Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt...

[Brad]

Some of you folks may have read my "older" posts about working on Eindecker plans. *After MONTHS of work, (and months of worry) I'm scrapping that entirely. *I was afraid to try to fly it. *I wasn't worried about the structure, I was worried about no fixed rudder or horizontal stabilizer, so no real stability. *The straw that broke the camel's back was someone who had watched Robert Baslee's Eindecker replica fly... he said it wobbled and skittered all over the place, and that about all that could be said was that they got it back on the ground in one piece. *I don't want a similar result, so I'm not even going to attempt it. *If I were a designer with multiple designs flying, I might do it just to be different, but doggone it this one is for ME to fly for FUN, not as proof of my manhood. *("Watch this bubba... I ain't skeered o' no airplane...")

SO... it's time to move on. *I just handed fuselage and tail surface drawings of the project we decided to move on TO to the guy doing the drafting. *(Mine are rough, dimensioned sketches... he will put them in CAD and turn them in to workable drawings, virutally ART.) (JUST being about 2 hours ago...) * *What are we building? *Well, it came down to this: *Dave (the CAD guy) wants a monoplane. *Travis and I want an ultralight, and we all want something easy to fly... so we are working on the D-VIII in 87% scale.

I'm not really fond of the D-VIII because it barely saw service, and I like the early markings better. *The early aircraft have a higher "coolness factor," both in just their appearance AND in the early markings... but the D-VIII is by far the most "modern" WW-I design, and should be easy to build, and easy to fly.

The fuselage is all 1" x 1" x 1/8" 6061-T6 angle sections, with solid rivets. *(We'll use a squeezer, not a gun and bucking bar!) *Tail surfaces are a combination of 1" and 1/2" diameter .058" wall thickness 6061-T6, using pulled rivets. *The nice thing is, materials for the entire fuselage structure will run about $95 + tax locally. *The tail surfaces are probably another $50... not bad, now is it? *This of course doesn't include things like covering or the stringers to shape the "turtledeck" or to fair the cowl into the fuselage, or the cost of the firewall, or the cowl... or control cables, etc. *Just the fuselage structure. *It should be pretty rugged, and weigh under 35#. *The main fuselage section (firewall to tailpost) is 13' 8" long. *The overall aircraft is under 17' long, so it will fit most garages, although we may compromise on the LG leg length to keep the height down- scale is 8' tall exactly, prehaps a bit difficult to put in the garage. *We may "cheat it down" a couple of inches.

I'm currently working on the wings, cabanes, and landing gear. *The wings will be "roughed in" (Spars/structure without ribs) and load tested to be sure it is good to 5 g's positive as a minimum prior to a commitment to a particular structure- however, I'm initially looking at 3" x .065" 6061-T6 tubing ovalized to about 1.5" on the minor axis, with 2 spars per wing, and the outer 3' of the spar being 2" x .058 ovalized to fit inside the inner spars, either riveted or bolted in place with about 6" of overlap. *Another option being considered is a "built up" spar using the same angle as the fuselage with a sheet "shear web" and vertical angle sections every 12". *I'm not even set on an aluminum structure, wood is a possibility, but I want to explore the aluminum first, and the simpler (and cheaper) the better. *The wings will either fold or be removeable with about a 6' center section remaining in place. *(Just slightly wider than the spread of the cabanes in 87% scale!)

The scale span of the elevator is about 8 1/2' so I need to check on the laws about trailer width. I can make the elevator removeable, which would leave the fixed horizontal stab with a span of about 6 1/2' instead, certainly well within limits... however, I would rather have less assembly-teardown when I go to fly, and more time for flying.

Thoughts?

Brad

[Brad]

Interesting thing I just realized. A full-scale (original) D-VIII fits the Sport Pilot rules quite well.

[Lufbery]

Hi Brad!

Some of you folks may have read my "older" posts about working on Eindecker plans. After MONTHS of work, (and months of worry) I'm scrapping that entirely. I was afraid to try to fly it. I wasn't worried about the structure, I was worried about no fixed rudder or horizontal stabilizer, so no real stability. The straw that broke the camel's back was someone who had watched Robert Baslee's Eindecker replica fly... he said it wobbled and skittered all over the place, and that about all that could be said was that they got it back on the ground in one piece.

Wow! Well, the original design was apparently a pain to fly, so I guess there's only so much a fellow can do to make a replica less of a pain. Good luck with your new project, and please continue to keep us posted.

Regards,

[Brad]

Just an update: There have been a few well-respected folks (on the Nieuport builders list) who spoke up and indicated that Robert Baslee's Eindecker is adaquately stable and flyable. I suspect that this is probably true and it flys fine...

I'm still going to pursue the D-VIII, as the full-flying tail surfaces have frankly bothered me for a long time. I just don't want to risk it.

As I got deeper into the D-VIII, I also realized that it's simpler to build... so I think this was a good decision. I'm further along in a little over a week's design work on this than I was after several months on the Eindecker. Some of that is just experience in how to work things out... but some is just that it's easier to begin with- it's a less complex aircraft.

Brad