18 years and counting

WHY ... the Tractor guy .... (my opinion) on your pictures.....

You already know which ones you are not happy with. But your picture (#40873) in post #17 is pretty decent. (A bit bigger would be better) . I like the initial smaller size when I click on the thread . Then I click on the picture and it will open a larger version in a new window. This I like. A fast loading (initial) picture that I can choose to enlarge if I want. A bit larger would be even better for zooming in.

Scott Essex provided a nice large picture in his post # 15. It is 2 inches wider than my screen but that is not bad. Made it work on my computer. But I can not expand it if I wanted too. Not unless I expanded the whole page which would make the print portion 10 times larger as well. I would like Nice pictures like Scott posted but if there were 10 such large pictures that took 10 minutes to download I might have passed them by while waiting. I much prefer 10 smaller pictures that I can glance at in 10 seconds to select the ones I want to expand and stare at for ten minutes.

Summary ..... WHY ... and Scott ... nothing to do with you guys or your pictures. I just know what I like and wish I knew the technology to make it work every time.

I love to click on a thread with lots of pictures. I like pictures that load quickly and give me the option of expanding the ones that capture my interest . Sometimes I stare at them for a day or two observing the details. Just kidding about the day or two , what I mean is they are on my computer for a day or two while I revisit them trying to learn the aerodynamic lessons or the builder tips. I love build pictures of all kinds.

One issue for me is that my cottage (shack by the river) is on dial up , which is slow and old like me but hey , if it is done right I can click on 10 threads with 10 pictures on each , all downloaded in just ten minutes while I flip a steak on the barbecue . That is 100 pictures. I usually click on 20 of those hundred pictures and stare to my hearts content. This I like.

On the other hand , some posts by Tim O'Connor (Barnstorm) will have 10 of the presumably nicest highest quality award winning pictures on one thread. I say presumably because I seldom get to see them . My cottage dial-up can grind away for an hour and still the pictures do not completely download. I hate missing out on Tim's pictures but it is he who has set the parameters. I should also mention that the office computer is on high speed internet , has a 36" inch wide flat screen , but I still miss out on Tim's pictures. Too long to load in a busy world. Still wider than my 36" screen. Award winning quality that is un-viewable , at least to me. Sorry. I love pictures. Especially the ones I can actually see.

WHY , thanks for your post and your pictures , I hope you are able to figure out how to post the pictures to please old farts like me. Sorry I do not have the expertise to give you advise (on picture posting) I only know what I like and prefer. I also like your 18 year tractor project. I look forward to the day I can see more pictures of it. Thanks.

Arnie.
 
Hi Arnie

I'm and old fart too, that's why it's taking so long and I forget so quick.

Tony
 
Photo Bucket... Now why didn't I think of that!
 
On the other hand , some posts by Tim O'Connor (Barnstorm) will have 10 of the presumably nicest highest quality award winning pictures on one thread. I say presumably because I seldom get to see them . My cottage dial-up can grind away for an hour and still the pictures do not completely download. I hate missing out on Tim's pictures but it is he who has set the parameters.
Arnie.

Arnie,

I'm on dial-up too and what I do in a case like this is stop the web page from loading, right click on the picture links and send those URL's to a program called Download Accelerator which you can then set up to download each picture one at a time and when done will even log off the internet and power down the computer. So, I usually set mine up at night and go to sleep while the computer grinds away downloading those large pictures.

Tony,

Great build, any estimates on weight?

.
 
Hi Alan

On weights ,----well we will start with HEAVY, what you see there is about 150 lbs.
When I build something I tend to build it for combat or carrier landings, like I made the main gear out of .065 4130 and should have made it out of .058 or .049 , how ever it is STRONG.

Tony
 
early model

early model

another idea I had some years ago, you sat on it rather than in it.
 

Attachments

  • Pictures2 045.jpg
    Pictures2 045.jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 0
A very early prototype of the TEAM Airbike used a skinny wood fuselage that you sat in but your legs hung out of thru holes in the side, your model Tony reminds me a little of that. I do feel that there is an aerodynamic advantage to having the pilot sit inside of a streamlined fuselage, even on a low airspeed aircraft such as a gyro.

As for weight, if you compare 3/4" X 3/4" X .125" 6061-T6 angle to 5/8" X .035" 4130 tubing which is the primary size used in the Littlewing, the weights are very close, .200 lbs per ft for the angle compared to .220 for the steel tubing. If one can weld, and that is a major deciding factor, I would still prefer welded steel tubing, especially since various diameters of tubing can be joined together more readily than rivet and gusset.

Have you done any structural analysis on your design Tony, or are you "eyeball engineering" it?

.
 
Hi Alan

I'm really 'eyeballing" it, just used the basic design of the "Texas Parasol" fixed wing with several mods such as shortening the fuselaage about 20 inches and adding more bracing and re-designing the tail post section and using the comercial tail wheel and spring and totally making a different main gear and firewall, other than that it's almost identical.

Tony
 
As far as welding, my welding would be considered along the lines of suicidal, so I chose the riveted aluminum. I considered composite but am just not yet ready to go for a fuselage design with it since I have no experience with it, altough may try my hand at composite on the HS and rudders (maybe)

Tony
 
Tony, wow, you have given me a different option to building my LW-3. I need to go back and study your pictures, and see what type of 'beam' frame you are using. I like it, well done. There is a Ultra-light AC that is similar too with the 'foot pegs out side the cabin. I will see if I can find it again. It has a wood rib wing etc. very smart looking little plane.
I have had a bit of a set back with my build. I injured my shoulder out on the oil ship and have had surgery to repair. All looking good now, and should be able to get back to the project in a month.

Keep up the good work

Jim O'Donnell
New Zealand
PRA# 39193
 
Tony,
I found another item I was looking at. The Truss section you have used there is called 'The Warren Truss', originally used by Piper in their first Cub's. For some reason they changed from the style to 'The Pratt Truss'. Google the name and select images. Both styles will come up. I did a study of the truss to see if I could 'lighten' the fuselage just a bit, however, I think Ron Herron has removed all bits to do this. On first inspection of the plan, there seems to be a whole bunch of braces and diagonals, that to my engineering eye, seem to be redundant. Just something for you to ponder.

Jim O'Donnell
New Zealand
PRA# 39193
 
HI Jim

WEll I wished I could claim to be original, but the arrangement for mounting the rotor head actually came from seeing the Parsons two place gyro and a Air command two place gyro and then a "little" of my own input and the idea of the last picture, was indeed influenced by the Airbike.

On my tractor the back mast is hinged at the bottom and has about one inch of adjustment where it is clamped behind the seat, which gives about 7 or 8 inches at the top of the mast where it is "shock" mounted to the "top beam" which then will be bolted (after testing and locating for proper angle) to the front "bi-pod" which is also shock mounted to the airframe at the bottom (which gives it a "hinge" point) and is adjustable front to back about 18 inches, so a LOT OF ADJUSTMENT RANGE. The back mast may require highth adjustment if changed radically and the front bi-pod may half to be re-built if a radical change is necessary , BUT at least you are not "painted into a corner" if change is necessary. This arrangement allows for a wide range of engines and weights.

Tony
 
Tony,
I found another item I was looking at. The Truss section you have used there is called 'The Warren Truss', originally used by Piper in their first Cub's. For some reason they changed from the style to 'The Pratt Truss'.

No, the Texas Parasol on which Tony's fuselage is based uses a Pratt truss, not a Warren truss.

.
 
Guys, I would be the first to say that a "good engineer" could probably knock off 40 to 50 lbs of about anything I build, I just don't have the education for accurate engineering so I have to use others work and then try to add my ideas without screwing things up to bad.

Tony
 
Aviatiakl

Hi Jim,

In post # 30 , a word of aution. Although I have used a few points ofdesign from the Parsons and Aircommand structures, the actual configuration I am using is untested and not proven. I designed the set up to achieve the mentioned features of a LOT of adjustment for a hang test depending on what engine was used AND to have good vibration isolation, which is achieved by the shock mounting of the front bi-pod and the shock mounting of the "top beam" to the rear mast where the join.

This leaves the point where the front bi-pod joins the "top beam" as a rigid connection bolted solid together and thus a possible focal point of stress. Although the top beam and the bi-pod are very strong (top beam is 1/8 by 2x2 6061-T6 and the bi-pod is 1 inch square .065 4130 with the mounting plates being .065 4130 welded to the bi-pod ) and there will be a cross member bolted between the bi-pod legs just at the top of the windshield, and I will be using one of Ernies "slider head" , this still remains to be seen how the "rigid" connection " stands up at the top of the bi-pod, will try to post a picture.

Tony
PS. this connection will be stressed both vertically and horizontally due to the "shock mounting" at the other two locations
 
mast details

mast details

mast and bi-pod details
 

Attachments

  • Pictures2 050.jpg
    Pictures2 050.jpg
    14.1 KB · Views: 0
  • Pictures2 058.jpg
    Pictures2 058.jpg
    12 KB · Views: 0
Allan, thank you. On further checking, I see that the section of the truss used is the 'right hand side of the span. Ron Herron and Piper used the 'left' hand side of the span of the Pratt Truss. This puts the loading of the moments in the correct plane from the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. The diagonal sections run from the bottom chord 'right' to the top cord 'left'. Real neat stuff when you get into bridge building etc. And I spose you could say that the tail section is half a bridge. Thanks for your keen observation.

Jim O'Donnell
New Zealand
PRA# 39193
 
Of Trusses and things

Of Trusses and things

The attachment shows what I was referring to in relation to 'left' and 'right' sides of the Truss.

Jim O'Donnell
New Zealand
PRA# 39193
 

Attachments

  • Pratt truss.jpg
    Pratt truss.jpg
    4.9 KB · Views: 2
better views

better views

better lighting
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0065.jpg
    DSCN0065.jpg
    27.1 KB · Views: 0
front view

front view

front view of pylon arrangement,less cross brace on bi-pod
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0071.jpg
    DSCN0071.jpg
    25.5 KB · Views: 0
Top