WWI Ultralight Reproduction Kit

>>1165670
I vote the Eindecker. From the look of things, the D-VIII is a bit too heavy and much too fast to build compliant with Part 103 requirements (not that I think you'd get caught or anything), and a bit trickier to land too. And somehow, despite being slower, the Eindecker seems sportier in the handful of videos I can find of it.

>>1165800
Amazingly enough, it seems Airdrome Airplanes managed to pack a D-VIII into a 253lb package, literally under by the hair on its back
Although it must be downgraded from a Rotax 503 to a 377, but apparently it still has some giddyup

I think I am kinda leaning on the eindecker, come to think of it.
I recall hearing from one source that the Airdrome eindecker uses actual ailerons instead of the wing warping that the historical plane did, which I actually prefer. But I am not certain, and I would rather the D 7 if this version of the eindecker really does use wing warping

Huh, every video and most pictures I see of the 3/4th scale Eindecker shows the plane flying with the nose ever so slightly pointed upwards a few degrees, even in level flight

>>1165670
I personally like how the E-3's wings come out of the fuselage instead of overhead. That wing difference gives a much different feeling when flying, vision wise. Like it will feel much more open and out there..if that makes sense.

>>1165893
That's what I love about it mostly

>>1165826
but this has really got me concerned

File: E-III spar attach.jpg (17KB, 300x218px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x218px

>>1165826
Yeah, they appear to have built this replica with less incidence (and certainly less camber) than the original.
>>1165900
>but this has really got me concerned
Why?

If you don't like it there might be a way to rig the wing with more incidence, and if not you could probably droop the ailerons down if you REALLY wanted, to similar effect (albeit with some additional adverse yaw). Both would likely shorten your takeoff roll too.

OP WHY ARE YOU NOT ASKING ON EAA AND OTHER HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFT FORUMS?

Get out of here now and do your research in the proper place.

http://eaaforums.org/

>>1165826
That aircraft is known for its arrogance

OP here
think I'mma go with the D8 then

File: ORDER-FORM.gif (132KB, 575x2518px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 575x2518px

anyone have a clue on how to fill out the bottom bit of the Airdrome order form? I see nothing that tells me how to calculate shipping

>>1166318
Figured it out, goodness I can be one slow motherfucker sometimes

anyway, anyone have a clue what size nicopress hand tool that is needed?

>>1165811
>Amazingly enough, it seems Airdrome Airplanes managed to pack a D-VIII into a 253lb package, literally under by the hair on its back
Yeah but do you think YOU can pull that off too? Being an effective weight nazi isn't easy.

Also
>Stall speed: 32 mph
Which is >25 knots. Significantly. Are you a skinny guy? Because to go from 32 mph (27.8 knots) to 25 knots stall speed without aerodynamic mods, you'd need to be flying a full 20% (i.e. roughly 100 pounds) lighter all up, than whatever they demonstrated their 32 mph at.

Not that anyone actually cares... if anyone asks the stall speed, just say "24.999 knots"... and the top speed is "only 54.999 knots unless I dive a bit"... not like anyone's ever going to ask you to demonstrate it.

>>1166318
I suggest you telephone the manufacturer and take notes regarding all questions.

Aircraft mechanic (OV-10 Bronco, F-4 Phantom, F-16 A/B/C/D/) here.

Get to know the makers and have an actual conversation on Monday during business hours.

Here's a good vendor for you. I've ordered a variety of hardware from them:

http://www.skygeek.com/

Always look for tools on Ebay first as you can save considerable money.

I recomment smooth jaw safety wire pliers instead of the old serrated versions:

http://www.bonaero.com/ToolTime.htm

Also grab a variety of long fucking needlenose pliers from Harbor Freight and mechanical fingers and a good magnet.

>>1166210
They keep deleting my account, saying it doesn't meet the criteria ._.

>>1166422
>OV-10 Bronco, F-4 Phantom, F-16 A/B/C/D
Thread derailing question: Are OV-10s cool as fuck? They seem like the same category as A-10s, badass and reliable, but unloved by fighter jock generals cause they're unsexy.

File: duckbills.jpg (21KB, 640x588px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 640x588px

>>1166422
>Aircraft mechanic
>grab a variety of long fucking needlenose pliers

My dad is an A&P, but mostly did avionics in the civilian world. His go-to tool is long duck billed pliers, I swear.

>>1167157
Email the mods and explain yourself.

File: 20 AMB.jpg (589KB, 1734x1752px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 1734x1752px

>>1167220
Broncos are indeed cool but they almost didn't get built because of Navy opposition. Part of that was the attempt to overload Bronco with radios but that backfired.

They ran two FM radios (which could relay between them) for Army ground comms, an HF for long distance work, UHF to talk to fighters, and VHF AM for general comm. That made Bronco fucking golden for FAC work in Nam and later in USAFE during the Cold War where they were fucking vital. No other bird carried that radio package though Mohawks were pretty good (until the Army shitcanned them).

K.P. Rice etc did a wonderful job designing Bronco and they are a breeze to maintain. They come apart IRL very much like the plastic models! You can easily cannibalize parts to repair them in combat.

The light FAC program was mugged by the jet jocks. My last base was Shaw AFB where bugsmashers like O-2 and Bronco went to live out their final years. (I first worked them at Sembach AB, GE). There's a fair amount of info on the net.

If Marcus Luttrell had the same loitering slow FAC/CAS support grunts had in Viet Nam his team would have lived and the Taliban would have gotten a nice WP FFAR and M60 bath at minimum. Helicopters suck at altitude and have tiny loiter times.

Attached pic is my patch from Sembach. They only made one box for the Aircraft Maintenance Branch. TASS aircrew patches are much more common. It's elsewhere on the net but those pics are mine too.

Bronco trivia. They had the fastest ejection seat in the Air Force because it punches straight through the canopy. Skymaster/O-2 (seen in 'Bat 21") was a deathtrap with no ejection option and a prop behind the crew doors...

>>1167221
Fuck yeah duckbills!

>>1167241
Awesome reply, thanks man.

>>1165670
Been around aviation all my life. Watched a guy build this is in his garage and crash it. Seen lots of guys with ultra-light limps from crashing these things. Save up and buy a 150 aerobat.

File: il-28-DFST8503641_JPG.jpg (26KB, 640x425px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 640x425px

I don't want to start a new thread for this but later in life I would like to build a flyable IL-28 How viable would it be to build one? No weapony, not trying to be period-accurate either so I'd try to compensate for the soviet "safety standards" with whatever modern improvements I could. I just like the space plane look of it, and I think it would be easier to fly stably than a single-engine craft.