section S airworthiness requirements for > trikes insist that rear engines get tested to 15g forward loads, to > deal with the extreme crash case. A front engined microlight only > has to handle 9g forwards, a big difference. In fact, there is a > positive advantage in having a weaker engine mount up front, as > Wayne Ison has always said. Letting the engine and prop break free > in an accident is a good thing, as it absorbs energy and is one less > thing trapping you in the wreckage. > > Jeremy > SALISBURY > UK > 321 From: "steve lyons" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 5:04pm Subject: Re: What is a trike with 4 wheels? skywarriortr... Offline Send Email Hi Jim: Most everything else about my trike design is "conventional", except for the 4 wheels of course. I will be using an inverted rear mounted engine running a 3.22 to 1, 50mm cog belt and swinging a 2 blade 72" Culver wood prop. I am also using 2 aluminum fuel cells as a fuel source. 3 gallons each. Steve L. ----- Original Message ----- From: captain_jims To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:27 AM Subject: [Lite_Trike_Builders] What is a trike with 4 wheels? First, let me say clearly that I applaud your development efforts. With luck one of the many ideas mentioned will blossom into a significant improvement that is accepted by many. But, I do have to chuckle at your first line that we should concentrate on improving existing trikes and then compare that to what you are doing. I agree with your 4 wheel argument and dont like the tippiness during a crosswind landing, but that is a major change with a lot of ramifications. Hardly meets your first statement. But, I stress, I will follow your work with great interest. Besides, two front wheels will carry the front engine with ease. ps. dont get trapped into considering rear wheel steering. The overstear due to the inherent instability of that system is not solvable. Years ago, I had the chance to test steering stability on some rear steer vehicles, all ok until you need to make a fast turn. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "steve lyons" wrote: > > My personal opinion is that one should concentrate on improving features of existing conventionally designed trikes and not try to totally re-engineer them (pusher vs tractor). I am doing something a little different with my single place trike design in that I am adding another wheel to the front making it a 4 wheeled design. I use rubber torsion axles on all 4 wheels. Front steering is dampened with gas struts. Initial ground testing has been very positive. Ground handling is outstanding and there is no "tipping" tendency like one experiences from a 3 wheeled design. The 4 wheel design is being used on the ParaSki PPC and seems to be working OK. There are also some European trike designs that use 4 wheels. I really like the 4 wheel concept and will continue to do more testing. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dr. Perry Morrison > To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 7:54 AM > Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Digest Number 137 > > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 322 From: "William Wixon" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 5:25pm Subject: Re: What is a trike with 4 wheels? william_wixon Offline Send Email Steve, just curious, where'd you get the aluminum fuel cells? best of luck with your new design. b.w. ----- Original Message ----- From: "steve lyons" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] What is a trike with 4 wheels? Hi Jim: Most everything else about my trike design is "conventional", except for the 4 wheels of course. I will be using an inverted rear mounted engine running a 3.22 to 1, 50mm cog belt and swinging a 2 blade 72" Culver wood prop. I am also using 2 aluminum fuel cells as a fuel source. 3 gallons each. Steve L. ----- Original Message ----- 323 From: "steve lyons" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 6:25pm Subject: Re: What is a trike with 4 wheels? skywarriortr... Offline Send Email Hi Bill: I got my aluminum fuel cells from Jeg's high performance racing. Summitt racing carries fuel cells also, about the same price. ----- Original Message ----- From: William Wixon To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] What is a trike with 4 wheels? Steve, just curious, where'd you get the aluminum fuel cells? best of luck with your new design. b.w. ----- Original Message ----- From: "steve lyons" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] What is a trike with 4 wheels? Hi Jim: Most everything else about my trike design is "conventional", except for the 4 wheels of course. I will be using an inverted rear mounted engine running a 3.22 to 1, 50mm cog belt and swinging a 2 blade 72" Culver wood prop. I am also using 2 aluminum fuel cells as a fuel source. 3 gallons each. Steve L. ----- Original Message ----- -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 324 From: "William Wixon" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 6:42pm Subject: Re: What is a trike with 4 wheels? william_wixon Offline Send Email huh! thanks. neat! http://www.jegs.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10002&st\ oreId=10001&categoryId=19797&parentCategoryId=10297&langId=-1 http://www.jegs.com/images/photos/55515300.jpg http://www.jegs.com/images/photos/8212050AB.jpg that seems like the way to go if you want to be safe. i assume they're lined with some sort of rubbery substance. was surprised to read "foam filled" didn't know they put foam inside too, that's neat/interesting. wonder what kind of foam they use. (i got a (don't laugh)(recycled) stainless steel (2 1/2 gallon) fire extinguisher (pressurized-water style) tank i intended to modify to use in a ppg (but it never happened). wouldn't have been rubber lined or foam filled though. *relatively* lightweight. i'd imagine there would be a concern that it could hurt you in a crash, not sure which would've been worse, getting hit with a (20 lb. full of fuel) stainless steel tank or getting splashed with gasoline from a ruptured plastic fuel tank. (was guessing the gas would've been worse) b.w. ----- Original Message ----- From: "steve lyons" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] What is a trike with 4 wheels? Hi Bill: I got my aluminum fuel cells from Jeg's high performance racing. Summitt racing carries fuel cells also, about the same price. 325 From: "steve lyons" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 7:07pm Subject: Re: What is a trike with 4 wheels? skywarriortr... Offline Send Email Hey Bill: The fuel cells are not lined with a rubbery substance. They are foam filled. Looks like a spongie type of foam, kind of similar to what goes in a car seat except the holes in the foam are larger. You can remove the foam from the tank if you don't want it. Benefit of the foam is to prevent the fuel from sloshing/foaming. I gave this fuel cell idea a lot of thought before buying them. For guys who are flying heavy 2 place trikes and carrying maybe 15 gallons of fuel, all of that weight sloshing about, particularly when you are trying to make small adjustments during your landing sequence might be causing the chariot to oscillate some. Anyway, that was my concern, sloshing fuel. And of course the aluminum would not be susceptible to certain kinds of damage/punctures like a plastic tank would be. ----- Original Message ----- From: William Wixon To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] What is a trike with 4 wheels? huh! thanks. neat! http://www.jegs.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10002&storeId=10001&categoryId=19797&parentCategoryId=10297&langId=-1 http://www.jegs.com/images/photos/55515300.jpg http://www.jegs.com/images/photos/8212050AB.jpg that seems like the way to go if you want to be safe. i assume they're lined with some sort of rubbery substance. was surprised to read "foam filled" didn't know they put foam inside too, that's neat/interesting. wonder what kind of foam they use. (i got a (don't laugh)(recycled) stainless steel (2 1/2 gallon) fire extinguisher (pressurized-water style) tank i intended to modify to use in a ppg (but it never happened). wouldn't have been rubber lined or foam filled though. *relatively* lightweight. i'd imagine there would be a concern that it could hurt you in a crash, not sure which would've been worse, getting hit with a (20 lb. full of fuel) stainless steel tank or getting splashed with gasoline from a ruptured plastic fuel tank. (was guessing the gas would've been worse) b.w. ----- Original Message ----- From: "steve lyons" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] What is a trike with 4 wheels? Hi Bill: I got my aluminum fuel cells from Jeg's high performance racing. Summitt racing carries fuel cells also, about the same price. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 326 From: "William Wixon" Date: Wed Dec 7, 2005 7:23pm Subject: Re: What is a trike with 4 wheels? william_wixon Offline Send Email huh! i always assumed fuel cells had a some sort of puncture resistant elastic/elastomer/rubber lining, just so in case there was any crash/damage there might be one more layer of protection, could possibly resist leakage. never knew about the foam. always figured they used some kind of interior baffles to slow down the sloshing. foam seems like a good/better idea. best of luck to you with your project. post some pics. b.w. ----- Original Message ----- From: "steve lyons" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [Lite_Trike_Builders] What is a trike with 4 wheels? Hey Bill: The fuel cells are not lined with a rubbery substance. They are foam filled. Looks like a spongie type of foam, kind of similar to what goes in a car seat except the holes in the foam are larger. You can remove the foam from the tank if you don't want it. Benefit of the foam is to prevent the fuel from sloshing/foaming. I gave this fuel cell idea a lot of thought before buying them. For guys who are flying heavy 2 place trikes and carrying maybe 15 gallons of fuel, all of that weight sloshing about, particularly when you are trying to make small adjustments during your landing sequence might be causing the chariot to oscillate some. Anyway, that was my concern, sloshing fuel. And of course the aluminum would not be susceptible to certain kinds of damage/punctures like a plastic tank would be. 328 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:05am Subject: Pulma 2000 captain_jims Offline Send Email Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily available materials. As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. Jim 329 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:12am Subject: Sex trash removed and member banned captain_jims Offline Send Email As is our continuing practice, the recent sex related post was deleted and the poster was banned. I find the posting of that kind of material on a working group like this completely unacceptable. So. for any poster planning on posting that kind of material, it will be deleted within a few hours and you will be banned. Just dont do it. ps, I know that they wont pay attention to my warning, but I feel better putting it out there so all the working members know my intent and know that I will do my best to avoid that kind of content on this group. I dont want to go to message reviews, but I will start reviewing the first post from each member if necessary to stop this. Jim 330 From: "steve lyons" Date: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:40am Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 skywarriortr... Offline Send Email Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: captain_jims To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:05 AM Subject: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Pulma 2000 Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily available materials. As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. Jim -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 331 From: Bob Date: Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:06am Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 turbometaspider Offline Send Email Try here: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pulma1/Construction%20amateur.htm Bob in FL steve lyons wrote: > Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* captain_jims > *To:* Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com > > *Sent:* Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:05 AM > *Subject:* [Lite_Trike_Builders] Pulma 2000 > > Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma > 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be > one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little > too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. > > Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is > interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily > available materials. > > As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing > and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" > aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller > tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. > > Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a > square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. > > Jim > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: > 12/5/2005 > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > Sports pilots > > Single cylinder > > Aviation > > > Aviation school > > Experimental aircraft > > Experimental music > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders > " on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 > > 332 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:01am Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 site in English captain_jims Offline Send Email That one is in Franch. Here it is translated by the Google translation service. If that does not post, I will put up a tiny URL for it. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Bob wrote: > > Try here: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pulma1/Construction%20amateur.htm > > Bob in FL > steve lyons wrote: > > > Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. 333 From: Date: Sat Dec 10, 2005 0:25pm Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions farleygordon Offline Send Email Ha Jim I too would like to build this little trike. Do yo think you could put some dimensions to the Pulma drawing? Thanks Farley __________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 334 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:19pm Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions captain_jims Offline Send Email I think that we can do just that. In fact, lets try to do it as a group. First, we will establish key dimensions, and key materials sizes on our way to a Bill of Material for the project. I will start off with this proposal: Key Dimensions: 1. Wheel base - (front to rear from the front wheel center line to the imaginery rear axle centerline) = 64" 2. Rear wheel tread - (side to side dimension from one rear wheel centerline to the other) - 60" 3. Height to the wing pivot from the keel - (depends on the A-frame dimension of the wing provided) - 70" to 74" 4. Wheel size - 4 x 5 (many suppliers have a 4" wide x 5" dia wheel in aluminum or plastic.) 5. Keel and mast tubing - 2 x 2 square alum 6061. (The Pulma appears to be round, but square has great advantages that we will see when bolting and clamping.) 6. Front fork - 1" sq alum tubing 6061 Question: should the front fork remain as an extension of the front strut or be moved back on the keel or the keel extended? OK, there is my starting proposal. Lets hear the input and your opinion on these numbers. We get these items pinned down, we will be on the downhill slide on this project. Joint design and material size for those joints remains of course. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > > Ha Jim > I too would like to build this little trike. Do yo > think you could put some dimensions to the Pulma > drawing? Thanks Farley > > __________________________________________________ > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > 335 From: "Dr. Perry Morrison" Date: Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:07pm Subject: Re: Digest Number 141 perrymorrison Offline Send Email Re the pulma group reverse engineering project: 1. I'd like to see some sleeving/doubler details. The engine mount area and hang point area seem worthy. I'd prefer steel. 2. I'd prefer steel attach points for all cables and internal sleeving there. 3. I'd prefer an internal, last ditch, light cable running inside the length of the mast and boom. 4. The mast should fold. I think the pulma does with the removal of 1 bolt. 5. All removable components fixed with castle nuts or wing nuts + split pins. This may add to weight. If so buy expensive, light weight wheels, use netting for seat or whatever. When getting tossed by thermals i'd prefer some confidence in structural strength instead of wishing i'd traded those fat wheelbarrow wheels for some steel in the right places. just my .02. perry morrison Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com wrote: ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/u8TY5A/tzNLAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> There are 7 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Pulma 2000 From: "captain_jims" 2. Sex trash removed and member banned From: "captain_jims" 3. Re: Pulma 2000 From: "steve lyons" 4. Re: Pulma 2000 From: Bob 5. Re: Pulma 2000 site in English From: "captain_jims" 6. Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions From: 7. Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions From: "captain_jims" ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:05:39 -0000 From: "captain_jims" Subject: Pulma 2000 Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily available materials. As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. Jim ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:12:51 -0000 From: "captain_jims" Subject: Sex trash removed and member banned As is our continuing practice, the recent sex related post was deleted and the poster was banned. I find the posting of that kind of material on a working group like this completely unacceptable. So. for any poster planning on posting that kind of material, it will be deleted within a few hours and you will be banned. Just dont do it. ps, I know that they wont pay attention to my warning, but I feel better putting it out there so all the working members know my intent and know that I will do my best to avoid that kind of content on this group. I dont want to go to message reviews, but I will start reviewing the first post from each member if necessary to stop this. Jim ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:40:05 -0600 From: "steve lyons" Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: captain_jims To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:05 AM Subject: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Pulma 2000 Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily available materials. As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. Jim SPONSORED LINKS Sports pilots Single cylinder Aviation Aviation school Experimental aircraft Experimental music YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 [This message contained attachments] ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:06:10 -0600 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 Try here: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pulma1/Construction%20amateur.htm Bob in FL steve lyons wrote: > Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* captain_jims > *To:* Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com > > *Sent:* Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:05 AM > *Subject:* [Lite_Trike_Builders] Pulma 2000 > > Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma > 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be > one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little > too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. > > Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is > interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily > available materials. > > As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing > and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" > aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller > tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. > > Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a > square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. > > Jim > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: > 12/5/2005 > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > Sports pilots > > Single cylinder > > Aviation > > > Aviation school > > Experimental aircraft > > Experimental music > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders > " on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 > > ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 5 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:01:32 -0000 From: "captain_jims" Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 site in English That one is in Franch. Here it is translated by the Google translation service. If that does not post, I will put up a tiny URL for it. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Bob wrote: > > Try here: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pulma1/Construction%20amateur.htm > > Bob in FL > steve lyons wrote: > > > Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 6 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:25:33 -0800 (PST) From: Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions Ha Jim I too would like to build this little trike. Do yo think you could put some dimensions to the Pulma drawing? Thanks Farley __________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 7 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:19:35 -0000 From: "captain_jims" Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions I think that we can do just that. In fact, lets try to do it as a group. First, we will establish key dimensions, and key materials sizes on our way to a Bill of Material for the project. I will start off with this proposal: Key Dimensions: 1. Wheel base - (front to rear from the front wheel center line to the imaginery rear axle centerline) = 64" 2. Rear wheel tread - (side to side dimension from one rear wheel centerline to the other) - 60" 3. Height to the wing pivot from the keel - (depends on the A-frame dimension of the wing provided) - 70" to 74" 4. Wheel size - 4 x 5 (many suppliers have a 4" wide x 5" dia wheel in aluminum or plastic.) 5. Keel and mast tubing - 2 x 2 square alum 6061. (The Pulma appears to be round, but square has great advantages that we will see when bolting and clamping.) 6. Front fork - 1" sq alum tubing 6061 Question: should the front fork remain as an extension of the front strut or be moved back on the keel or the keel extended? OK, there is my starting proposal. Lets hear the input and your opinion on these numbers. We get these items pinned down, we will be on the downhill slide on this project. Joint design and material size for those joints remains of course. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > > Ha Jim > I too would like to build this little trike. Do yo > think you could put some dimensions to the Pulma > drawing? Thanks Farley > > __________________________________________________ > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lite_Trike_Builders/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 336 From: "captain_jims" Date: Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:36pm Subject: Re: Digest Number 141 captain_jims Offline Send Email Let me respond to your items: 1. My Sabre which has now been built in a quantity of over 700 uses a 2" sq alum tube mast and it carries two people and a heavier engine. But you want more strength. Suggest that the 2" is more than enough, but the alum is not available in smaller sq tubes such as 1.75" 2. Steel attach points on a light weight alum frame are not a good mix. The electrolysis is an issue. Is your reason strength or wear. 3. agree 4. agree 5. removable parts should be easily removeable and non-removable parts should be well retained. agreed. 6. Agree that his seat can be improved. The wheels that I propsed are not wheelbarrow wheels, but are azume used on many ultralights. Made of a plastic for toughness. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Perry Morrison" wrote: > > Re the pulma group reverse engineering project: > > 1. I'd like to see some sleeving/doubler details. The engine mount area > and hang point area seem worthy. I'd prefer steel. > > 2. I'd prefer steel attach points for all cables and internal sleeving there. > > 3. I'd prefer an internal, last ditch, light cable running inside the length of the > mast and boom. > > 4. The mast should fold. I think the pulma does with the removal of 1 bolt. > > 5. All removable components fixed with castle nuts or wing nuts + split > pins. > > This may add to weight. If so buy expensive, light weight wheels, use > netting for seat or whatever. > > When getting tossed by thermals i'd prefer some confidence in structural > strength instead of wishing i'd traded those fat wheelbarrow wheels for > some steel in the right places. > > just my .02. > > perry morrison > > > There are 7 messages in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. Pulma 2000 > From: "captain_jims" > 2. Sex trash removed and member banned > From: "captain_jims" > 3. Re: Pulma 2000 > From: "steve lyons" > 4. Re: Pulma 2000 > From: Bob > 5. Re: Pulma 2000 site in English > From: "captain_jims" > 6. Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions > From: > 7. Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions > From: "captain_jims" > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:05:39 -0000 > From: "captain_jims" > Subject: Pulma 2000 > > Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma > 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be > one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little > too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. > > Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is > interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily > available materials. > > As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing > and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" > aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller > tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. > > Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a > square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. > > Jim > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:12:51 -0000 > From: "captain_jims" > Subject: Sex trash removed and member banned > > As is our continuing practice, the recent sex related post was deleted > and the poster was banned. I find the posting of that kind of > material on a working group like this completely unacceptable. > > So. for any poster planning on posting that kind of material, it will > be deleted within a few hours and you will be banned. Just dont do it. > > ps, I know that they wont pay attention to my warning, but I feel > better putting it out there so all the working members know my intent > and know that I will do my best to avoid that kind of content on this > group. I dont want to go to message reviews, but I will start > reviewing the first post from each member if necessary to stop this. > > Jim > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:40:05 -0600 > From: "steve lyons" > Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 > > Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: captain_jims > To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:05 AM > Subject: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Pulma 2000 > Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma > 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be > one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little > too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. > > Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is > interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily > available materials. > > As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing > and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" > aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller > tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. > > Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a > square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. > > Jim > > SPONSORED LINKS Sports pilots Single cylinder Aviation > Aviation school Experimental aircraft Experimental music > > > a.. Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders" on the web. > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 > > ---------- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 > [This message contained attachments] > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:06:10 -0600 > From: Bob > Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 > > Try here: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pulma1/Construction%20amateur.htm > > Bob in FL > steve lyons wrote: > > > Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* captain_jims > > *To:* Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com > > > > *Sent:* Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:05 AM > > *Subject:* [Lite_Trike_Builders] Pulma 2000 > > > > Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma > > 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be > > one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little > > too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. > > > > Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is > > interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily > > available materials. > > > > As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing > > and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" > > aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller > > tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. > > > > Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a > > square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: > > 12/5/2005 > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > > Sports pilots > > > > Single cylinder > > > > Aviation > > > > > > Aviation school > > > > Experimental aircraft > > > > Experimental music > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > * Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders > > " on the web. > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > Service . > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. > >Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:01:32 -0000 > From: "captain_jims" > Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 site in English > > That one is in Franch. Here it is translated by the Google translation > service. > > If that does not post, I will put up a tiny URL for it. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Bob wrote: > > > > Try here: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pulma1/Construction%20amateur.htm > > > > Bob in FL > > > > > > steve lyons wrote: > > > > > Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:25:33 -0800 (PST) > From: > Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions > Ha Jim > I too would like to build this little trike. Do yo > think you could put some dimensions to the Pulma > drawing? Thanks Farley > > __________________________________________________ > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:19:35 -0000 > From: "captain_jims" > Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions > > I think that we can do just that. In fact, lets try to do it as a > group. First, we will establish key dimensions, and key materials > sizes on our way to a Bill of Material for the project. > > I will start off with this proposal: > Key Dimensions: > 1. Wheel base - (front to rear from the front wheel center line to the > imaginery rear axle centerline) = 64" > 2. Rear wheel tread - (side to side dimension from one rear wheel > centerline to the other) - 60" > 3. Height to the wing pivot from the keel - (depends on the A-frame > dimension of the wing provided) - 70" to 74" > 4. Wheel size - 4 x 5 (many suppliers have a 4" wide x 5" dia wheel in > aluminum or plastic.) > 5. Keel and mast tubing - 2 x 2 square alum 6061. (The Pulma appears > to be round, but square has great advantages that we will see when > bolting and clamping.) > 6. Front fork - 1" sq alum tubing 6061 > > Question: should the front fork remain as an extension of the front > strut or be moved back on the keel or the keel extended? > > OK, there is my starting proposal. Lets hear the input and your > opinion on these numbers. We get these items pinned down, we will be > on the downhill slide on this project. Joint design and material size > for those joints remains of course. > > Jim > > --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > > > > > Ha Jim > > I too would like to build this little trike. Do yo > > think you could put some dimensions to the Pulma > > drawing? Thanks Farley > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 337 From: "Dr. Perry Morrison" Date: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:19am Subject: Re: Digest Number 142 perrymorrison Offline Send Email Hi Jim,Message: 2 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 03:36:21 -0000 From: "captain_jims" Subject: Re: Digest Number 141Let me respond to your items:1. My Sabre which has now been built in a quantity of over 700 uses a2" sq alum tube mast and it carries two people and a heavier engine.But you want more strength. Suggest that the 2" is more than enough,but the alum is not available in smaller sq tubes such as 1.75"My main objective is not so much durability but crash integrity.The basic triangular structure of a trike makes a reasonably good crash cage if the occupant can be retained inside it. Beefing up thevertices of the triangle would boost crash integrity considerably for relatively little weight gain i think.2. Steel attach points on a light weight alum frame are not a goodmix. The electrolysis is an issue. Is your reason strength or wear.Both. I'm not sure if electrolysis is a big issue in a structurethat is taken apart as much a this one is. It should also beof little significance if the steel sleeving is outside thealuminium square tube. That makes inspection easy and fitting easy.3. agree4. agree5. removable parts should be easily removeable and non-removable partsshould be well retained. agreed.6. Agree that his seat can be improved.The wheels that I propsed are not wheelbarrow wheels, but are azumeused on many ultralights. Made of a plastic for toughness.Sure. Just thought that if weight became problematic,very light and very expensive wheels are always an option.Or a diet for some of us!Jimperry Message: 1 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:07:20 -0800 (PST) From: "Dr. Perry Morrison" Subject: Re: Digest Number 141 Re the pulma group reverse engineering project: 1. I'd like to see some sleeving/doubler details. The engine mount area and hang point area seem worthy. I'd prefer steel. 2. I'd prefer steel attach points for all cables and internal sleeving there. 3. I'd prefer an internal, last ditch, light cable running inside the length of the mast and boom. 4. The mast should fold. I think the pulma does with the removal of 1 bolt. 5. All removable components fixed with castle nuts or wing nuts + split pins. This may add to weight. If so buy expensive, light weight wheels, use netting for seat or whatever. When getting tossed by thermals i'd prefer some confidence in structural strength instead of wishing i'd traded those fat wheelbarrow wheels for some steel in the right places. just my .02. perry morrison There are 7 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Pulma 2000 From: "captain_jims" 2. Sex trash removed and member banned From: "captain_jims" 3. Re: Pulma 2000 From: "steve lyons" 4. Re: Pulma 2000 From: Bob 5. Re: Pulma 2000 site in English From: "captain_jims" 6. Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions From: 7. Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions From: "captain_jims" ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:05:39 -0000 From: "captain_jims" Subject: Pulma 2000 Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily available materials. As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. Jim ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:12:51 -0000 From: "captain_jims" Subject: Sex trash removed and member banned As is our continuing practice, the recent sex related post was deleted and the poster was banned. I find the posting of that kind of material on a working group like this completely unacceptable. So. for any poster planning on posting that kind of material, it will be deleted within a few hours and you will be banned. Just dont do it. ps, I know that they wont pay attention to my warning, but I feel better putting it out there so all the working members know my intent and know that I will do my best to avoid that kind of content on this group. I dont want to go to message reviews, but I will start reviewing the first post from each member if necessary to stop this. Jim ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:40:05 -0600 From: "steve lyons" Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: captain_jims To: Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:05 AM Subject: [Lite_Trike_Builders] Pulma 2000 Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily available materials. As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. Jim SPONSORED LINKS Sports pilots Single cylinder Aviation Aviation school Experimental aircraft Experimental music YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 [This message contained attachments] ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:06:10 -0600 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 Try here: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pulma1/Construction%20amateur.htm Bob in FL steve lyons wrote: > Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* captain_jims > *To:* Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com > > *Sent:* Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:05 AM > *Subject:* [Lite_Trike_Builders] Pulma 2000 > > Seems to be some interest in the ultra simple trike known as the Pulma > 2000. I have reviewed the web site for that trike and found it to be > one of the most elementary trikes that I have seen. Perhaps a little > too elementary, but serviceable for some minimum applications. > > Now, I dont have plans or drawings for that trike, but if there is > interest, we could discuss how that could be built using readily > available materials. > > As a starter, I think it could be built with 5 pcs of aluminum tubing > and a sheet of 3/16 alum. Add some bolts and a few feet of 1/8" > aircraft cable and nicopress sleeves. Throw in a few pcs of smaller > tubing for the seat frame and the front fork. > > Tools required are a hacksaw, a electric drill, tape measure and a > square. Time required is about 4-5 days to build. > > Jim > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: > 12/5/2005 > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > Sports pilots > > Single cylinder > > Aviation > > > Aviation school > > Experimental aircraft > > Experimental music > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "Lite_Trike_Builders > " on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Lite_Trike_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 > > ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 5 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:01:32 -0000 From: "captain_jims" Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 site in English That one is in Franch. Here it is translated by the Google translation service. If that does not post, I will put up a tiny URL for it. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Builders@yahoogroups.com, Bob wrote: > > Try here: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pulma1/Construction%20amateur.htm > > Bob in FL > steve lyons wrote: > > > Hi Jim: So where is the website for the Pulma 2000 trike? Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 6 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:25:33 -0800 (PST) From: Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions Ha Jim I too would like to build this little trike. Do yo think you could put some dimensions to the Pulma drawing? Thanks Farley __________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 7 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:19:35 -0000 From: "captain_jims" Subject: Re: Pulma 2000 dimensions I think that we can do just that. In fact, lets try to do it as a group. First, we will establish key dimensions, and key materials sizes on our way to a Bill of Material for the project. I will start off with this proposal: Key Dimensions: 1. Wheel base - (front to rear from the front wheel center line to the imaginery rear axle centerline) = 64" 2. Rear wheel tread - (side to side dimension from one rear wheel centerline to the other) - 60" 3. Height to the wing pivot from the keel - (depends on the A-frame dimension of the wing provided) - 70" to 74" 4. Wheel size - 4 x 5 (many suppliers have a 4" wide x 5" dia wheel in aluminum or plastic.) 5. Keel and mast tubing - 2 x 2 square alum 6061. (The Pulma appears to be round, but square has great advantages that we will see when bolting and clamping.) 6. Front fork - 1" sq alum tubing 6061 Question: should the front fork remain as an extension of the front strut or be moved back on the keel or the keel extended? OK, there is my starting proposal. Lets hear the input and your opinion on these numbers. We get these items pinned down, we will be on the downhill slide on this project. Joint design and material size for those joints remains of course. Jim --- In Lite_Trike_Bu