Maybe I'm reading between the lines here, but is someone else
building
an A-plane similar to the one on ebay?

Looks like, if the rear were covered it would handle alot more
crosswind load, but how does one come up with a completely different
frame design and determine its safety.

Sincerely,

Steve

--- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Bradley Johnston"
<bradley.johnston@r...> wrote:
> A-plane on ebay item 4576381653
>
> Not mine but , it looks interesting. It has a cabin?

I am having trouble getting my fuselage laid out. The problem is the
75% angle of the rear uprght tube. When I line it all up using the
measurements provided in the book, the angle will always end up being
76%. If I start out with the 75% angle, and then lay it out from
there,
the measurments will not come out right. The first thing that goes
wrong is after the top horizontal tube is set back 12" as per the
plans, then the front of that tube will not be 24" from the front
line. Also, no matter what I do, the C gusset just does not line up,
the dotted lines which represent the square tubes just dont line up,
but allthe other ones do. That does not seem right, if one is off,
shouldnt they all be off?
  Has anyone else had this problem? Is one of the dimensions in the
book
wrong?

When I laid out my fuse, I drew evrything full size on
paper first. I made sure the 75 deg tube was correct,
and that the 24" top tube offset was correct along
with the 42.5" inside spacing. Then I just let
everything else fall as it wanted to. The only gusset
I had trouble with was, I forget for sure, either the
A or D.

Slow and Steady
Dan

--- randalchix <randalchix@...> wrote:

> I am having trouble getting my fuselage laid out.
> The problem is the
> 75% angle of the rear uprght tube. When I line it
> all up using the
> measurements provided in the book, the angle will
> always end up being
> 76%. If I start out with the 75% angle, and then lay
> it out from
> there,
> the measurments will not come out right. The first
> thing that goes
> wrong is after the top horizontal tube is set back
> 12" as per the
> plans, then the front of that tube will not be 24"
> from the front
> line. Also, no matter what I do, the C gusset just
> does not line up,
> the dotted lines which represent the square tubes
> just dont line up,
> but allthe other ones do. That does not seem right,
> if one is off,
> shouldnt they all be off?
>  Has anyone else had this problem? Is one of the
> dimensions in the
> book
> wrong?
>
>
>

I posted 4 pix of my seat and rudder / brake pedals in my CHEAP2 file
(10-1-05).

Enjoy

Slow and Steady
Dan

Thanks...

the bandsaw is a Harbor Freight POS... refuses to cut
straight... I use it mostly as a vertical bandsaw
instead of a cutoff saw.

Dan


--- Halvor Lensgraf <halvort_lensgraf@...>
wrote:

> Looking GOOD ! Is that metal cutting bandsaw in the
> background a harbor freight and how do you like it?
> I have one and I don't like it, I cut all my tubes
> on my chop saw, worked perfict and very accurate.
>
> Dan Leech <danl239@...> wrote:I posted 4 pix
> of my seat and rudder / brake pedals in my CHEAP2
> file
> (10-1-05).
>
> Enjoy
>
> Slow and Steady
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Private plane Plane crash lawyer Aviation
> maintenance Aviation maintenance training Aviation
> maintenance schools Aviation school
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>     Visit your group "Cheapaircraft" on the web.
>
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
>  Cheapaircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>

Thanks...

the bandsaw is a Harbor Freight POS... refuses to cut
straight... I use it mostly as a vertical bandsaw
instead of a cutoff saw.

Dan


--- Halvor Lensgraf <halvort_lensgraf@...>
wrote:

> Looking GOOD ! Is that metal cutting bandsaw in the
> background a harbor freight and how do you like it?
> I have one and I don't like it, I cut all my tubes
> on my chop saw, worked perfict and very accurate.
>
> Dan Leech <danl239@...> wrote:I posted 4 pix
> of my seat and rudder / brake pedals in my CHEAP2
> file
> (10-1-05).
>
> Enjoy
>
> Slow and Steady
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Private plane Plane crash lawyer Aviation
> maintenance Aviation maintenance training Aviation
> maintenance schools Aviation school
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>     Visit your group "Cheapaircraft" on the web.
>  
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
>  Cheapaircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>

Hey ... I'm interested in building an Affordaplane, but I've heard some
bad things about it on the net ... things like:

- plans not arriving,
- problems with service,
- untested airplane design,
- not enough flight hours on prototype,
- no specifics provided on flight test results to verify published
specifications,
- rudeness from the seller/designer.

Any truth to any of this?  Anybody have any experience with this
design, or can you put me in contact with someone who has completed the
plane?

Thanks!!

-Robert

Welcome to the group Robert,

There are several here who are currently building.

Read the group archives... it will take a while, but
you will learn ALOT.

Also join the CHEAPAIRCRAFT2 group, lots-o-pix there.

Slow And Steady
Dan Leech
Alliance, Ohio

--- montanasoftware <montanasoftware@...> wrote:

> Hey ... I'm interested in building an Affordaplane,
> but I've heard some
> bad things about it on the net ... things like:
>
> - plans not arriving,
> - problems with service,
> - untested airplane design,
> - not enough flight hours on prototype,
> - no specifics provided on flight test results to
> verify published
> specifications,
> - rudeness from the seller/designer.
>
> Any truth to any of this?  Anybody have any
> experience with this
> design, or can you put me in contact with someone
> who has completed the
> plane?
>
> Thanks!!
>
> -Robert
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: montanasoftware

To: Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 9:53 PM

Subject: [Cheapaircraft] Affordaplane

Hey ... I'm interested in building an Affordaplane, but I've heard some
bad things about it on the net ... things like:

- plans not arriving,
- problems with service,
- untested airplane design,
- not enough flight hours on prototype,
- no specifics provided on flight test results to verify published
specifications,
- rudeness from the seller/designer.

Any truth to any of this?  Anybody have any experience with this
design, or can you put me in contact with someone who has completed the
plane?

Thanks!!

-Robert

Thanks Dan ... I just found some pics of a flying A-Plane on the
cheap2 group.  Very reassuring.

BTW:  What's the smallest motor you can fly the A-plane with?

Thanks.

--- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, Dan Leech <danl239@y...> wrote:
> Welcome to the group Robert,
>
> There are several here who are currently building.
>
> Read the group archives... it will take a while, but
> you will learn ALOT.
>
> Also join the CHEAPAIRCRAFT2 group, lots-o-pix there.
>
> Slow And Steady
> Dan Leech
> Alliance, Ohio
>
> --- montanasoftware <montanasoftware@y...> wrote:
>
> > Hey ... I'm interested in building an Affordaplane,
> > but I've heard some
> > bad things about it on the net ... things like:
> >
> > - plans not arriving,
> > - problems with service,
> > - untested airplane design,
> > - not enough flight hours on prototype,
> > - no specifics provided on flight test results to
> > verify published
> > specifications,
> > - rudeness from the seller/designer.
> >
> > Any truth to any of this?  Anybody have any
> > experience with this
> > design, or can you put me in contact with someone
> > who has completed the
> > plane?
> >
> > Thanks!!
> >
> > -Robert
> >
> >
> >
> >

i've heard 40 hp min... I don't think anyone knows for
sure.

Dan


--- montanasoftware <montanasoftware@...> wrote:

> Thanks Dan ... I just found some pics of a flying
> A-Plane on the
> cheap2 group.  Very reassuring.
>
> BTW:  What's the smallest motor you can fly the
> A-plane with?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, Dan Leech
> <danl239@y...> wrote:
> > Welcome to the group Robert,
> >
> > There are several here who are currently building.
>
> >
> > Read the group archives... it will take a while,
> but
> > you will learn ALOT.
> >
> > Also join the CHEAPAIRCRAFT2 group, lots-o-pix
> there.
> >
> > Slow And Steady
> > Dan Leech
> > Alliance, Ohio
> >
> > --- montanasoftware <montanasoftware@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey ... I'm interested in building an
> Affordaplane,
> > > but I've heard some
> > > bad things about it on the net ... things like:
> > >
> > > - plans not arriving,
> > > - problems with service,
> > > - untested airplane design,
> > > - not enough flight hours on prototype,
> > > - no specifics provided on flight test results
> to
> > > verify published
> > > specifications,
> > > - rudeness from the seller/designer.
> > >
> > > Any truth to any of this?  Anybody have any
> > > experience with this
> > > design, or can you put me in contact with
> someone
> > > who has completed the
> > > plane?
> > >
> > > Thanks!!
> > >
> > > -Robert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: montanasoftware

To: Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 10:22 PM

Subject: [Cheapaircraft] Re: Affordaplane

Thanks Dan ... I just found some pics of a flying A-Plane on the
cheap2 group.  Very reassuring.

BTW:  What's the smallest motor you can fly the A-plane with?

Thanks.

--- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, Dan Leech <danl239@y...> wrote:
> Welcome to the group Robert,
>
> There are several here who are currently building.
>
> Read the group archives... it will take a while, but
> you will learn ALOT.
>
> Also join the CHEAPAIRCRAFT2 group, lots-o-pix there.
>
> Slow And Steady
> Dan Leech
> Alliance, Ohio
>
> --- montanasoftware <montanasoftware@y...> wrote:
>
> > Hey ... I'm interested in building an Affordaplane,
> > but I've heard some
> > bad things about it on the net ... things like:
> >
> > - plans not arriving,
> > - problems with service,
> > - untested airplane design,
> > - not enough flight hours on prototype,
> > - no specifics provided on flight test results to
> > verify published
> > specifications,
> > - rudeness from the seller/designer.
> >
> > Any truth to any of this?  Anybody have any
> > experience with this
> > design, or can you put me in contact with someone
> > who has completed the
> > plane?
> >
> > Thanks!!
> >
> > -Robert
> >
> >
> >
> >

I have a 50hp 503 DCDI

Dan

--- David Bitts <dgbitts@...> wrote:

> minimum of 40 hp according to the plans. I wouldn't
> go any smaller. Especially if I were over 250 lbs.
> (and I'm way over 250   lol   )
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: montanasoftware
>   To: Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 10:22 PM
>   Subject: [Cheapaircraft] Re: Affordaplane
>
>
>   Thanks Dan ... I just found some pics of a flying
> A-Plane on the
>   cheap2 group.  Very reassuring.
>
>   BTW:  What's the smallest motor you can fly the
> A-plane with?
>
>   Thanks.
>
>   --- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, Dan Leech
> <danl239@y...> wrote:
>   > Welcome to the group Robert,
>   >
>   > There are several here who are currently
> building.
>   >
>   > Read the group archives... it will take a while,
> but
>   > you will learn ALOT.
>   >
>   > Also join the CHEAPAIRCRAFT2 group, lots-o-pix
> there.
>   >
>   > Slow And Steady
>   > Dan Leech
>   > Alliance, Ohio
>   >
>   > --- montanasoftware <montanasoftware@y...>
> wrote:
>   >
>   > > Hey ... I'm interested in building an
> Affordaplane,
>   > > but I've heard some
>   > > bad things about it on the net ... things
> like:
>   > >
>   > > - plans not arriving,
>   > > - problems with service,
>   > > - untested airplane design,
>   > > - not enough flight hours on prototype,
>   > > - no specifics provided on flight test results
> to
>   > > verify published
>   > > specifications,
>   > > - rudeness from the seller/designer.
>   > >
>   > > Any truth to any of this?  Anybody have any
>   > > experience with this
>   > > design, or can you put me in contact with
> someone
>   > > who has completed the
>   > > plane?
>   > >
>   > > Thanks!!
>   > >
>   > > -Robert
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>
>
>
>
>
>   SPONSORED LINKS Private plane  Plane crash lawyer
> Aviation maintenance
>         Aviation maintenance training  Aviation
> maintenance schools  Aviation school
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     a..  Visit your group "Cheapaircraft" on the
> web.
>
>     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> email to:
>      Cheapaircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

I am now having engine issues with carb jetting.  I have a dual CHT
gauge to install before I can properly adjust the carb.  I should have
it this week.

I am using dual Bing 54 carbs.  I have a single EGT gauge.
How's y'all's knowledge on this?


Bob
The Gilchrist Gull

Rick,

Great Job!  I've been waiting for someone to do something with the tail
end, so it could be covered.
I assume some weldings gone into the extras you've added, correct?

Will she still be light enough for an the ultralight class?

Thanks for making my day!

Sincerely,

Steve


--- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Bradley Johnston"
<bradley.johnston@r...> wrote:
> A-plane on ebay item 4576381653
>
> Not mine but , it looks interesting. It has a cabin?

Your plane looks fantastic!!

Will it still meet ultralight weight limits?

Anyway your fuselage additions can be made without welding?

Thanks in advance.

Steve

Steve, thanks for the comments. Yes welding is involved with what I
did for the fuselage additions. The construction is aluminum tubing
joined with 4130 welded fittings. I used the same technique on the
tail feathers. I plan to make the wings in a similar fashion.  Anyway,
no it will not be ultralight weight.  I figure it to be approx. 350
lbs when finished. Obviously, I feel the extra weight is worth it.
I added a couple of close ups in the diode folder in cheap2 photo
section for you to check out.

Rick

  --- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, "steveschollmeier"
<caddad1@m...> wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Great Job!  I've been waiting for someone to do something with the tail
> end, so it could be covered.
> I assume some weldings gone into the extras you've added, correct?
>
> Will she still be light enough for an the ultralight class?
>
> Thanks for making my day!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Steve
>
>
> --- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Bradley Johnston"
> <bradley.johnston@r...> wrote:
> > A-plane on ebay item 4576381653
> >
> > Not mine but , it looks interesting. It has a cabin?

Bob, the egt is the most telling when it comes to jetting.  The cht
mainly tells you if you have enough cooling.  I would recommend a
dual egt, or at least 2 probes with a selector switch, pretty easy
to do. Especially with 2 carbs.  Anyway what kind of issues are you
having? I have spent the last several months working the bugs out of
my powerplant, much of it carb related. I am using a Kawasaki 440
w/2.66:1 belt drive swinging a 60" X 38" prop. Think I have it
pretty well licked. Maybe I can help. What is your setup?

Rick

--- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <tronman53@y...> wrote:
> I am now having engine issues with carb jetting.  I have a dual
CHT
> gauge to install before I can properly adjust the carb.  I should
have
> it this week.
>
> I am using dual Bing 54 carbs.  I have a single EGT gauge.
> How's y'all's knowledge on this?
>
>
> Bob
> The Gilchrist Gull

I just have to throw in my .02 on the a-plane on ebay. I asked the
seller of it had been flown into his facility, and he replied: No, it
was brought in by truck.
     Why do you think that was?  Maybe with the fuselage covered, it is
too much to handle in a cross wind? I wonder if it has EVER flown.


--- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, "swgaviatrix" <swgaviatrix@y...>
wrote:
> --- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Bradley Johnston"
> <bradley.johnston@r...> wrote:
> > A-plane on ebay item 4576381653
> >
> > Not mine but , it looks interesting. It has a cabin?
>
>
> From the pics it looks like they fabricated two fuselages to make a
> box frame.
>
> I watch the first auction and saw a zero feedback bidder win it. go
> figure.

I am running a Hirth 2705, 65 HP, with a 2.66:1 belt drive swinging a
56/46 prop.  How do I tell what the main jet, and jet needle should
be?  The formula is rather vague.  The engine came with a 175.  It
seems to run better in cold weather.
I just got an Info manual for the Bing 54 engine that I will link to.

Bob


--- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, "drdrdiode" <drdrdiode@y...>
wrote:
> Bob, the egt is the most telling when it comes to jetting.  The cht
> mainly tells you if you have enough cooling.  I would recommend a
> dual egt, or at least 2 probes with a selector switch, pretty easy
> to do. Especially with 2 carbs.  Anyway what kind of issues are you
> having? I have spent the last several months working the bugs out
of
> my powerplant, much of it carb related. I am using a Kawasaki 440
> w/2.66:1 belt drive swinging a 60" X 38" prop. Think I have it
> pretty well licked. Maybe I can help. What is your setup?
>
> Rick
>
> --- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <tronman53@y...> wrote:
> > I am now having engine issues with carb jetting.  I have a dual
> CHT
> > gauge to install before I can properly adjust the carb.  I should
> have
> > it this week.
> >
> > I am using dual Bing 54 carbs.  I have a single EGT gauge.
> > How's y'all's knowledge on this?
> >
> >
> > Bob
> > The Gilchrist Gull

Hi:

I've narrowed my decision down to the A-plane vs. Leagle Eagle.

The a-plane is easier to build, which is a big plus, but I think it
suffers from some sort of efficiency issue.  The Eagle can be flown
with a 28HP motor, but the A-plane requires a minimum of 40.

People have said it's a "drag problem," but I don't think it's that
simple.  Both planes have similar weight, and both fly with an
uncovered tail section, so there are no obvious sources of extra drag
in the a-plane.

This leads me to think there's some sort of design issue holding the
A-plane back ... like maybe the wrong combination of wing foil,
chord, and length.  Wrong "angle of attack," wrong size and/or angle
of tail feathers ... I dunno.

But it's obvious that the Eagle has a more efficient design.  In my
mind a plane with a similar weight and layout that flies with far
fewer HP must be a better design.  I'm NOT trying to trash the A-
plane, I'm just discussing its relative merits, and wondering if some
changes could be made to improve it.

I'd rather build the A-plane for its simplicity and speed of
construction, but I'm also addicted to efficiency and a good design.

Any thoughts on this?

Yep I got a comment.

The A plane if built to plans is SEVERAL lbs heavier than the Legal Eagle.

The LE will make 254 with a 447 rotax,  the A plane won't  Check the recent
archives........  about the A planes weight.

Its is really a matter if you want to work with alum  or learn to gas  weld
steel and make wood wings.

Monty



At 06:58 PM 10/3/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi:
>
>I've narrowed my decision down to the A-plane vs. Leagle Eagle.
>
>The a-plane is easier to build, which is a big plus, but I think it
>suffers from some sort of efficiency issue.  The Eagle can be flown
>with a 28HP motor, but the A-plane requires a minimum of 40.
>
>People have said it's a "drag problem," but I don't think it's that
>simple.  Both planes have similar weight, and both fly with an
>uncovered tail section, so there are no obvious sources of extra drag
>in the a-plane.
>
>This leads me to think there's some sort of design issue holding the
>A-plane back ... like maybe the wrong combination of wing foil,
>chord, and length.  Wrong "angle of attack," wrong size and/or angle
>of tail feathers ... I dunno.
>
>But it's obvious that the Eagle has a more efficient design.  In my
>mind a plane with a similar weight and layout that flies with far
>fewer HP must be a better design.  I'm NOT trying to trash the A-
>plane, I'm just discussing its relative merits, and wondering if some
>changes could be made to improve it.
>
>I'd rather build the A-plane for its simplicity and speed of
>construction, but I'm also addicted to efficiency and a good design.
>
>Any thoughts on this?
>
>
>
>
>----------
>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>    *  Visit your group
> "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cheapaircraft>Cheapaircraft" on the web.
>    *
>    *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    *
>
<mailto:Cheapaircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>Cheapaircr\
aft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>    *
>    *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>----------

The difference in effeciency between the A-Plane and the LE is in my opinion
the difference in weight.  You wouldn't believe how much difference 10
pounds makes in the climb and glide performance of an ultralight.
My little plane (R-8) stalls at 28ish mph at 465 pounds but at 535 pounds it
stalls at 45 mph and even with 15 additional hp it climbs slower.

Mike Robbins
----- Original Message -----
From: "montanasoftware" <montanasoftware@...>
To: <Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: [Cheapaircraft] Affordaplane vs. Leagle Eagle


> Hi:
>
> I've narrowed my decision down to the A-plane vs. Leagle Eagle.
>
> The a-plane is easier to build, which is a big plus, but I think it
> suffers from some sort of efficiency issue.  The Eagle can be flown
> with a 28HP motor, but the A-plane requires a minimum of 40.
>
> People have said it's a "drag problem," but I don't think it's that
> simple.  Both planes have similar weight, and both fly with an
> uncovered tail section, so there are no obvious sources of extra drag
> in the a-plane.
>
> This leads me to think there's some sort of design issue holding the
> A-plane back ... like maybe the wrong combination of wing foil,
> chord, and length.  Wrong "angle of attack," wrong size and/or angle
> of tail feathers ... I dunno.
>
> But it's obvious that the Eagle has a more efficient design.  In my
> mind a plane with a similar weight and layout that flies with far
> fewer HP must be a better design.  I'm NOT trying to trash the A-
> plane, I'm just discussing its relative merits, and wondering if some
> changes could be made to improve it.
>
> I'd rather build the A-plane for its simplicity and speed of
> construction, but I'm also addicted to efficiency and a good design.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That seems like a short prop with alot of pitch. I
would be intrested to know how much thrust your setup
is making. I ran the numbers and at 6200 RPM with your
ratio you prop in a perfect world would make the plane
go 102 MPH. Obviously there will be slip and it won't
go that fast. Are you using such agressive pitch to
lower your cruise RPM?

  If your engine runs better when it's cold you are too
rich and need a smaller jet. When I jet carbs I go
down 10 at a time so I'd try a 165 next and see what
happens.

I assume you have EGT/CHT gauges here is what I am for
when jetting.

2000-5000 RPM (mainly set with the needle clip)

1100 EGT ideal 1200 limit

5000+ RPM (mainly set with the main jet)

1050 EGT ideal 1100 limit

CHT 350 or less ideal 390 limit. Power falls off
rapidly as CHT increaes over 390 (plus your motor will
be begging for mercy).

CHT and EGT are inversely proportional. A over loaded
engine will show high CHT and low EGT, a under loaded
motor will show high EGT and low CHT.

This is for Rick:

On my other plane I am using a Kawasaki 440 with a
2.66:1 reduction ratio, 66X35 prop, mikuni 36mm with a
330 jet. What carb ant jet are you using?

--Emery





--- Bob <tronman53@...> wrote:

> I am running a Hirth 2705, 65 HP, with a 2.66:1 belt
> drive swinging a
> 56/46 prop.  How do I tell what the main jet, and
> jet needle should
> be?  The formula is rather vague.  The engine came
> with a 175.  It
> seems to run better in cold weather.
> I just got an Info manual for the Bing 54 engine
> that I will link to.
>
> Bob
>
>
> --- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, "drdrdiode"
> <drdrdiode@y...>
> wrote:
> > Bob, the egt is the most telling when it comes to
> jetting.  The cht
> > mainly tells you if you have enough cooling.  I
> would recommend a
> > dual egt, or at least 2 probes with a selector
> switch, pretty easy
> > to do. Especially with 2 carbs.  Anyway what kind
> of issues are you
> > having? I have spent the last several months
> working the bugs out
> of
> > my powerplant, much of it carb related. I am using
> a Kawasaki 440
> > w/2.66:1 belt drive swinging a 60" X 38" prop.
> Think I have it
> > pretty well licked. Maybe I can help. What is your
> setup?
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > --- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Bob"
> <tronman53@y...> wrote:
> > > I am now having engine issues with carb jetting.
>  I have a dual
> > CHT
> > > gauge to install before I can properly adjust
> the carb.  I should
> > have
> > > it this week.
> > >
> > > I am using dual Bing 54 carbs.  I have a single
> EGT gauge.
> > > How's y'all's knowledge on this?
> > >
> > >
> > > Bob
> > > The Gilchrist Gull
>
>
>




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

The A-plane and the LE. The A-plane is heavier, by far. The LE can acutally
be built as a legal ultralight.

I think the "minimum" of 40 hp depends on what the individual pilot feels is
reasonable and safe. The LE has a fairly low rate of climb, mainly due to 28
hp. If the A-plane were powered by a 28 hp engine, I think the flight
characteristics wouldn't suffer too badly when compared to the LE, it would
suffer some, but not to the degree that it would be considered unacceptable.
(My opinion)

I flew in a Champ with another "hefty feller" (we each are around 250 lbs.)
jammed in there. Climb rate on that particular day, (field elevation of
1170' above sea level, temperature of 85 degress F.) was such that it took 5
minutes to get to 1000' above ground level. Ultralight pilots would and do
cringe at such "poor" peformance. But, in a GA aircraft, that is considered
acceptable, just fly accordingly.

Low hp in the A-plane, I believe, would simply mean you had to fly it more
like a Champ at gross than a 40 hp Quicksilver weighing it at under 300 lbs.
with a fly-weight pilot.

If you built the LE and the A-plane and put 28 hp or 50 hp to each of them,
I don't think the performance would be all that different between the two.
LE having a slight edge, mainly because it will be (if both planes are built
strictly to the plans) roughly 80 lbs lighter.

Take your pick, I don't think you'd go wrong with either of  them, if your
expectations are realistic.

Todd

> Hi:
>
> I've narrowed my decision down to the A-plane vs. Leagle Eagle.
>
> The a-plane is easier to build, which is a big plus, but I think it
> suffers from some sort of efficiency issue.  The Eagle can be flown
> with a 28HP motor, but the A-plane requires a minimum of 40.

> Any thoughts on this?

I looked at mabye a dozen different designs before
starting on my A-Plane project. There is even a better
choice than the A-Plane or Legal Eagle ( In my
opinion), the Raceair Skylite by Ed Fisher.

I don't have the welding skills necessary to build
either the Eagle or Skylite, and even tho I hope to
learn to weld, I didn't want to lose building time
trying to learn.

The simple construction method is the key to the
A-Plane.

I also made one change that I think will make a big
difference, I went with a TRUE Clark Y airfoil.

My $0.02

Slow And Steady
Dan


--- Todd Taves <ttaves@...> wrote:

> The A-plane and the LE. The A-plane is heavier, by
> far. The LE can acutally
> be built as a legal ultralight.
>
> I think the "minimum" of 40 hp depends on what the
> individual pilot feels is
> reasonable and safe. The LE has a fairly low rate of
> climb, mainly due to 28
> hp. If the A-plane were powered by a 28 hp engine, I
> think the flight
> characteristics wouldn't suffer too badly when
> compared to the LE, it would
> suffer some, but not to the degree that it would be
> considered unacceptable.
> (My opinion)
>
> I flew in a Champ with another "hefty feller" (we
> each are around 250 lbs.)
> jammed in there. Climb rate on that particular day,
> (field elevation of
> 1170' above sea level, temperature of 85 degress F.)
> was such that it took 5
> minutes to get to 1000' above ground level.
> Ultralight pilots would and do
> cringe at such "poor" peformance. But, in a GA
> aircraft, that is considered
> acceptable, just fly accordingly.
>
> Low hp in the A-plane, I believe, would simply mean
> you had to fly it more
> like a Champ at gross than a 40 hp Quicksilver
> weighing it at under 300 lbs.
> with a fly-weight pilot.
>
> If you built the LE and the A-plane and put 28 hp or
> 50 hp to each of them,
> I don't think the performance would be all that
> different between the two.
> LE having a slight edge, mainly because it will be
> (if both planes are built
> strictly to the plans) roughly 80 lbs lighter.
>
> Take your pick, I don't think you'd go wrong with
> either of  them, if your
> expectations are realistic.
>
> Todd
>
> > Hi:
> >
> > I've narrowed my decision down to the A-plane vs.
> Leagle Eagle.
> >
> > The a-plane is easier to build, which is a big
> plus, but I think it
> > suffers from some sort of efficiency issue.  The
> Eagle can be flown
> > with a 28HP motor, but the A-plane requires a
> minimum of 40.
>
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
>
>
>

Sounds like the egt/cht figures for a Rotax w/Bing carb(s) are pretty
much identical to what you are supposed to tune for on the Kawasaki
w/Mikuni.  Also remember that plug color is the true test of carb
tuning. Gauges can read incorrectly, the plugs will tell the real
story. They should be medium brown in color.  Blackish = too rich,
whiteish = too lean. Initially it is a good idea to check the plugs so
as to verify gauge readings.
Emery, I have a Mikuni 36mm carb on mine, main jet 310, clip in middle
position.  My egt/cht temps are right on where they should be, plugs
are nice and brown. Pulls 6300 rpm wide open.  I may have to go a size
or two richer on the main jet as ambient temps here have taken a
sudden turn for the colder.

Rick

--- In Cheapaircraft@yahoogroups.com, Emery <mister2_mr@y...> wrote:
> That seems like a short prop with alot of pitch. I
> would be intrested to know how much thrust your setup
> is making. I ran the numbers and at 6200 RPM with your
> ratio you prop in a perfect world would make the plane
> go 102 MPH. Obviously there will be slip and it won't
> go that fast. Are you using such agressive pitch to
> lower your cruise RPM?
>
>  If your engine runs better when it's cold you are too
> rich and need a smaller jet. When I jet carbs I go
> down 10 at a time so I'd try a 165 next and see what
> happens.
>
> I assume you have EGT/CHT gauges here is what I am for
> when jetting.
>
> 2000-5000 RPM (mainly set with the needle clip)
>
> 1100 EGT ideal 1200 limit
>
> 5000+ RPM (mainly set with the main jet)
>
> 1050 EGT ideal 1100 limit
>
> CHT 350 or less ideal 390 limit. Power falls off
> rapidly as CHT increaes over 390 (plus your motor will
> be begging for mercy).
>
> CHT and EGT are inversely proportional. A over loaded
> engine will show high CHT and low EGT, a under loaded
> motor will show high EGT and low CHT.
>
> This is for Rick:
>
> On my other plane I am using a Kawasaki 440 with a
> 2.66:1 reduction ratio, 66X35 prop, mikuni 36mm with a
> 330 jet. What carb ant jet are you using?
>
> --Emery
>
>
>

Does anyone have any experience with the 'Balance Master' prop balancer?
I recently balanced my prop using a 'Buzz Master" string type
balancer.  Worked pretty good actually.  Vibration was noticeably
reduced after reinstallation. But of course there is still vibration.
  Anyway I ran across this unit while surfing, looks pretty cool. The
way I understand it, it is supposed to damp vibrations from not only
the prop but those induced by the engine as well. I'm thinking I'll
try it. Vibration is tough on machinery, especially bearings. Less
vibration = longer life. Also increased comfort for the pilot. Anyone
else ever use one?  You can see it here:
http://www.balancemasters.com/index.html

Rick