: Point of clarification - to build or not to build?

[AlmostFlying (Original Message)]

Follwing recent discussions here has raised a concern.   My plan is to build a Grunberg HM-293. I have the Pontois plan set (along with a Falconar and Bob Cornwall plans sets), my engine, tools and sundry pieces I've been collecting for a Winter start.   I'm also a member of the local EAA chapter. Their advice is to build a "conventional" aircraft. They say, quite logically, if you're going to invest the time and money, build a proven plane with proven track record and support. I point out the history/community/attractive aspects of a HM-293 to them, and state my case. They find the unconventional controls off-putting. I find them an attractive feature. In any case, there's some pressure there to chose another "first plane" (usually the model the person doing the persuading has last built themselves, of course).   Here's my concern. I'm 5' 10" tall, 185lbs. I have a Kawasaki 440 engine and redrive for this project. Recent discussions, especially in relation to the Howell HM-293, would indicate that this aircraft is unsuitable for my height/weight, and that I'm embarking on an unviable project.   Please advise on this point. Is there a definitive answer? Is the HM-293 restricted to smaller 170lb builders? Will I end up building a plan I cannot fly? Also, will flight school "mess me up" because of the difference between taught flight controls and the Mignet formula?   As ever, your feedback is much appreciated. Stephen

[Stew]

Hi Stephen,I wrestled with some of these same questions as a novice Flea builder in a locale with no other Fleas and a strong EAA presence with conventional craft. My own feeling was that I was building a plane for myself, not for all my EAA buddies. Any project that is different or unusual is going to have plenty of sidewalk superintendants who will be happy to tell you what you are doing wrong, mostly because it is different from what they would do. But if everyone had done only what was conventional, then we would not have Fleas at all, or any other aircraft for that matter. The Wright Brothers would have stayed with their bicycle factory! It takes courage to stand apart and we all have to make a decision as to how far apart we want to be, or how much we need the moral support and comraderie of our fellows. But when your EAA friends see you are serious about building a safe Flea, I am sure they will respect you for your dedication to the project and your perserence. As to specifics, there are lots of 293 builders who can probably advise you on the required hp, etc. You will probably want to go with the longer 293 wings that some have used for more wing area and lift. I weigh 175 myself and my Flea has almost 140 sq. ft. of wing area, which is more than many of the popular experimentals have even with their heavier weight. There is plenty of advise and support with the Flea community online. I had wonderful encouragement and help from guys like Rob Germon, Don Campbell, and Paul Pontois. Good luck with your Flea! Cheers, Stewart

[Kirk]

Stephen,   The fact that you are 185lb and 5' 10" does not preclude the flea - it positively encourages it - I a, 6' 1" and was 210lb and flew a 290 (mod) on a R503 with PHENOMINAL performance.  Your 293 will provide you with more room in the cockpit (its wider and muck longer than a 290) and with 293 wings at 20ft front the 293 should fly prefectly well on your kawazaki 440 - maybe only climb around 500fpm but still reasonably good.  As far as 'normal' builders and flyers go forget their advice on choice of plane.  If YOU want a Pou then YOU build a Pou and get their advice and help on the woodwork, engine fit out etc because those areas are exactly the same whatever type of wooden aircraft you build. As far as flying the Pou goes the control surfaces are a bit unconventional but the control response is relatively normal and flying the Pou is simpler that many 'normal' aircraft and better than any its size.  Takre a look through http://www.flyingflea.org and the pilot handling notes on that site (plus the rest).  If you want to ask questions on how the 290 (mod) flew ask or ask Phil Howell (poppapou) how his 293 flys - after all he has flown it for over 30 years and in both nose wheel and tail wheel versions so can vouch for its qualities.   Kirk

[Kirk]

[MADDMIKE777]

 The KAW 440 will fly it fine  near sea level.  It is a good idea to add some wing as mentioned elsewhere.  I think that I've told you about the 293 flown with the CUYUNA 440, about the same as  the KAW.        I also have about 140sq./ 240-50empty and the same CUYUNA 440 power.   I went to a few EAA meatings and found the same deal. Go easy  and determined to learn something from the others. Look  a t all of the planes that you can. Check out the  fittings, workmanship, controls, engine /fuel stuff. covering etc. The old codgers can teach you something, but they dont know that they are and most dont appreove of the Flea.   Maybe just mention a "tandem wing plane".       Lets face it, the Flea has some bad press and   is not well recieved in the US.   The original hit the ground a few times hard. The long wing 293 is a cool plane and flies well from all aspects.  I wonder why Howell went back to taildragger tho. ?? MM  

[Kirk]

[CrazyYank]

   Its the old "Not Invented Here" syndrome. You will find hard-headed "traditionalists" every where you look. Jean Roche had the similar experience when he developed and marketed what would become the Aeronca C-2.       I have had several discussions with Paul Pontois, and through him, Pierre Mignet. They supplied me with data that indicates the 290/293 has the capability of handling larger aviators.    I am 5'10", and weigh 250 pounds. I feel confident that the 293 will accommodate me, with the designed wing area, and 40 hp. Paul states that the max goss weiross weight should be at or less than 660#, and that the max wing loading should be no more than 5#/sq.ft. This wing loading, and a power loading of 16.5#/hp, places the 293 into the same category of the TEAM Mini Max, with a Rotax 447. This is an aircraft that has hauled me around with aplomb.       The bottom line is that you should build what's in your heart, and not be influenced by well-meaning people that are biased by what they think they know, versus what is factual.       

[Flea_nut]

One very bad point about the Flea.Over the years I have been interested in the Flea formuale ( 1969 to present ) it has almost been impossible to get to the truth of what does and doesn't work. Before internet days I corresponded with George Jaquemin a lot. I bought a lot of incomplete plans from him. Everthing except what I wanted. A safe HM14. It would take approximately 2 months to send a letter to him and receive a reply. Most of the time he would ignore my questions. I built an HM14 fuse from the book and he learned of this from another source and wrote to me saying not to continue with the project. I lost heart and put the plans away for many years.In the 90's Don Cope in NZ wa selling plans for a HM14/93. I thought " you beauty" here we go. I sent away for them and guess what? I got a set of post war 293 plans. I was absolutely flabagasted not to mention highly pissed off.About this this time I learned that Bob Cornwell had built a HM14. Took me a couple of weeks to find him ( only 70 k's away ) Raced up to meet him and lust after this beautiful, beautiful airplane.It turns out that he had done exactly as I had and built a standard HM14 airframe before modifying the 1400 chord wings to 1200 chord 23102 airfoil. This airplane has flown 1 hr because he has since learnt it is unsafe to fly. It breaks my heart every time I visit his workshop to see this beautiful creation gathering dust.Anyway, I decided to build a 293 and built a set of wings while Bob C built the fuse for me. I was in a mad rush to get into the air. My problem was that although I had worked as a LAME in the RNZAF for 8 years I had never done any woodwork. So, I built a set of wings that look great until you have a very close look at the selection of timber and think hey they will make a great wall hanging. Built a new set of spars from the best spruce money could buy and as I was working 60 hrs a week got Bob C to build a set of ribs for me. Trouble was we picked the wrong airfoil. Not enough info More wall hangings.About this time I went up to Bobs and had my first sit in the airframe. Absolutely bloody awful !!!Most of your body is outside of the airframe and you feel very insecure. The back of the seat is too upright and there is no leg room. Your Knees press against the side of the fuse right where the bolts that attach the compression struts come thru the longerons. There is absolutely no protection for the pilot on flipping the aircraft over.About this time I heard about a complete 293 that was being given away. Thats right -- GIVEN AWAY. Ron Mears was retired LAME who never flew but loved to build aircraft. He was in his late 70's and was about to have a leg removed and move into a nursing home. I contacted him and learnt that because there were no takers for the Flea he had removed the engine and the wheels and took it to the RUBBISH TIP!! He had tried to give it to museums etc etc. Talk about cry in your beer.Anyway I got the beginnings of another HM14 and a High wing Monoplane called a Clancy Skybaby from him. Also got another Clancy that had been in a crash.If you stayed with the story so far then;be absolutely certain of what you are about to build because misinformation is money down the drain.build a mockup of the fuse to be certain you are comfortable in it . My complete 293 fuse is now stuck up in the rafters of my garage. Bob C has an HM14, HM16 fuse on its wheels and a 290 fusehanging from his rafters. He is now building an HM8. It's absolutely stunning. He's had enough of Fleas, can you blame him? I haven't done anything on my Fleas for several years for the same reason.Don't repeat our mistakes.Have fun building something that is safe to flyJames_________________________________________________________________Enter our Mobile Babe Search and win big! http://ninemsn.com.au/babesearch

[priestgram]

I agree there is a lot of dash and splash about the Flea.
But don't POU, POU the Pou just because of one (ok maybe two or three) bad
experiences.
First, with Bobs HM14 fuselage, it would be possible to scarfe joint the
plywood coverings and put new longerons jointed into the rear fuselage.
You only need to extend the fusealage 30 cms (that's 12 inches in old
money).  this separates the wings, and prevents overlap.  The Rib
section if it is the rounded 1937 section is ok to fly with.  This fuselage
will take 1400 or 1200 rib sections. Obviously there will be a need to balance
the engine on an extended mount for the C of G. (25% from the L>E> to the
T<E< of both wings.
If it has the 1935 pointed L>E, and concave undersection, then these
need to be made the correct shape.  -fill them in with foam! to get the
1937 profile, and recover. (Cut them down to 1200 if necessary)
Whether this will fly is another matter, which depends on what engine is
attached to the front! (and whether the pilot has the xxxxs to try it!)
The other problem with this fuselage is the undercarriage.  The book
version is HEAVY! The undercarriage I like the best for this fuselage is the
wooden arch. 
This method is now being used a lot in France and looks very good. It is
not as high as the one for the 293, it is may a quarter the size of that. 
It is very easy to fit and very light too!
I have seen Bob's pictures of Louie and wondered if it flew.  With
these mods I am sure it could be a little trier!
With regard to the Jaquemin plans, I have available a copy of the Archive
PLans for the HM16-  161, 162. 
The first thing you notice about the BEBE POU is it's really, really
tight!
The wings are too small in area for safety. being less than 12 sq
mtrs.
The rib cord is 1000,
the wing spans added together are less than 10 mtrs.
I would prefer to see two wings of 5mtrs and a cord length of 1200. (12 sq
mtrs)
I don't mind which rib section, because I don't think it makes that much
difference.
- /formule-design a rib section for more lift.
 BUT the more lift - /:.creates more drag- /:.   the
more drag, the more power needed /:. the more fuel burnt/:. the greater the
fuel load/:. the less usable load! /:. the more drag!
Chickens don't have this trouble, they usually don't fly!!!
 
Here, I must reply to the chump who POU POUED the POU.
In my opinion a HM293 has a foward sloping firewall.
A HM290 has a vertical firewall
They all then get a mutitude of variations in the wings, and
undercarriage. This all dependent on the PILOT> and builder.
The Pou Du Ciel is mainly built and tuned for one pilot.
where a Pou du ciel is tuned for a - shall we say- fuller figure, then we
must expect a larger wing area and more powerful motor.  A lighter pilot
taking this to the sky might find it is not balanced and needs some ballast. (
In the oposite case forget it, if you are too heavy, build your own.) 

 
We can obviously do without a tirade from the unknowledgeable
person.  However, we welcome everyones view whatever they have to
say.
Gram Priest 
(By the way, for those who looked me up on Goolge- I don't play the guitar
and I am not a University Professor - neither am I of a church
order.)

[Flea_nut]

Hey Graham, I don't mind being called a chump if it's true. Probably in the case of the Flea it's true. I'm not Pou Pouing the Pou. I love the concept and have spent many thousands of dollars chasing something that really works. When you buy a set of plans you expect to be able to build and fly from them. This is taking into account the pilot weight and size. Do you really think that a 293 fuse will fit a 250lb pilot? because it doesn't fit me at 5ft 8 inches and just over 200lb. I sure couldn't travel any distance in it. Much too uncomfortable. I visited Rob G in NZ several years ago and sat in his deepened HM 16 \293. It felt much better but still not enough leg room especially if you want foot pedal activated wheel brakes. I can't remember if he put brakes in it later but he is a much smaller person than I am. The point I was trying to make is to make sure that you have a proven Flea that suits your size and weight. An example is the HM16.I regard myself as being reasonably knowledgeable about the Flea concept ( probably more than most people ) and yet the more knowledge I gain the more I realize what won't work.Certainly I believe the 293 fuse needs a major redesign. Forget the 290. My Clancy cockpit from 1931 has plenty of room. You sit right down in it and feel completely comfortable and secure. There is no blunt object (your upper body ) sitting out in the airstream creating massive vortices for the rudder to combat. You can only fly like this for a very short while as the buffeting of the airstream and the noise makes you very tired.I really cant see why I couldn't copy the cockpit of the Clancy and redesign a fuse for the 293.I have all the correspondence about Fleas from all the sources I could find over the last 35 years.e.g. George Jaqueminwho could have let me know about the 1937 version of the HM14 but never did. I bought all the plans off him that were then available. All variations of the 16, 290,293,297,360,380Pierre MignetI received a very nice letter saying that he found it easier to build and fly a Flea than correspond in Shakespeare languageMr.. Frank EastonI corresponded with him for quite a few yearsHe told me that the original Flea from the book and balanced correctly would fly safely with extra range of control movementPhilippe BalingandA very nice guy who sent me many of his own drawings and comments translated into English. I have copied his instrument and control layout for my 293Rob GermonI have spent a lot of money on phone calls to him over the yearsJim Jenz in AusCorrespondence and phone callsYour kind self GrahamYou sent me an info package. I particularly loved your drawing of an HM14 ladder Pou.So you can see that I have attempted to do my homework and yet I consider that I do not have a viable Flea. I will continue to potter with the Flea concept but I consider that I have had more "bang for the buck" from my Clancy Skybabies. The Tea Chest Flea is magnificent and if I was asked which flea I would build if I was a newcomer to the Flea concept, this would be it.Lets take off the rose tinted glasses and tell the world what is wrong with some of the Fleas and do something about it. At present there are no Flying Fleas flying in Australia. The exception to this will be Fred Byrons when it takes to the air again.Sorry for the TiradeVive le PouJames_________________________________________________________________Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp?banner=emailtag&referrer=hotmail

[priestgram]

James, as I said we all need to blow occasionally.
Did you look at the Croses Criquet?
there's a microlight version and a CRNA version with a Continental
This is a Mignet type design.  It is a two seater.
It has a door in the side, and I can only describe it as sitting in a Ford
V8 Pilot. You must remember them!
I would strongly recomend this design to you- My friend Nicolas built one
of these in the mid 70's and travelled all over.  Scotland down to Spain,
not far in US terms but you know what I mean.
the leg room is enormous and you can have foot peds if you want.
I would be interested to hear if you have heard of this one.
A designer named Landray has also developed a similar machine from the
Croses design.
Hope this helps
I'm off to France on Wednesday.......
 
all the best
Gram

[MADDMIKE777]

James.  Check out Landry's site.  He has some smart versions of the Flea.    I love the pusher/tri gear Flea.  Like mine, only a lot prettier.  The  straight wing  HM 14 style planes  are very well thought out. too.  MM 

[Flea_nut]

Hi Graham,Yes I have looked at the Croses designs and yes I remember the Ford Pilot well. In fact I owned a 1936 American Ford V8 that the Pilot was copied from. At least the Pilot had hydraulic brakes. The 36 had rod brakes. Sometimes they worked and sometimes they wouldn't. Made for exciting driving.Re the Fleas. I'm really interested in a HM 14 2 seater. I have the 3 piece wings almost finished. I havent yet got a wing hinge that I'm happy with nor more importantly have I a fuse. Anybody attempted this.The 293I am going to complete the wings and temporarily attach them to the fuse I have and put it on floats as I live right next to a lake. As maybe RG sorts out a new fuse I will go that way.Meanwhile I have 1 Complete Clancy that just needs instruments to Fly and another that I have just completed rebuilding the Fuse. Pictures probably posted after the weekend ( haven't got a scanner)Sorry I blew a gasket but there has been so much bullshit about the Flea and so many people trying to make a fast buck from plans that WILL kill you that sometimes it just gets to me. The last time I looked there was still a well known person in Flea circles selling the 1934 version of the HM14 plans on his site.I remember the first attempt at getting a legal flea built in NZ. The equivalent of the CAA in NZ said that I had to find 10 identical Fleas with 1000 hrs betweem. This requirement probably saved my life.Take a lot of care with this concept everyone as you are not only betting with your money but your life as well.Cheers for now.James_________________________________________________________________Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here: http://ninemsn.match.com?referrer=hotmailtagline

[Flea_nut]

Yes mike. I agree on both counts. I have wanted a safe 14 for 35 years and didn't know about the 37 book. Corresponded with people for over 30 years before finding this out. Still want a 14 but a 2 seater. Looking thru my photo file of fleas in Aus. There are quite a few Fleas in Museums over here. None of them have flown. Some of them have glaring mistakes and yet what frightens me is the fact that the museum curators don't know and don't care and future generations will copy them. What does this do for the Flea cause? I'm looking at a photo of a beautiful HM 14 (1934)with a Honda 750 4 cylinder engine in it. Ready to Fly before the owner was told it would kill him.Takes a bloody long time for info to get down under.Bye for nowJames_________________________________________________________________Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here: http://ninemsn.match.com?referrer=hotmailtagline

[MADDMIKE777]

 Rutan models everything before he flies it.  The CG point stays the same regardless of scale .  I looked at the HM 14 sizes and demensions, modeled it.  Flew like poo.   The Cg tolerance was nil, very speed sensitive etc.  I wanted a Ultra light flea for the US rules. So I drew my own. The wings are separated  about 1 chord, with a  35hp 2 stroke pusher powerplant pushing between them.   The sacle model flies very well, better as the wing separation got bigger.  The more space, the better the airfoil I could use and thus the rear wing can make some lift, not like the big turn up at the rear edge  like the 37 style plans.   Build a fuse that fits you,  model a plane  after one that works.  MM      

[priestgram]

start selling the new book, translated by BOB
Gram

[Flea_nut]

Hi Mike,when you say speed sensitive, speed sensitive how? RG says 1/4 scale model of 293 flips over forward usuing 23012 and 23112 when a critcal speed is reached. Gordon Labaush ( can't spell his surname ) tumbled his 293 twice that I know of ( arse over tea kettle ) using the 23012. Luckily he had enough hight each time he did it. Lost about 3 thousand feet before he had the plane under control again. He was killed in his 293 several years ago. The theory is that he had a heart attack while flying but who is to know if he didn't tumble it again? I haven't seen any accident investigation report on his death. Gordon was easily the most knowledgeable Flea person in Aus with the hundreds of hrs in the Flea to his credit. He loved to fly on the edge of a storm front and this is how he tumbled it. Anyway this is the reason the set of 23112 ribs are wall hangings. Going to use Mignets 34012 on my next set of ribsCheers for nowJames_________________________________________________________________Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here: http://ninemsn.match.com?referrer=hotmailtagline

[Kirk]

Two short points.   1. Gordon did die of a heart condition of long standing and he did have a heart attack while flying.  I knew Gordon, his family and his pou very over many years having visited him we always met up at Mangalore each year at SAAA flyin to chat about our planes and flying - his pou and Q1, my pou and vampires / thrusters / jabirus / drifters and crazy students etc.  His actual cause of death was heart failure - the impact with the ground was not caused by any failure of the flea but the pilot.   2. I am very cautious of model Pou results as the airflow over/between the wings (esp the front/back lift split) is CRITCAL to the behaviour of the flea esp. at or beyond the stall angle of attach on the front wing - please see the UK test results on the full scale wind tunnel tests for confirmation on this.  MOST model pous with a model aircraft engine will have two very odd/non representative factors a) the prop is unlikely to be representative of the full size flea and b) the velocity of the prop plast vis the airspeed of the model will be dramatically different from the real thing.   The WORST models are those with props not clearing the leading edge of  the front wing and a very fast engine setting, you end up with a massive blast of very fast air over the centre of the rear wing producing LOADs of lift at the rear without any extra at the front and low and behold the little beasties tumbles forward like there is no tomorrow.   In this case the model is 100% NON representative of the actual full size airframe because the conditions are not the same.

[MADDMIKE777]

 The generally accepted facts are ;that if it flies well as a model, it will fly even better as a full scale.  If it flies  as a  a very small scale  Free flight glider, than all is well ,as it gets bigger. If it wont fly all by itself, it will need some very good computeres and strange control surfaces to keep it pointed the right way.(google up flying wing for info) BTW, this is not my own assumption, but many more successful  aero/engineers. The  HM14- Flea flies as/trims as, a flying wing, not a canard/tandem(IMHO).  It just happens to control pitch by the forewing, adding to it's own problems of changeing the slot size and airflow over the rear wing. If the CG is kept at a very small varience(and well foreward of optimal lift CG), and the speed range is kept slow and slower, this works fine. As the true results testify. It is a very pretty and simple flying  machine.   More modern tandems  have moved the wings apart to retain control authority/ thru moment.  And to use the rear wing a lot more effectivly, IMHO My test gliders are  40in span/30in span, unpowered but have been RC  guided  as the test went further. Totally to my planes scale of 20/15 and 52in chord. Split wing front , solid , flat ,rear wing.    MY rudder is very large at 14.8sq. due to  the glider results of spin in with a the small  scale  293 rudder of about 9sq. The flea is a rudder plane and the stories of groung loops /bending the wing and props do not make  me happy.   Bad things happen when the rudder is too small, less so when too large.   I  have tri gear.    YMMV ,  fly Fleas, Fly safe     MM