I'll built a littlewing

There are quite a few building threads on the Littlewing here on the forum dating back several years, I myself was involved in the framing/welding of a LW-5. Search the Tractor section to find them.

As to pushrod vs Teleflex that will depend if you go with single place or two place, I don't believe you will have the room to go pushrod on the two place as the rear seating position would be in the way.

.
 

jcarleto

Aluminum Supporter
I put teleflex on the Bulldozer and am very pleased with the results. Lots of folks don't like it. Opinions aside, there are these facts:

Cons:
1. Teleflex is generally heavier. (if it isn't, maybe you undersized it...bad idea)
2. Teleflex is generally more expensive.
3. Push rods are mechanically simpler.
Pros:
1. Teleflex shields the operating portion from contact (bird strikes, passengers hands, hair, etc).
2. Teleflex is easier to route than a fixed mechanical push-rod assembly where space is limited or obstructions exist.

I like Teleflex, so I could add a lot more Pros. They would be my opinion, however, rather than cold hard facts. An example would be that I like the "feel" of the Teleflex system better than the push-rod systems I have flown...but that is my opinion, and highly subjective.
 

HobbyCAD

Homebuilt Heli Enthusiast
Build a proven pusher bro. Just ask around.:noidea:
Pushers all proven ?? I don't think so... With all the HTL, CLT, POI, PPO stuff, the design has to be "nursed" to be 100% failsafe.

With all the pro's of flying in constant autorotation, how much safer can it get by doing it in a tractor? None of the "biting" can happen.

OK, a pusher is smaller, simpler, great FOV, but a roomy tractor with a radial up front must be the bees knees !!!!
 
You might want to take a look at these pages:

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2768&page=3

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2768&page=5


Also, the main difficulty on a two place LW is going to be the engine selection. Ron Herron has stated the best engine is the Rotax 914 turbo, a very expensive engine but the best choice for power and light weight. Most prospective builders have looked to other gyros just because of this.

He has also stated the Rotec radial has the power to fly two people but so far no two place LW has been built with this engine.

Ron has also stated auto engine conversions are too heavy.

.
 

Aviomania

Gold Supporter
Pushers all proven ?? I don't think so... With all the HTL, CLT, POI, PPO stuff, the design has to be "nursed" to be 100% failsafe.

With all the pro's of flying in constant autorotation, how much safer can it get by doing it in a tractor? None of the "biting" can happen.

OK, a pusher is smaller, simpler, great FOV, but a roomy tractor with a radial up front must be the bees knees !!!!
you can also built an HTL tractor design and have all the PPO problems as well.... but generally the shape of a tractor is easier to be CTL or LTL and have a long tail with an effective HS.

Is not the position of the engine it self that makes some pushers "Dangerous".. but the overall design.
 
Hi Alan,

I have searched the web and this forum and it is true that there are some threads and wed pages as for little wing home building but very few.
At one time there were several LW under construction simultaneously by a group of builders, they were documenting this on the forum, here's a couple of links:

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=753

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=948

The forum's search engine leaves a lot to be desired, try searching the forum using Google's advanced search engine, also search for the name mcbirdman as this forum member has posted much information on his LW builds. There is quite a bit of information here but it can be hard to dig it out.

.
 
Hi Alan,
what about the LW5 you used to be involved it?
It was a friends project I was helping with, I worked several hundred hours framing and welding, then he decided to sell the project. I was disappointed to see it go. But, I'm building my own tractor design now so at least the experience I gained on the LW wasn't a waste.

.
 

Aviomania

Gold Supporter
I have never designed any gyro, hence I can't rely on anyone coming from the market place to make a reliable choice

The only thing I can do is surfing the net , reading the books and then make a choice after having read everything

I mean I am not experienced enough to know if as you say pushers like yours are as safe as little wings if they are nicely designed as you certainly think yours are,

not that I don't believe you, just that I won't built a pusher .

I have a pusher, I am learning to fly on a magny

I am gonna built this Lw5, that's it, ron interviews convinced me, this guy has no real commercial interest in this story.

as he says gyro design is not rocket science, and what he says convinced me

if you want to know how all of this started in my mind I'll tell you

my Oncle has dozens of books about cierva's autogiros I have read years ago

After a divorce and having stopped mixed gas deep diving I decided to learn to fly gyros

I was hypnotized by bensen type gyros I mean pushers like yours, good looking simplicity, mad max etc etc

but having problems to perform perfect landings on the magny I started watching dozens of you tubes videos, and among those videos I noticed that picairns, ciervas etc had a very different way of landing in comparison to classic bensen gyros and I appreciate a lot the way they land (ok the videos don't show the head wind et bla bla bla)

again I am not experienced enough to start a conversation about the the pros and con's of tractors in terms of landing etc but my feeling is that tractors are better, just a feeling no need to let me know 120 good reasons of choosing hi cg pusher rather then building the little wing.

I am not trying to convince anyone and I don't have any background to, but believe me after watching those videos this is a little wing I am gonna built

lastly I will say that I have a very good feeling about Ron, this guy seems perfectly honest ... again a feeling.

I hope I will have the opportunity to meet this guy, just for the pleasure of meeting him not even because I will maybe need support

regards

jean mi
The comment was for the misconception that if you stick the engine in the front all problems of the unstable gyros disappear!!!!. you can also built an unstable tractor gyro if you want.

The little wing IS a stable gyro.. i did not try to change your mind (i do not sell kit in Europe anymore.. so you can not built one of mine)..

pusher or tractor gyros have there pros and cons.... Each pilot has to decide what he wants and go ahead and built or buy it.

in your case that noise is a major issue ... the little wing is great!!!

Also... do not judge all gyros according to the one you fly.... try different models and makes and then you can see that not all gyros are the same.

The only advice i can offer regarding the little wing is.... commit to it and finish it... it will be a pity to see another little wing project that did not make it !!!!!

It will take a long time... but please... be patient and finish it.

Just to make my self clear once more........ Please go ahead and built it..and if i can help in any way just let me know.... i am not trying to change your mind.. and the little wing is a stable gyro.
 
Study the plans well, Ron includes all the versions of the LW and several revisions, this makes the plans set confusing at first.

The LW-4 is the two place long while the LW-5 is the two place short.

Considering the number of drawings it must have been a huge effort to make the plan set, the man deserves his money.

I also have the video and have watched it over and over, it helps in many ways to see the evolution, construction and flying characteristics of the various models of the LW.

Good luck with your LW build.

.
 
Jean Michel,


The LW 2+2 (also called LW-4) is the long version of the two place.

You can use the LW 2+2 material order list, the LW-5 version will use a little less material because it is shorter but not to any great degree.

Since you plan on ordering your tubing from America I would highly suggest you sit down with the plans, determine the size and length of every tube in the structure and make a "master cut list" so you can plan how to efficiently cut your raw material tubing to the lengths you will need with as little waste as possible. It would be nice if you could order, say one 100 foot long tube and then cut tubes from it but in the real world your tubes will be cut for shipping so you will need to know how many of these lengths to order, the plans only tell you the total length of material you will need. If you don't cut efficiently you can find yourself short on material and will need to reorder more.

I read you have hired a welder man, this is fine as many builders prefer to have the welding done by a professional but while framing up the structure it is very beneficial to be able to tack-weld the tubing together yourself and then, when it is all framed up, to have the professional do the final welding. If you can't do the tack welding yourself then your weldor will need to make many trips to your shop and that can get expensive.

When building your wood template to frame up the sides make the blocks removable as the fuselage tubes will need to be fit-up very tightly and you need to remove some blocks to be able to fit the tubes into place.

Fishmouthing the tube ends doesn't need to be an absolutely perfect machined gap free fit but should be close, no large gaps allowed.

And take a word of advise, drill at least one small (.040") vent hole where tubes intersect so air inside the tube that is heated by welding can vent, if you don't do this you will get blown welds and porosity, especially on the smaller tubing used in the LW fuselage. (Note: Vent holes connect one tube to another and do not go through the tube side to the outside.)

Alan
 
Last edited:
just a question are we well speaking about TIG welding ? it is not specifier on what I read in the plans.... I have not read everything .
TIG or oxy-acetylene welding, both are fine in skilled hands, I myself use TIG. Ron now uses MIG but I don't recommend MIG in aircraft unless you are well practiced and know it's idiosyncrasies.

.
 

B Hawley

Junior Member
Just my two cents worth

Just my two cents worth

I spent a long time looking at the set of plans in the beginning. Some sections are only for the ultralight LW3, some for the longer 2 tandem version, LW4 and some for the short fuselage version LW5, which I am building. Just to organize the plans for my needs, I labeled all the pages and details with LW3, LW4 or LW5. Any page that had nothing to do with the LW4 or 5, I removed. Then I renumbered the pages in red. There are lots! of detail drawings and sketches throughout the manual and not always in the same sections. I linked all the similar pages and drawings in the renumbered manual by referencing all same subject pages in all sections. Seems like kind of anal at first, BUT in the long run when building, you have no idea how much time is saved by not having to hunt for all of the information pertinent to your stage of building. Also something I found very handy, is that the manual is only printed one side of all the pages. This leaves half of the manual ready to add notes, additions sketches or lists across from every printed page.
Just a foot note on welding. I had trouble controlling the TIG arc location when running tests on tubing clusters. I went with oxy-acetylene welding. The only con to this method is a slight warp age in only some of the areas. I stress tested my initial oxy-acetylene welds and found complete penetration, no voids and in all cases the tubing failed before the welds. My local EAA inspector was impressed with the strength of the “old school” welds.
Currently working on the belt PSRU.
Brad H Grass Valley, Northern California
 
Last edited:
Here's some helpful pieces of information on building the LW.

There is an option in the plans on raising the cross tube at station 19" to provide addition clearance for the passanger knees, I highly recommend this as it does help a little although the front seating position is still cramped.

To see what I'm talking about look at these pictures:

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=11797&d=1118291875

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7199&d=1104191428

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7193&d=1104191270

.
 

Attachments

Another two items.

Look at "A" on the picture of the LW-5 plan. When Ron went from the long LW to the short he found it necessary to move the landing gear forward of it's original position. The new position places the gear mount closer to the firewall and this produces a severe bend in the lower longeron, both in and up, this bend can't be done without excessive stretching and thinning of the outer radius of the longeron tube. This area needs to be either reinforced with shear plates to compensate for the thinned wall or a separate tube used with shear plates to reinforce the resulting butt weld.


Looking at "B" on the drawing you will notice there is a bend in the longerons near the tail, this is because when Ron went from the long to the short version of the LW he didn't want to build a new or modify his existing framing jig, so he just framed the LW-5 in his existing jig and bent the tail afterwards. I talked to him about this and he said for airflow reasons it might be better to eliminate the bend at the tail and this is what I did on my LW-5 although this required modifying the dimensions at other stations. You can handle this as you wish.

.
 

Attachments

Top