# DIY electric manned ultralight (with cute puppy)

### Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
"Friends with the Flite Test guys". Hmm, that says a lot. They built a giant Star Wars delta ship, electric powered, and launched it off the back of a giant truck. Flew, sort of. A bit unstable like the small scale one. I thought you were supposed to GET THE MODEL TO WORK before making the full scale one. Silly me.

This guy has too much energy, and works way too fast. Gonna get a heart attack, slow down. His basic engineering is sound, but I am afraid for a craft YOU are going to fly in, model technology may not cut it. Even Burt Rutan's Veri-Eze, which was stall proof, could SPIN, as John Denvers copy did, into the ground, he is gone.

Rikki Rocket of the band Poison, who flies HPR, was threatening to launch himself in a rocket on an Indian Reservation a long time ago, and jump out of it with a chute. There you go, a rock player graduating to test pilot in ONE STEP.
Fortunately, I never heard he tried it.

This guy should fly the dog in it instead. Wrapped in foam rubber! :bang:

#### Winston

##### Lorenzo von Matterhorn
"Friends with the Flite Test guys". Hmm, that says a lot. They built a giant Star Wars delta ship, electric powered, and launched it off the back of a giant truck. Flew, sort of. A bit unstable like the small scale one. I thought you were supposed to GET THE MODEL TO WORK before making the full scale one. Silly me.

This guy has too much energy, and works way too fast. Gonna get a heart attack, slow down. His basic engineering is sound, but I am afraid for a craft YOU are going to fly in, model technology may not cut it. Even Burt Rutan's Veri-Eze, which was stall proof, could SPIN, as John Denvers copy did, into the ground, he is gone.

Rikki Rocket of the band Poison, who flies HPR, was threatening to launch himself in a rocket on an Indian Reservation a long time ago, and jump out of it with a chute. There you go, a rock player graduating to test pilot in ONE STEP.
Fortunately, I never heard he tried it.

This guy should fly the dog in it instead. Wrapped in foam rubber! :bang:
He's running a crowdfunding campaign for the few thousand dollars he needs to buy one of those ultralight emergency chutes. Hope he doesn't kill himself not only for his sake, but because he does some cool stuff that's interesting to watch. For instance, not exactly NAR approved:

[video=youtube;-D9zATwkGqs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D9zATwkGqs[/video]

[video=youtube;4Wj8y2RYyhc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wj8y2RYyhc[/video]

[video=youtube;kGkCDwpJciU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGkCDwpJciU[/video]

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
Ha, I hope he knows he needs enough altitude for a chute to work!

That 50cc motor is no where close enough power to even take off, back to the dwg board.

Here is a real electric plane you can fly in, not sure of cost:

https://www.pipistrel.si/plane/alpha-electro/overview

I will watch the Javelin vids after work, in a rush right now. That is one of my favorite missiles. Hey, that guy is likely violating the safety code!

#### r66astro

##### Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
he needs an O motor

#### Nytrunner

##### Pop lugs, not drugs
TRF Supporter
Launching himself aside, how many safety/NFPA rules/guidelines or local ordinances is he breaking with his scratch Javelin? He's lucky he hasn't had a motor pop next to his head (unless that tube is metal).

As to launching a human, a contingent of IREC students may or may not have sketched out a capsule using an N cluster to propel ~200# "payload" with parachute to ~5000' and recover said "payload" without harm. Of course reports of anything that happen past midnight at the taco truck in Green River are utterly unverifiable.

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
So the Estes E9 is that unreliable? I have heard other stories, think will avoid them.

He finally got it to work, so now will draw in the NAR, AMA, FAA, ATF, FBI, CIA, Homeland Sec, and probably the KGB.

I noticed he has a lot of toys, power tools, a shop, $10,000+ laser cutter, drone. He says he works at a resteraunt, but I thought I heard about a music store too. Asking for donations, just bought a$1000 camera to make the vids. Something does not add up, must have rich parents.

He does have a nice video of a foam "cargo plane" being attacked by fireworks, not going to post, but I have seen others like that. Some are cool, certain blasts do mimic flack explosions. If I pulled any of this, The Man would be here in a second, with probably deadly results.

So, here is the REAL Javelin. Can blow up any tank in the world. What is the point in having them, with this around?

[video=youtube;t_tY7WhF7iY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_tY7WhF7iY[/video]

#### burkefj

##### Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
I really hate the things this guy does, poorly though out, he should stay away from rocket motors, he's never gotten a rocket glider to fly well, mostly just hack jobs.....I'm glad he's not on flite test any more.

Frank

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
Both he and the Flite Test guys need to go to MIT or somewhere and get a degree in aerodynamics.

They know just enough to be dangerous. They are the types who can bring heat on both hobbies, rockets and planes.

I do respect the youthful energy they have, and creativity to a certain extent. Maybe they need a mentor.

Of course, if the ATF or FAA stops by, they will get one! :y:

#### Flyfalcons

##### Well-Known Member
This guy has too much energy, and works way too fast. Gonna get a heart attack, slow down. His basic engineering is sound, but I am afraid for a craft YOU are going to fly in, model technology may not cut it. Even Burt Rutan's Veri-Eze, which was stall proof, could SPIN, as John Denvers copy did, into the ground, he is gone.
That is not entirely correct. John Denver did not spin, rather, he inadvertently pushed on the right rudder pedal while trying to switch fuel tanks, causing the plane to roll right and pitch down.

As for this ultralight project, it will not be the first time an aircraft has used electric power, nor be a one-off design, nor use foam in its construction. His build process of a wood skeleton using proper T-88 epoxy and guessets are standard construction techniques.

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
I guess you are right, I had read it went into a flat spin, but found this, way too many details:

Eyewitness Carolyn Pearl told local news station KCBA-TV that she saw a puff and heard a "popping" sound before the crash. The plane "kind of went up a little bit and absolutely straight down, not spiraling, just absolutely straight down," she said. "I thought it was doing some kind of acrobatic move, or something, and then realized it wasn't."

https://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/John-Denver-N555JD.htm

He made a lot of mistakes, not checking the oil or gas levels.

As far as using model plane tech to build a plane to fly in, that is probably nuts.

There are many failure points, real planes go thru a lot of testing, to get FAA certified.

If you look at how many real planes crash and kill people, it is absurd. There have been at least half a dozen

small jet crashes in the last year. One guy flew his family up from Columbus to Cleveland to see a Cavs game, on the way
back crashed in Lake Erie, I have not heard that they found the reason. Another one slammed into an apt bldg in Akron,

some guy had just left to buy Hot Pockets, the plane plowed thru his apt. Cessna. I hate flying anyway, in a car you can just stop the engine and get out!

The foam boy could have the wing break off, power system die, lose control, or have the landing gear cause a nose over.

Boom. Broken spine. I think I will stick to elevators and cars with airbags!

Oh, and the kids at Cuyahoga Airport not to long ago. 4 college students, in a Cessna prop. Took off, but were over loaded, heavy football players. Pilot could have gone over a road and landed in a golf course, but instead tried a hairpin turn to go back to the airport, he was not climbing. So it just crashed. All dead. Parents suing the flight school saying they did not train the pilot right.

#### Flyfalcons

##### Well-Known Member
I'm in the aviation industry and am well versed in the cause of accidents. It is almost always a system failure between the ears. You'd be surprised to see the construction method of many successful ultralights. They very closely represent a large model.

#### Winston

##### Lorenzo von Matterhorn
[video=youtube;0V7z4uAeVdc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V7z4uAeVdc[/video]

[video=youtube;GjQ48hrLx34]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjQ48hrLx34[/video]

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
Somebody should call the police. Or the FAA. Maybe his mommy!

Still have to watch it, but so far I am not impressed. That kid is no Lockheed Skunkworks. Or even a Wright Bro.

I was flying in my ultra-lite, and the Flite test guys sent a swarm of drones in front of me. And look what happened: :hot:

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
He should start a Go Fund Me for the new spine he is going to need.

We should take out an insurance policy on him.

He clearly did not model it in a 3D program. 3D Studio Max would work. He needs to have all the eqpt on before testing

for CG. The motor, batt, props, and ESC will be thousands of dollars. Cut off his allowance now!

Should just use a snowmobile engine, like the Predator does. Godspeed, Peter. Right into the ground.

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
He is making a big mistake by not flying RC first. He says "the rc eqpt would be too heavy". Absurd, it can weigh as much as he does. Even if 10 LBS, he still has to add a sandbag to mimic his weight. High power servos must be available. You could just use a windshield wiper motor, add a pot for feedback, hook to a pcb out of an old servo, with a high current bridge output booster of course.

It looks underpowered. You need a lot more power for take-off than for cruise. I fly electric planes, have one motor the size of a spool of thread, but can put out 1/2 HP. He needs about 40 HP for take-off. He will probably never make it, not accounting for wheel drag, and does his landing gear have springs and shocks? What about brakes? He could get up to 80 mph and hit a wall or a tree.

There are too many ways this project could go south. He is lacking safety and common sense. There do not seem to be any good mentors available, just endless costly toys to use, laser cutter, very expensive 3D printer, shop. Missed the milling machine. His control linkage is likely to fail, either cable stretch, or fuselage flex will introduce error. He needs to fly it with a dummy on board, instead of himself, although they are most likely somewhat equivalent.

#### Flyfalcons

##### Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you're talking about, or if you have the experience to make those assertations. He showed some footage of his meeting with an experienced ultralight owner, and his cable controls are constructed in a standard fashion and with aviation-grade hardware, not stuff bought from the store. As someone who is working on a homebuilt airplane, I don't see anything frightening in his construction techniques. These are tractors, not space ships. An actual quote to me from the team at Van's Aircraft. I do agree that two 50cc equivalent motors probably won't be enough power. So, what full-scale homebuilt aircraft experience do you speak from to judge his work?

Actually, I take back the underpowered remark. Looks like he's going to use two 150cc equivalent motors. There are ultralights flying using that setup. So, he should be in the ballpark for power required. A 150cc motor makes around 80 pounds of thrust. That's 160 pounds of thrust on a craft that should weigh no more than 425 pounds with pilot onboard.

#### burkefj

##### Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
My problem with his approach is that he admits to not doing much in the way of calculating forces, strength, etc. If it were my life on the line I would be doing that. He is taking a TLAR approach for a lot of things and while the technique may be acceptible, he really has no idea of the stresses involved and the margins he has. Building from a kit or design that has been designed and tested is different than saying that looks about right. Note his comment about twisting of the frame and the offer from a class to do some simulations for him, he has no model and has no real idea how strong it is. He may get lucky, he may not.

Frank

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
I have not designed any full sized aircraft, just several pound models. I understand Reynolds number. I study generally the failure modes of both real and model rockets and planes, and skydiving, I did do that a dozen times. There are just so many things that can go wrong. Especially if you are a beginner without a lot of real world experience. All it takes is ONE thing to go wrong. Wing or stab breaking. Controls sloppy. Stall. Cracks. Remember when they put the jet engine on with a forklift, and cracked the pylon? Chicago. Landed on one wingtip.

"Controlled impact with ground". Spin. He talks about doing spin testing. Give me a break. Now he is a test pilot.

These kids with the smart phones and lack of real education are everywhere. I have worked with them. One hired to do complex electronic troubleshooting had NO education in electronics. Well, it was a cheap employer, I am no longer there. One day I described a useful thing to him called OHMS LAW. He was baffled.

The proof is in the pudding. I suggest you tell him to let you maiden it! :flyingpig:

Burke: you are correct. He should learn some computational fluid dynamics. Maybe from a YouTube video.
I met a millennial that said he does not like to read, he learns everything from vids. Oh, and he had worked on
F-16's. Air conditioners. They are for the electronics, not the pilot, he said.

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
I don't have glee when aircraft fail, or people get hurt. My interest in failure modes stems from working with many eng teams on a wide variety of products, and seeing what shoddy eng can cause. Having been dragged into troubleshooting often, I finally realized it is EXACTLY the same as being a detective. Look for clues to understand the big picture. Of course, having good understanding of system operation is crucial. I am a big fan of police forensic shows, like I-detective, where they often ask you 3 questions of how to proceed on a case, then explain why each one is good or bad.

After seeing thousands of failures over the decades, you develop a healthy respect for Murphies Law.

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-...f/2012/11/experimental_rv6_airplane_in_f.html

The two-seat airplane that crashed near Scio on Monday, killing the two men onboard, is one of the most popular experimental aircraft in the United States.Designed by Van's Aircraft in Aurora, the RV6 is considered something of a hot rod in the air. It's fast, versatile, fuel-efficient and relatively easy to build and pilot, making it a hit when it first came out in 1986.

The accident rate for amateur-built aircraft is up to three times higher than for lightweight manufactured planes, said Loren Groff, safety analyst for the National Transportation Safety Board. The fatality rate is four times higher.

The airplane, 21 feet long with a wingspan of 23 feet, can fly 180 mph. Made mostly out of aluminum, the plane is engineered withstand a stress load -- or gravitational load -- nine times its weight.

SO, THIS PLANE COULD HANDLE 9 G's, and a wing still came off! Made of aluminum, not wood, foam, and fiberglass.

The classic failure was the British jet airliner the Comet. Learned the hard way not to make square windows. Stress cracks grow from the corners, leading to the fuselage breaking up.

Would you think an airliner could crash due to the elevator trim tab getting stuck all the way up? It happened on an Alaskan Airlines plane. It is electric, with a lead screw actuator, there is a little switch on the control column. Pilot could not get it set right, and it would only go up, not down. When set all the way up, it somehow caused loss of control and a crash. True story. A mechanic had used the wrong lubricant on the leadscrew.

I saw an interesting documentary on a rudder servo problem, hydraulic. A 737 I think. There were many of them flying with it, only a couple times they had full over uncommanded rudder. It was a dual redundant servo, but with a common shaft on both valves. Finally, one plane had it happened, and rolled over and nosed in.

BOEING COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT. Finally, some NTSB guys chilled the body down to the temp it would be at cruising altitude, and ran hot hydraulic fluid thru it, to mimic the actual operation. They could get it to do the glitch. It would push the rudder pedal up, pilot could not force down. They changed the design to 2 separate valves.

So one must be careful in engineering these things. Look at how many failures happen in space boosters. A little contamination in the engine, and you are done. Hooking the gyros up backwards is a classic. Once in a missile test, the fuel line, which was clamped down at intervals, had just the wrong vibration that caused the line to flex violently, and break. BOOM goes the rocket.

I deal mostly with electronics and automation machines, and believe me, you just cannot imagine the variety of things that can go wrong, and stupid things that people do. The worst ones are companies making faulty stuff, and keep doing it, blaming the customer when it fails.. Just try complaining to them and see what happens! :bangpan:

OH! I forgot the Airbus crash a couple weeks after 911. Was following another plane a few miles in front, but wingtip vortex from it cause upset flight.
Pilot whipped the rudder back and forth to compensate, forgetting you are not supposed to do that. It was only rated for slight gentle movement. The flight computer control laws unfortunately did not limit rudder motion.

So it snapped. off. I saw photos in AvWeek of the construction, it looked like a model plane. Tabs that stuck in slots, little pins to hold it in
Flite Test could have done a better job.
:lol:

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
Peter still has not finished his wing.

Meanwhile, in China...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUGeX7ZD9BQ

:fly:

This one looks better, helps to be an engineer. But, HOW MUCH HP DID HE USE. Peter must duplicate the amount.

[video=youtube;4olraUbFmr4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4olraUbFmr4[/video]

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
Here are some REAL electric planes you can fly in. Pro design. Note the better aerodynamic structures and materials.

The Pipistrel is amazing. Gas engine days are limited! Once they improve the batts, or go hybrid.

[video=youtube;ogx48kBEgQU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogx48kBEgQU[/video]

[video=youtube;VWCc6ig-xMQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWCc6ig-xMQ[/video]

[video=youtube;WiADDbeFanU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiADDbeFanU[/video]

#### jazzviper1

##### Well-Known Member
I guess you are right, I had read it went into a flat spin, but found this, way too many details:

Eyewitness Carolyn Pearl told local news station KCBA-TV that she saw a puff and heard a "popping" sound before the crash. The plane "kind of went up a little bit and absolutely straight down, not spiraling, just absolutely straight down," she said. "I thought it was doing some kind of acrobatic move, or something, and then realized it wasn't."

https://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/John-Denver-N555JD.htm

He made a lot of mistakes, not checking the oil or gas levels.

As far as using model plane tech to build a plane to fly in, that is probably nuts.

There are many failure points, real planes go thru a lot of testing, to get FAA certified.

If you look at how many real planes crash and kill people, it is absurd. There have been at least half a dozen

small jet crashes in the last year. One guy flew his family up from Columbus to Cleveland to see a Cavs game, on the way
back crashed in Lake Erie, I have not heard that they found the reason. Another one slammed into an apt bldg in Akron,

some guy had just left to buy Hot Pockets, the plane plowed thru his apt. Cessna. I hate flying anyway, in a car you can just stop the engine and get out!

The foam boy could have the wing break off, power system die, lose control, or have the landing gear cause a nose over.

Boom. Broken spine. I think I will stick to elevators and cars with airbags!

Oh, and the kids at Cuyahoga Airport not to long ago. 4 college students, in a Cessna prop. Took off, but were over loaded, heavy football players. Pilot could have gone over a road and landed in a golf course, but instead tried a hairpin turn to go back to the airport, he was not climbing. So it just crashed. All dead. Parents suing the flight school saying they did not train the pilot right.
Ultra-lights do not have to be FAA certified.

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
Ultralites should at least be inspected by the FAA and not be permitted to fly until granted an airworthiness certificate.

Many are suicide machines. Tripoli has better enforcement, with the Level 1-3 certs. And nobody is on the rockets.

If you google ULTRALIGHT ACCIDENTS, there are thousands of them. People think they can watch a couple YouTube videos, and become qualified to be an aeronautical engineer, and test pilot. :y:

There is training for jumping with a parachute, right? It is a crime against humanity to let any yahoo build and fly his own aircraft, of ANY type, without government intervention. They are putting more enforcement on drones, which is crazy because they don't carry humanoids. Usually!

[video=youtube;At3xcj-pTjg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At3xcj-pTjg[/video]

#### Flyfalcons

##### Well-Known Member
The FAA's general philosophy in rulemaking is that the more exposure to risk to the public, the more regulation that is needed. Those putting only themselves at risk are the least encumbered by the FARs. Ultralights, by their very definition, present the least risk to the general public when they are in compliance with the FARs. The FAA doesn't even refer to them as aircraft, but as vehicles. They only seat one pilot, they have very low stall and cruising speed, and very little mass. Additionally, they are prohibited from being flown over populated areas and have limited fuel capacity and resulting range. All of the above keeps risk of injuring someone or causing property damage at a very minimum. So experimenters have been given a very long leash by the FAA to pursue their activities, since they are the ones putting themselves at risk.

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
The FAA is probably the only gov agency that does not go out of its way to prevent people from hurting themselves.

You can't make your own car or motorcycle from scratch and drive it around. Because it won't have a title.

They drug test employees because they might stick their head in a punch press.

The FAA is missing out. They could make money from charging these homebuilt people money for some stupid sticker you have to put on the plane. Maybe they are trying to reduce the population!

#### jazzviper1

##### Well-Known Member
The FAA is probably the only gov agency that does not go out of its way to prevent people from hurting themselves.

You can't make your own car or motorcycle from scratch and drive it around. Because it won't have a title.

They drug test employees because they might stick their head in a punch press.

The FAA is missing out. They could make money from charging these homebuilt people money for some stupid sticker you have to put on the plane. Maybe they are trying to reduce the population!
View attachment 328665
More people hurt themselves with alcohol and cars, it is a relatively free country you can hurt your self all you want.

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
Crazy people are often locked up and put under protective custody, suicide watch, etc for doing bad things to themselves!

Of course, there is this:

https://www.darwinawards.com/

[h=1]
[/h][HR][/HR][h=3]DARWIN AWARD: Red Evolution[/h]April 2017, RUSSIA || A Russian welder noticed how well a fire extinguisher fits into a howitzer! Inspired, hestuffed the fire extinguisher down the cannon barrel... BEST Darwin Award Winner of the Decade![HR][/HR][HR][/HR][HR][/HR][h=3]HONORABLE MENTION: 7200 Volts And A Dim Bulb[/h]April 2017, South Carolina || After two weeks without hot water or refrigeration, a man attempted to restore electric power to his home. Illegally. While we feel sympathy for his situation, what happens when a powerless thief grabs a metal ladder and jumper cables...?[HR][/HR][HR][/HR][HR][/HR][h=3]DARWIN AWARD WINNER! 503 Server Overload[/h]April 2017, France || Locked in his bedroom by Mom, a French man leaves by climbing down the ethernet cable...[HR][/HR][HR][/HR][HR][/HR][h=3]DARWIN AWARD WINNER! Air Strike Out[/h]March 2017, Mexico || Standing on a truck on an airport runway, our Double-Darwin Award Winners Nitzia and Clarissa chose a regrettable location for a cell phone selfie...

#### XolveJohn

##### Well-Known Member
Oh no, he started the wing. I don't like it. Chord too small, way too thick. Is he going to stick aluminum tubes in those giant holes? Or just flimsy wood spars? Back to the drawing board, after some college, dude.

[video=youtube;biZ2Sl63nr0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biZ2Sl63nr0[/video]

#### Flyfalcons

##### Well-Known Member
John, what aircraft design experience are you using to come to your conclusions?