Heath Parasol as an Ultralight Class Aircraft
Curtis Scholl
I have a copy of the 1929 Flying and glider manual. The Heath Super
Parasol is the subject of a number of articles.
Given the specifications and design notes I have wondered whether the
Heath Parasol would be a candidate for ultralight consideration.
The Heath, according to the specifications, weighs 270 pounds empty.
The Heath-Henderson motorcycle engine was 120 pounds of dead weight for
a 27 horse engine. I had a Cuyuna 430 that produced enough power to be
a suitable power plant and it is nearly 1/3 the weight. That would place
it in the under 254 pound crowd at the very least.
With the Henderson motorcycle engine it could fly at 70 mph and take
off at 28 mph. The 28 mph takeoff speed would be out of the range of the
ultralight class. That is unless the plane with the lighter engine would
take off earlier.
Questions:
1. If I built it to the instructions in the manual, would the FAA frown
on me? (I know that the ultralight class does not need FAA inspection.)
Would an ultralight instructor inspecting the plane frown on it?
2. Did the empty weight really include the engine?
3. Ed Heath used a lot of aircraft wire. I am thinking stainless cable
would be better. Anyone got an opinion?
4. Would 20" BMX bicycle rims and tires be better able to handle the
stress of landings?
5. What kind of new methods would be better used in the construction? I
am thinking here of rigid foam ribs instead of wood ribs, riveted
aluminum angle rather than steel tubing with real truss struts rather
than wires for the fuselage.
6. I would be using modern shrinkable fabrics for the coverings.
Any and all opinions and facts wanted.
Curtis Scholl
csc...@izzy.net
Richard B
"cscholl$!nospam!"@izzy.net wrote:
> Hi group!
>
HI Curtis,
> Questions:
>
> 1. If I built it to the instructions in the manual, would the FAA
frown
> on me? (I know that the ultralight class does not need FAA
inspection.)
> Would an ultralight instructor inspecting the plane frown on it?
Probably no. The FAA uses a formula to determine if it is legal, and
not the actual figures from flying it. If an instructor frowned on it,
I would put his judgment at fault. As far as I know, the plane had
nothing but a good reputation.
>
> 2. Did the empty weight really include the engine?
Yup. A little reading will reveal that each wing panel weighed 18
pounds complete.
>
> 3. Ed Heath used a lot of aircraft wire. I am thinking stainless cable
> would be better. Anyone got an opinion?
Stainless wire can stretch, I'd use the aircraft wire.
>
> 4. Would 20" BMX bicycle rims and tires be better able to handle the
> stress of landings?
>
> 5. What kind of new methods would be better used in the construction?
I
> am thinking here of rigid foam ribs instead of wood ribs, riveted
> aluminum angle rather than steel tubing with real truss struts rather
> than wires for the fuselage.
>
> 6. I would be using modern shrinkable fabrics for the coverings.
>
I'n not real fond of the idea of foam ribs, and don't think you would
save any weight with them. Time, maybe, but no weight. Nor would you
save much with the aluminum angle rather than thinwall tubing.
The modern fabrics would be easier to find than the one Heath used.
Just use the lightweight stuff.
There is an awful lot of the airplane behind the CG, and you may want
to rethink any ideas on the engine. Taking off enough weight to bring
it within the weight limit would be enough, any more and you're going
to end up with ballast in the nose to balance it.
IN the original construction, there are something like 96 turnbuckles
in the fuselage, and AN parts would run about $20 each. IF you can get
access to an old turret lathe, making them from a modern alloy,
stressproof, or similar, starts to make sense.
Go to http://n-lemma.com and there you will find a "FAR-103
calculator", just plug in the numbers and it comes up legal. Seductive
little plane, isn't it?
RIchard B.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Owen Davies
> I have a copy of the 1929 Flying and glider manual. The Heath Super
> Parasol is the subject of a number of articles.
>
> Given the specifications and design notes I have wondered whether the
> Heath Parasol would be a candidate for ultralight consideration.
>
> The Heath, according to the specifications, weighs 270 pounds empty.
> The Heath-Henderson motorcycle engine was 120 pounds of dead weight for
> a 27 horse engine. I had a Cuyuna 430 that produced enough power to be
> a suitable power plant and it is nearly 1/3 the weight. That would place
> it in the under 254 pound crowd at the very least. (truncated)
It's a great idea. Unfortunately, a friend tried it several years ago. It
wasn't
until he had built that plane that he did a trial weight and balance with a
two-cylinder Global engine. Not good. Short of an anteater nose about
six feet long, the only solution was to go with a much heavier engine,
which took it out of the ultralight category.
Then again, so long as he didn't do anything obvious to bring the FAA
down on him, he probably could have flown it anyway as a slightly
fat ultralight. I'm convinced that the only thing that makes a plane too
heavy to be an ultralight is the weight of all that paint in the tail
number.
Owen Davies
Richard Lamb
Owen Davies wrote:
>
> It's a great idea. Unfortunately, a friend tried it several years ago. It
> wasn't
> until he had built that plane that he did a trial weight and balance with a
> two-cylinder Global engine. Not good. Short of an anteater nose about
> six feet long, the only solution was to go with a much heavier engine,
> which took it out of the ultralight category.
>
> Then again, so long as he didn't do anything obvious to bring the FAA
> down on him, he probably could have flown it anyway as a slightly
> fat ultralight. I'm convinced that the only thing that makes a plane too
> heavy to be an ultralight is the weight of all that paint in the tail
> number.
>
/> Owen Davies
--
Richard Lamb
--
http://www.flash.net/~lamb01
Owen Davies
> or move the wing forward about 6 inches...
> > Short of an anteater nose about
> > six feet long, the only solution was to go with a much heavier engine,
> > which took it out of the ultralight category.
Yeah. In fact, he was aware of that option. About two years before,
he'd had to move the wing of a Pietenpol that wound up tail-heavy.
I don't recall why he felt it wasn't practical on the Heath, but he
certainly would not have failed to think of it.
Owen Davies
Mark Smith
>
> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
> > or move the wing forward about 6 inches...
>
> Yeah. In fact, he was aware of that
wouldn't you move the wing back for a lighter weight engine, just an
opinion mind you
--
Mark Smith mailto:tri...@evansville.net
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
Owen Davies
> wouldn't you move the wing back for a lighter weight engine, just an
> opinion mind you
Er, now that you mention it...
Owen Davies
Mark Smith
,,and NO HTML either,,,,,
Policeman Mark
David Pincus
>
> Hi group!
>
> I have a copy of the 1929 Flying and glider manual. The Heath Super
> Parasol is the subject of a number of articles.
>
> Given the specifications and design notes I have wondered whether the
If you want to build an ultralight parasol, there is a kit available
just for that, the Loehle Sport Parasol. The webpage for it is at:
http://www.loehle.com/Sport%20Parasol%20Kit.htm
Regards,
David Pincus
Richard Lamb
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> Owen Davies wrote:
> >
> > Richard Lamb wrote:
> >
> > > or move the wing forward about 6 inches...
>
> >
> > Yeah. In fact, he was aware of that
>
> wouldn't you move the wing back for a lighter weight engine, just an
> opinion mind you
>
> --
>
> Mark Smith mailto:tri...@evansville.net
> Tri-State Kite Sales
> 1121 N Locust St
> Mt Vernon, IN 47620
--
Richard Lamb
David Pincus
>>
>> Given the specifications and design notes I have wondered whether the
>> Heath Parasol would be a candidate for ultralight consideration......
> If you want to build an ultralight parasol, there is a kit available
> just for that, the Loehle Sport Parasol. The webpage for it is at:
>
> http://www.loehle.com/Sport%20Parasol%20Kit.htm
>
> Regards,
>
> David Pincus
> OR, a Texas Parasol...
> --
> Richard Lamb
Which is what?
David