Farfles Electric Ultralight.

600lbs of thrust would make for some pretty impressive climbing performance.

I noticed you can reverse the motor. That might be a handy feature when landing in a short space.
 
After pulling the CA data, It sounds like there is another 20% power being left on the table by an amperage limit I had forgotten to change.

I will be back at the hangar next week to do some more testing, and ill also have my temp guage wired in by then which will give me much better instrumentation than swapping between the thermocouples one at a time by hand with a fluke meter im my lap.
 
Awesome! Love everything about it. How do your results compare to the power/thrust curves available from conventional ICE powerplants others use in this chassis?
 
I think about how scary it is to try the two wheeled inventions we create here on this forum, but you are taking It to a entire different level on this build! I cannot even imagine taking my hack work into the air for "testing"

It makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck just thinking about it!

If I were you I'd bring a parachute! I will be over here with the popcorn waiting :)
 
skeetab5780 said:
I think about how scary it is to try the two wheeled inventions we create here on this forum, but you are taking It to a entire different level on this build! I cannot even imagine taking my hack work into the air for "testing"

It makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck just thinking about it!

If I were you I'd bring a parachute! I will be over here with the popcorn waiting :)


Not a pilot I take it? It's like anything else, safe enough if you know what you're doing. After 45 years of flying, I tend to take it for granted, and when I see a comment like yours I feel the need to kinda stand up for what we pilots do. We're not crazy risk takers or thrill seekers. Also, in the last 45 years I've known more acquaintances that have died in motor vehicle accidents then in their airplanes, getting in their car is the most dangerous thing most people do, but we do it a lot and take it for granted. Farles bird looks solid and well designed, he'll be fine. The great thing about light aircraft is the speeds involved are low enough to make a ground loop or botched landing a non event, injury wise.
 
Not a pilot here... but he lost me at bicycles being scary. :lol:
 
No im not a pilot haha and landing that may be safe if you have perfectly flat runway everywhere.. what about in the mountains or heavily wooded areas? You have to always be close to a safe zone

And i didnt say a bicycle was scary but apparently Mr dude aint scared of nothin’
 
skeetab5780 said:
No im not a pilot haha and landing that may be safe if you have perfectly flat runway everywhere.. what about in the mountains or heavily wooded areas? You have to always be close to a safe zone

And i didnt say a bicycle was scary but apparently Mr dude aint scared of nothin’
If you land in the tree tops at low speed you will not be hurt.

I would much rather have to find a place to emergency land this thing then a 737....
 
A ballistic parachute might be one idea, but they are heavy, expensive, and have a nasty tendency to not work.
 
For sure, over unlandable terrain a bit more altitude is advisable if reliability of the power plant is in question. More altitude, coupled with a working knowledge of the sink rate and glide ratio (and winds aloft) of the aircraft usually give a viable option if the fan quits turning.

Flying in general is so damn much fun, any risk is well worth it, but sure, keeping that risk down as low as possible makes sense. Sitting home on the couch is dangerous too, and I do a fair bit of that, punctuating the couch sitting with epic flights keeps me sane, and did I say, IT'S GREAT FUN!
 
skeetab5780 said:
No im not a pilot haha and landing that may be safe if you have perfectly flat runway everywhere.. what about in the mountains or heavily wooded areas? You have to always be close to a safe zone

And i didnt say a bicycle was scary but apparently Mr dude aint scared of nothin’

Not true. someday my daughter will be a teenager.
 
Wow, impressive project!!

I've hosted my images on imgur.com for some time now, it's been very reliable.

I made a switch after imageshack went rogue, and I've also lost many images on forums. But photobucket has always been piece of shit, this isn't the first time images went missing.
 
High quality BRS's have an amazing track record, and this guy will be getting one. They are spendy, but worth it.

The system I am looking at is made by Ballistic Recovery Systems. They make systems from 600lbs up to 3700lbs.

Basically Its a rocket deployed parachute that has a 10 year lifespan and costs ~3000 dollars. They work big time, with 201 FAA recorded deployments at a 100% success rate.

http://m.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/brscanister600SP.php

The little 3x8x13" softpack lives in its anchor panel, which has 6-8 strands of high-tensile webbing that attach to the landing gear bulkheads, main wing struts, rear cabin bulkhead and front cabin bulkhead, so you can have complete structural breakup and as long as you remain attached to the most of the cabin, you are good.
 
Farfle said:
High quality BRS's have an amazing track record, and this guy will be getting one. They are spendy, but worth it.

The system I am looking at is made by Ballistic Recovery Systems. They make systems from 600lbs up to 3700lbs.

Basically Its a rocket deployed parachute that has a 10 year lifespan and costs ~3000 dollars. They work big time, with 201 FAA recorded deployments at a 100% success rate.

http://m.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/brscanister600SP.php

The little 3x8x13" softpack lives in its anchor panel, which has 6-8 strands of high-tensile webbing that attach to the landing gear bulkheads, main wing struts, rear cabin bulkhead and front cabin bulkhead, so you can have complete structural breakup and as long as you remain attached to the most of the cabin, you are good.


18lbs?? Wear a few lbs body chute?
 
liveforphysics said:
Farfle said:
High quality BRS's have an amazing track record, and this guy will be getting one. They are spendy, but worth it.

The system I am looking at is made by Ballistic Recovery Systems. They make systems from 600lbs up to 3700lbs.

Basically Its a rocket deployed parachute that has a 10 year lifespan and costs ~3000 dollars. They work big time, with 201 FAA recorded deployments at a 100% success rate.

http://m.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/brscanister600SP.php

The little 3x8x13" softpack lives in its anchor panel, which has 6-8 strands of high-tensile webbing that attach to the landing gear bulkheads, main wing struts, rear cabin bulkhead and front cabin bulkhead, so you can have complete structural breakup and as long as you remain attached to the most of the cabin, you are good.


18lbs?? Wear a few lbs body chute?

Not super worried about the weight, as having one guves you a larger Part 103 weight budget, and I am still under max airframe weight by a hundred pounds. Plus, getting my arse out of this thing isnt exactly a speedy process just sitting on the ground :mrgreen:
 
Sounds good!
 
Testing to see if google images as a host works:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/q6heDVZJJqO0dcpD2

AF1QipOxuDgE5h9gCH_9B1-z25i4Nvq6mISwdmmNYxkz
 
Oratex for the covering? I couldn't tell by that quick shot of the roll. No paint or other coatings required, unlike virtually every other system out there. You save a ton of time plus don't need a paint booth. I've covered 5 aircraft, and all I can say about the process is anything to speed things up is worth looking into.
 
Yup! Oratex ul600 it is. Stuffs not cheap, but neither is time on a weekend project. I also hate painting, and dont have the space or equipment
 
Back
Top