minnimax need comments!
Stranger
comments on minnimax?
" Stranger :-} "
Duncan Charlton
Stranger wrote in message <68bfqn$1q0$1...@news.usit.net>...
>comments on minnimax?
>" Stranger :-} "
>
Strong design, not really all that inexpensive unless you buy used or
scrounge when building, great performance. Easy ground handling for a
taildragger but will tip up on its nose easier than some. Easy to fix, but
if you hit something hard in the right place you've got major work to do to
repair it. Can be made legal as per Part 103 with the right engine, etc.
Airshow-goers love it. With a R447 you need 100 feet takeoff roll and 200
feet ground roll w/ brakes, climbs 800 fpm in cool weather. With it's
relatively high wing loading for an ultralight, it handles mid-day
turbulence and thermal bumps very well -- very controllable. What else did
you want to know? You can build a new one with a new ballistic 'chute for a
little over $9000 unless you go with the U/L legal version, where you can
save probably $1500, especially if you scrimp on paint costs (I wouldn't if
I were you!!!) I built mine in '93 for about $6000 but got the kit
partially built at a discount and the engine and 'chute were used. Being a
construction type kit, there's lots of areas where construction could be
done improperly, but overall the design is tolerant of a certain amount of
builder error.
Duncan
char...@flash.net
Dave Davis
Hi Stranger! miniMax is great little aeroplane. Its a great performer
on two stroke (447-503) and a reliable flyer on four stroke
(mosler/Tec). Reasonably easy to build at a good price. Go for it!
Rob & Jean Allen
Stranger wrote:
> comments on minnimax?
> " Stranger :-} "
Because of the strut and axle design there is little or no
suspension. The only cushion you get when landing is the air in the
tires. It makes for difficult landings especially being a short-coupled
taildragger. I have seen support members crack in the fuselage from
hard landings, and a friend of mine groundlooped twice before he ever
got it in the air the first flight. Some people really like them
though. It gets you in the air cheaply and they are pretty fast and
maneuverable. With the Hi Max you can build Cub style gear with some
suspension. I think the Mini Max wing gets in the way of all the stuff
I want to look at while flying also! Most Max's need a longer fuselage
because most people put 477's or larger on them, then have to weight the
tail down to get them in the CG range.
... Rob
Brian Vasseur
As a minimax owner I have to comment on your responses as I think they're
slightly inaccurate.While the minimax doesn't have any suspension except the
tires this doesn't present destructive forces on the fuselage. The
taildragger handling isn't any worse than any other taildragger I've flown.
The one comment you made about the longer fuselage is completely innacurate.
All of the maxes flying here are with 447's and 503's and all of us have had
the CG's come out near the aft limit (recommended) without tail weight.
--
Brian Vasseur
vass...@cadvision.com
http://www.cadvision.com/vasseurb
Duncan Charlton
>All of the maxes flying here are with 447's and 503's and all of us have
had
>the CG's come out near the aft limit (recommended) without tail weight.
I'll have to agree about this. The factory said I might have to add 6-8 lbs
to the tail (and I had the older-style lighter tail surfaces) to balance the
447. After test flying it like this, I decided that rather than go with the
factory-recommended CG envelope, which gives good landing flare and lower
stall speed (theoretically, anyway, mine stalled plenty slow), but lacks any
semblance of longitudinal dynamic stability. I added about 2# of lead to
the front of the engine mount "breadboard" and was slightly forward of the
recommended CG and it was just barely longitudinally stable. Most miniMAXes
will stay with the nose stuck up in the air when you pull back on the stick
and let go, from first-hand reports I got from an aircraft designer who test
flew my mM (BTW Rob, this is the same guy who designed your Javelin) The
drawback was that it was very difficult to consistently make 3-point
landings if the approach speed was under about 50 mph, and it was probably
slightly more likely to nose over (yup, I eventually did that too), but then
again the mains are about 4-6 inches farther aft than standard, contributing
to ground handling ease (less weight on the tail.) It's amazing how many
compromises go into an airplane; but it works.
I landed hard enough to break both main wheel flanges (Azusa) and
straightened the tailwheel spring in a hard landing but there was no damage
to the fuselage longerons or anything else. In fact when I nosed the mM
over, (all the way, sadly) the fin suffered no damage -- most damage was
confined to the area of the fuselage under the tail. Both rearmost angle
supports on the fuselage sides broke and the lower spar cap of the horiz.
stab's longitudinal spar was crushed and had to have a new piece scarfed in.
It IS a very stout little plane and I was glad the fin was strong enough to
provide some roll-over protection.
Duncan
char...@flash.net
(Capella builder nowadays)
Rob & Jean Allen
Duncan Charlton wrote:
Talking about MiniMax crashes, I can think of a couple that happened
in this area quite a number of years ago. The first was a low time
pilot who flew around very low because he was afraid of heights. One
day he ran out of gas, tried to extend his flight over some power lines,
stalled once he passed them and went straight into the ground. After
the MiniMax broke up he was left standing there with a totaled plane all
around him. Interesting thing was that he barely had a bruise. I think
he sprained an ankle and suffered minor cuts and bruises. He built
another one and after only a few hours on it he sold it. I think he
just had a fear of flying but wanted to do it for recognition.
The second made a low quick 180 degree down wind turn after takeoff and
smacked the ground hard. The plane broke up all around him also and he
came away with only minor cuts and bruises.
Does this prove that the Max is tougher than other planes or wood is
good. I don't know. Seems like I lost my whole line of thought so what
the heck. I'm comfortable with tube and dacron ultralight for reasons
too numerous to list here.
Sounds like a debate that could go on and on. We'll just let it go for
now. Happy flying!
... Rob
Rob & Jean Allen
Brian Vasseur wrote:
> As a minimax owner I have to comment on your responses as I think
> they're
> slightly inaccurate.While the minimax doesn't have any suspension
> except the
> tires this doesn't present destructive forces on the fuselage. The
> taildragger handling isn't any worse than any other taildragger I've
> flown.
> The one comment you made about the longer fuselage is completely
> innacurate.
> All of the maxes flying here are with 447's and 503's and all of us
> have had
> the CG's come out near the aft limit (recommended) without tail
> weight.
>
Recommended might be the key word. One HiMax and one MiniMax builder in
our area had the CG within the recommended limit but the planes would
not fly stable on the lateral axis. They would stay in a dive when you
let go of the stick and it was very difficult to pull into a stall.
We had to change the incidence of the Horoz stab and ad over 10 lbs in
the tail before it would stall properly and fly stable in the lateral
axis. One had a 447 and one a 440. When I test fly a plane and pull
the power back with my hand off of the stick it should start a gradual
decent. When power is added it should start a climb. If if doesn't
then the incidence, balance or both need to be changed, is this not
correct? There can be many differences between the way one builder
builds a plane and the next one, so I'm not faulting the designer, the
problem may be with the individual builder. If yours flies nice and
stable then you probably built it right.
I agree that a Max is not much different than most taildraggers and I
probably shouldn't have even brought that up. I must say though that at
least some training is highly recommended to those who are starting out
with this configuration.
When it comes to landing gear, I guess I have been so accustomed to a
nice absorbing gear that I am spoiled. A lot of the flying we do in the
northwest is on rough roads, pastures and fields and requires a stout
system with large diameter tires and brakes. I have always felt
uncomfortable landing a MiniMax in places where I would easily land a
Drifter or a Flightstar.
Every pilot has different needs and wants. What I look for in a plane
is stability, maneuverability, and structural integrity. The durability
of the craft is very important to me in an ultralight because of the way
they are flown. Many of the early vintage ultralights don't have these
features.
... Rob
Chubbe
The last post to this message makes me want to build a mini-max does
anyone know if I can build one with a 440 and stay within the weught
limit???????????? WOOD IS GOOD
reply to SpdOv...@aol.com
Engelkenjohn
it can't be done with the 447 and still be under 254lbs. You could use
the weight allowance for a parachute which I believe is 18lbs. and find
a chute such as a softpack that weighs less so you can take advantage of
the "extra" weight allowed. You might also look into building your own
exhaust system, Karl Paubel of E-U Wish Airport in Hermann, Mo. wrote a
book on doing that, to save some weight. I wanted to build a part 103
legal machine using a 277, but I found a basket case 447 for $150
including carb and exhaust and I just couldnt turn it down. Even after a
rebore and rebuilding the carb the cost was less than $700.
Duncan Charlton
Engelkenjohn wrote in message <34C4B2...@mail.usmo.com>...
>You could use
>the weight allowance for a parachute which I believe is 18lbs. and find
>a chute such as a softpack that weighs less so you can take advantage of
>the "extra" weight allowed. You might also look into building your own
>exhaust system, Karl Paubel of E-U Wish Airport in Hermann, Mo. wrote a
>book on doing that, to save some weight.
The "allowance" is 24 lbs. If you read FAA Advisory Circular 103-7, it
becomes clear that the FAA will not accept a 278 lb. plane with a 14 lb.
chute. They can make you remove the chute to see what the plane weighs
without it, and it must be under 254 lbs without the chute. On the other
hand, my miniMAX had a 447, brakes, the "Sport Kit" (what you used to buy to
make an 1100 into a 1500), and a Second Chantz 'chute in the fiberglass
headrest. Even with the lightweight tailfeathers, it weighed 299 lbs.
empty. Take away 20# for the difference between a 277 and a 447, remove the
chute (about 14 lbs.), and brakes (about 6 lbs) and I'd have still been at
259. Take away the fiberglass cowl and the raised turtledeck and front
deck, and the plane would have barely made it.
I'd be very cautious about flying with a non-Rotax exhaust system. I know
people do it and are successful, but reliability is pretty high on my list.
The Rotax exh. system is pretty heavy, but it takes a lot of abuse,
especially at the swivel joints (use lots of anti-seize compound.)
Duncan
char...@flash.net
Gary Abel
I want to build a plan built wooden aircraft. I would like 2-place
tandem seating, and more than likely high wing. Does anyone have any
suggestions as to what is out there that I could consider? I have a
commercial fixed wing license so I can consider homebuilt or ultralight.
Engelkenjohn
multitude of engines, has a high wing, and is two place. They also have
an internet site, do a web search under Pietenpol or Buckeye Pietenol
Assoc.