Відео

Thanks! I learned the techniques in a past life and modified them to keep business and projects running smoothly. If you're thinking about building, I must encourage you. Nothing is quite as rewarding. Building has it frustrations, but any good company will be right there with you until the end.

Excellent!

The fuselage can indeed by skinned with Cherry Q rivets. There are some solid rivets still required on the wing stub, but those can be accessed with a squeezer, as opposed to needing a rivet gun.

The stabilizer is extremely stiff and the elevator balanced, so true flutter with proper airflow is probably not a concern. The movement we're seeing is likely due to air shedding off of that wing root fairing. We'll know more once we get the new fairing on.

That's a pretty difficult question to answer. I started collecting engineering books and really studied them starting about 25 years ago.

@@timbertigeraircraft me too - I learned to read on aeronautical books as a toddler - I seem to have been born obsessed. I am happy with the design for prototyping and the AP's I work with have given me good feedback - I guess I just need to start shaping a plug with formers and foam blocks and while I'm refining the shape at full size I will learn all I can about the hands on of composites - I'm a huge fan of traditional and classic wood and tubing construction but this design can only be for carbon.. Thanks for he inspiration - happy landings

Can you tell me at what point in the video? All I see is the trailing edge of the elevator in normal operation. The stabilizers are extremely rigid, so I'm quite curious what you're seeing. EDIT: I do see some up/down movement around the 2:00 mark. I strongly suspect that's due to the drag coming off of the wing root fairing. Good eye. It could also be due to the fact that the two front stabilizer spars are tied into each other at the jack screw point. We'll look into this.

We'll get you down here eventually. I want to make sure we're all dialed in, first.

The fuselage length is fine. We have thought about adding some ribs to the horizontals, though. Right now, though, we're going to deal with some lost airflow around the root of the stab, which isn't quite evident or mentioned in the video.

I believe your empirical observation on distance between the wing and the horizontal stabilizer is valid. Perkins & Hage, chapter 5 on fixed-stick stability control contains a discussion on the downwash distributions in front of an behind finite wings. In general, sub-sonic wings induce an upwash in front of the wing and a downwash behind. Figure 5-8 shows this and Perkins provides a method of calculating downwash at a infinite distance behind the wing. Perkins goes on to state, "The downwash at the tail can be calculated with good accuracy by referring to NACA TR 648, in which design charts are given for predicting downwash angles behind plain and flapped wings." This refers to NACA Technical Report 648 titled "Design charts for predicting downwash angles and wake characteristics behind plain and flapped wings" published Jan 1, 1939. This is available on the NASA technical report server website. Tufting clearly shows the upwash ahead of the horizontal stabilizer. Perkins talks about the fuselage contribution to upwash in chapter 5-4 and shows this in Figure 5-15 with further reference to NACA TM 1036 "Aerodynamics of the Fuselage" from 1 Dec 1942. Bottom line: It may take more than a fairing to fix this problem. As a rule of thumb the distance between to aerodynamic centers of the wing and horizontal stabilizer should be about 2.5x the length of the mean aerodynamic chord (2.5x MAC). Best of luck, it's a great looking airplane!

No spins just yet. Those will come later during aerobatic testing. With the massive rudder and plenty of control, I have no concerns. 51% rule strategy is pretty simple. We use the FAA's checklist to run multiple worst case scenarios. We try and keep in the 30% range for base kits and under 40% for quick build options. This build is very much inline with airplanes like the Kitfox with maybe a hair more work required in the fairings, so I have no concerns about getting too close to that 40% mark. One day we'll get the plane added to the optional Revised Listing of Amateur Built Aircraft. You'll notice many kit aircraft aren't on this list, as it isn't a requirement.

@@timbertigeraircraft sadly it is a requirement up here in Canada to be able to build and inspect/register it.

@@PeteZoot We'll get there. It's just a matter of time. My guess is that it'll happen sooner rather than later.

Their website is showing a removable hard top as still being planned.

Yes, indeed. The removable hard top is still planned.

That is definitely a reality for any big project. Because I work on everyone else's projects for a living, it can be very difficult to find motivation on my own projects. The things in this video help me immensely.

How to keep track of the project and how to stay focused/motivated are two of the biggest questions in my mind at the moment

That's another huge point. That ties a bit into organization, but could easily be its own episode with some expansion on ideas. We'll add it to the list. Thanks for the suggestion! I'm still playing "post-AirVenture catch-up", but maybe I can get some of these filmed next week and post them over the next few weeks.

We will have other cowlings in the works. I think Lycomings will be popular along with the higher-horse Rotaxes. We'll develop these cowls when demand requires the effort. For now we need to focus on an optional hard top.

It isn't something I have considered, but the vertical stabilizer is massive and the landing gear attach points are incredibly robust, so anything is possible. Float operations aren't allowed here in Colorado, so it'll take an enterprising builder to try it out. I'd happily help design the attachment points.

We probably should have done it that way for demo purposes. But it's kinda hard to resist when the rivet gun is out.

Anyone with technical ability can build one. Your average garage warrior comes to mind. Along with the kit comes great tech support. It's our goal to get as many in the air as possible.

@@timbertigeraircraft thats awesome! they look great, i appreciate that someone out there is willing to make affordable options for planes

For somebody who is unsure about their abilities, I'd start with the Tail Surface Kit, then Wing Kit, followed by the Fuselage/Landing Gear Kit. Basically, the same order in which we have them listed on the order form. The Tail Surface Kit has the most measurement and layout, but the processes you'll learn will be applicable for the whole airframe. That, plus parts are inexpensive if you mess something up. The Fuselage/Gear Kit is actually the easiest, but is more expensive. We have some sample manuals on th website, as well. Regardless, it's our job to make sure we are providing the best support we can for our builders. After all, it doesn't do anyone any good if we're not getting kits into the air.

@@timbertigeraircraft Greatanswer. Thank you.

The wings are all aluminum. The stabs are as well, though steel is an option if somebody wanted it. The Gen 1 Jennies have used both steel and aluminum. The aluminum, of course, keeps the price down for builders but also helps to keep that CG forward.