Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

U2 plans... [WAS] RE: [Airchairgroup] Re: Hello, New to this group.

Expand Messages
  • sportcfi
    The B 10 has no washout in the wing. The U 2 has 5 degrees in the outer panel. The U2 also has 10 degrees of twist in the elevons. According to most that have
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      The B 10 has no washout in the wing. The U 2 has 5 degrees in the outer panel. The U2 also has 10 degrees of twist in the elevons. According to most that have flown both, the B 10 has the better glide. Most likely because the U 2 has a highly modified airfoil on the inner panel created to fix stability problems that arose during test flying. Basically DM just twisted the TE of the wing up to give it reflex. Obviously this is less desirable than a designed airfoil performance wise. Very interesting aircraft. I have the plans for both.

      The Mitchell wing group, and the U 2 group have lots of first hand information in the log of messages and available files. I recommend that anyone interested in building either wing read all of the posts in both groups. It takes a while, but it is worth the effort.

      By the way, Don built a version of the U 2 that made part 103. It was called the Victory Wing and there was only one built. There were no plans for it. The wing is now owned by Ron Landa.





      --- In Airchairgroup@yahoogroups.com, "zoomclimber" <drue_apple@...> wrote:
      >
      > I flew a B10 many years back. It was a very solid and easy to fly ultralight. What I liked best was that he designed the wing with the cg and washout so that it would self-trim at low speed.
      >
      > It would only wallow and not do a harsh stall. You could sort of get it to do an accelerated stall, but even then when it ran out of energy at a high angle of attack it would simply nose over and wallow.
      >
      > I understand the U-2 was even better. And because it was cleaner and had a better L/D, it took less power to fly and had great soaring potential.
      >
      > But the U-2 is very firmly in licensed homebuilt territory.
      >
      > --- In Airchairgroup@yahoogroups.com, "quinngolden" <qgolden@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Thanks Red,
      > > I guess it is available in plan form thanks for pointing it out, but like I said, I think it would take a lot of experience to fly it, certainly more than this PPG pilot has.
      > >
      > > -Q
      > >
      > > --- In Airchairgroup@yahoogroups.com, "red" <red@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Quinn,
      > > >
      > > > U2 plans are here:
      > > >
      > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~mitchellwing/items.html
      > > >
      > > > Richard Avalon has passed recently, but his wife has said that
      > > > she will continue to sell plans. Inquiries might be wise, there.
      > > >
      > > > I believe that the U2 could come out "fat," unless you watch the
      > > > weights carefully. Some new, smaller engines now can probably help,
      > > > there.
      > > >
      > > > The BUGs and GOATs simply use a drogue 'chute on approach, to
      > > > land in a small field. It won't go far, with a drogue 'chute deployed.
      > > > I have heard, some hang glider pilots use an umbrella (minus the
      > > > framework) as a drogue 'chute.
      > > >
      > > > --
      > > > Cheers,
      > > > Red
      > > > ************************
      > > >
      > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > From: Airchairgroup@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > [mailto:Airchairgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of quinngolden
      > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 5:48 PM
      > > > > To: Airchairgroup@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Subject: [Airchairgroup] Re: Hello, New to this group.
      > > > > <snip>
      > > > > Regarding eh U2, that is an interesting aircraft. I actually
      > > > > saw an early Mitchel B10 at a fly in, and met the pilot who
      > > > > owned it. It was quick to set up and transport, It had a
      > > > > phenomenal glide ratio but was pretty fast, It is supposed to
      > > > > meet FAR 103 but it appears to be a bit "fat" to me. I don't
      > > > > know for sure. He commented that it took a lot of runway to
      > > > > land it because it flew so fast. I don't have the skills yet
      > > > > to fly one, I think it would take training and quite a bit of
      > > > > experience to handle it. I will train in something a bit
      > > > > slower and more forgiving. It is not, to the best of my
      > > > > knowledge available as a set of plans either.
      > > > >
      > > > > Quinn
      > > > > --- In Airchairgroup@yahoogroups.com, "zoomclimber"
      > > > > <drue_apple@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > P.S.S. - if you really want to go homebuilt, powered, there
      > > > > are Moni
      > > > > > and U-2 Yahoo group sites you should visit as well.
      > > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.