David Bally wrote:
I have been looking into a flea design very simular to what you have posted. It seems to be a very safe design if recommended changes are followed. It has draw backs in efficiency and is not conductive to high lift devices like flaps, because of the pitching forces. It's stability and simplicity to pilot has been past up by faster, higher, sleaker mentality. I have done some reading on the Flea, maybe all that is in English as not much is to be found.
If you still check this post I would like to talk. Will be at Oshkosh. Dave
I don't really understand your question, but I will try to pass on some (hopefully worthwhile) insights to you, and to others who might read this. You will probably be surprised at the outcome.
I agree that there is not so much available in English (Despite being "Anglo", no obstacle for me, as I grew up speaking French in Montreal, Quebec). The answer is an automatic translation service accessible with Microsoft Office Word (my version of that is 2007), but it is very literal - it only understands word-for-word translation, and is totally lacking in understanding context and concept. A further very good aid is Ultralingua 7 which is a dictionary that you can download in a 30-day trial version, and buy later for $ 35 US. You use it for finding concept and context meanings for the MS Office Word translation. As far as documentation is concerned, I can send you what I have (articles, pictures) in a lengthy sequence of ZIP files over a period of 2-3 weeks, one every few days as I put them together.
The traditional Mignet designs (English plans available) are complicated in that they need extremely good wood-working skills. Their 1930s to 1940s design styles do not appeal to me, until you get to the HM 360 & 380 models that are the latest style available, one of the plans being tube & fabric construction.
I bought a Pouchel plan - the aluminum "ladder" style - from APEV ( Association pour la Promotion des Echelles Volantes - Association for the Promotion of Flying Ladders). It cost me 180 Euros and was very disappointing, i.e. very incomplete, poorly documented, needing a lot of guesswork, useless unless you have a lot of experience in plans interpretation, which I have. And then it was still useless because I did not feel I could construct an aircraft with any assurance of safety in flight and operation. Asking the French for clarification was a pain, because my questions were interpreted as criticism, and responses were curt and disdainful, and did not at all provide what I needed.
This was enough for me to abandon that direction, although I still very much like the construction concept and style - my disappointment is huge!
I admit that another reason weighed heavily - money, like the extra expense of a second complete wing, the necessary engine size (50-80 HP) and its cost, associated with the cost of a larger reduction gearbox. Increase in airplane size multiplies cost in a cubed proportion - a 2X increase results in a cost of 2 cubed, which is 8 times more, and a 3X increase results in a cost of 3 cubed, which is 27 times more. Believe it!
Further research brought me to a Mitchell Wing B-10. This aircraft will accept my size & weight (6'7" & 280 lbs), I only have to worry about one wing and a 25 HP engine, far less building cost, very easy trailer transport. It is also a powered Part 103 ultralight, and keeps me from attempting a flight physical that I will never pass (my Doc, a really nice and helpful guy, convinced me).
It was not easy for me to arrive at these conclusions. I spent some (now wasted) money, did a lot of research and self-education that took much work and time. But, despite all of that, despite my great disappointment, it was the right direction and the right decision, and, at the end of the day, I am happy to have done it all, and in this way.
I don't know how helpful this has been, but you can be certain that I am sincere, truthful, and convinced in what I have written here.
Keep on keepin' on!!! Bernie