Fokker D8 Kit

Pearl · 8 March 2009, 06:23 PM

Hi,

I was wanting to build a FAR Part 103 ultralight and wanted it to look as scale as possible. This Fokker D8 really seems like a great plane to build and fly. I'm willing to dedicate 4+ years or longer to complete the kit and wanted to do it in section's.

Is the Fokker D8 a TRUE LEGAL FAR Part 103 ultralight that doesn't require a license to fly?? I am intrested in building and flying this aircraft. I know very little about it and would like to know more.

Thanks...

Brad · 9 March 2009, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl

Hi,

I was wanting to build a FAR Part 103 ultralight and wanted it to look as scale as possible. This Fokker D8 really seems like a great plane to build and fly. I'm willing to dedicate 4+ years or longer to complete the kit and wanted to do it in section's.

Is the Fokker D8 a TRUE LEGAL FAR Part 103 ultralight that doesn't require a license to fly?? I am intrested in building and flying this aircraft. I know very little about it and would like to know more.

Thanks...

I assume you mean the one from Robert Baslee (Airdrome Aeroplanes) when you are asking if the D8 is 103 legal.

I would recommend asking Robert that question. I can't answer it for you. He is active on the builders' list on yahoo: airdrome_builders : Airdrome_Aeroplanes_Builders

I have some questions for you however:

1) Are you a tailwheel current pilot?

2) Why a 103 legal ultralight?

If the answers are 1) NO and 2) Because you don't want to get a license, I highly recommend that you do not attempt to build and fly that aircraft. I don't want to see you become a statistic on the accident reports.

Also, are you a relatively small person? The DVIII from Airdrome Aeroplanes is tiny... and the cockpit size is also tiny. I'm 5'8" and 215#... I'd never fit. I've seen this plane up close and personal, and it isn't even close to big enough for me. I believe the cockpit is 19" wide.

Because of the location of the pilot, in order to make it balance at 103 weight, the nose would have to be MUCH longer than scale.

And I'm not sure it has enough wing area to meet the stall speed portion of the 103 regs.

Talk to Robert. I THINK the EIII is the best choice for a 103-legal replica, and his is pretty nice. However... It ALSO is a short coupled taildragger, and it has the additional factor of no fixed tail surfaces, so the stick and rudder forces are VERY light, with very little static stabilty. Again, probably not the best choice for a low-time pilot.

You might ask him about the Bleriot. It WAS used by the French military, and it may be 103-legal. The replica is a very pretty little bird. It uses a "single surface wing," so I suspect the object there may have been to make it 103 legal... he has pics on the site, but no details on the kit.

It does have a fixed horizontal stab, so that helps with pitch stability.

Joe Perkel · 9 March 2009, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl

Hi,

I was wanting to build a FAR Part 103 ultralight and wanted it to look as scale as possible. This Fokker D8 really seems like a great plane to build and fly. I'm willing to dedicate 4+ years or longer to complete the kit and wanted to do it in section's.

Is the Fokker D8 a TRUE LEGAL FAR Part 103 ultralight that doesn't require a license to fly?? I am intrested in building and flying this aircraft. I know very little about it and would like to know more.

Thanks...

Along the lines of Brad's post, a better choice for Part 103 in my opinion, would be the Baslee Dream Classic. It's a Pioneer Aviation replica (forgot who for the moment), and being high wing, low CG, and 3 axis, would be the best bet for someone so inclined.

It's a great choice for a certificated pilot now ineligible for a medical.

Jeff Brooks · 9 March 2009, 05:16 AM

It looks like the plane the french guy used in the movie "Those Magnificent Men and Thier Flying Machines"

RobW · 9 March 2009, 05:25 AM

It is representitive of Alberto Santos-Dumont's Demoiselle.

Pearl · 9 March 2009, 11:47 AM

Hey Brad,

Yes, I was talking about the Airdrome Aeroplanes D8, sorry I wasn't more specific. I will definately checkout the build link

.

1. You are right, I'm not a taildragger pilot and never flew in one, but am willing to do the required training. I been intrested in aviation a long time, started flying cessna's, 152, 172 182, 185, piper cherokee's, mostly general aviation ac. I'm not the type of person to just go out and attempt something out of the box and get hurt/ killed.

2. I want an ultralight mainly because of the price. The research I've done, most ultralight's can be built and flown for 9k to 11k. Sport planes cost considerable more, 12k to 20+k. I'm trying to stay in the ultralight budget class and still have a cool airplane.

I spoke with Robert and he said it could be a ultralight, or a sport plane. The legal stall speed for a ultralight is not to exceed 24 kts and the Airdrome has a stall speed of 28 kts. According to the law, the D8 from Airdrome is not a ultralight. I told Robert I was 6 ft. tall, 160 lbs, broad shoulder's and said I could fit no problen in the cockpit. I believe this D8 is more of a sport plane, then a ultralight like what Joe posted.

Doc Leland · 9 March 2009, 07:08 PM

Pearl, why not just get the sport pilot certificate? A valid drivers license is all you need for a medical and half the training of a private certificate. That will also give you a wider selection of planes to choose from; anything from ultralight to top of the line SLA's. I occasionally fly a friend's Ercoupe 415C, but hope to build one of Robert's Nieuport 17's with a rotec. Either way, don't let the dream die! FLY!

Pearl · 10 March 2009, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Leland

Pearl, why not just get the sport pilot certificate? A valid drivers license is all you need for a medical and half the training of a private certificate. That will also give you a wider selection of planes to choose from; anything from ultralight to top of the line SLA's. I occasionally fly a friend's Ercoupe 415C, but hope to build one of Robert's Nieuport 17's with a rotec. Either way, don't let the dream die! FLY!

Hi Leland,

I agree, starting to realize there are few ultralight's compared to sport. The performance difference is great and seems hard to beat, pound for pound. Just 20 hours of flying can change so much.
I read a article yesterday, he tookoff in his D8 and had more to handle then he imagined. Input right rudder and plane went left and lost 800 ft. in a heartbeat. Low airspeed seem to be a real problem. He was very lucky to land and not crash in front of his on-looking supporter's.
I looked up an instructor online in my area yesterday and says there is one an hour away. I'll call him later to get some rates.

Thanks

Brad · 10 March 2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Perkel

Along the lines of Brad's post, a better choice for Part 103 in my opinion, would be the Baslee Dream Classic. It's a Pioneer Aviation replica (forgot who for the moment), and being high wing, low CG, and 3 axis, would be the best bet for someone so inclined.

It's a great choice for a certificated pilot now ineligible for a medical.

The Dream Classic is "kinda sorta something like a Demioselle."

The Demoiselle actually had a triangular fuselage structure, not a 2-dimensional one... and a fully articulated tail, in which the horizontal and vertical surfaces are all one piece, and it hinged in both directions at the front. Kind of an odd design, but it DID work.

Both the Dream Classic and the Bleriot have a certain "panache" about them. I would be happy flying either of them. For that matter, so does the Morane, although it is probably the least accurate in appearance.

If you notice on his site though... there are several kits that are very close to them in price. (ok, the Dream Classic is significantly cheaper than any others... but still, none of them are expensive.) All of his kits are complete through silvercoat, just add your engine, instruments, and your choice of final paint color.

The new DH2 looks really interesting...

As for costs: If you want an inexpensive aircraft, there are cheaper ways than buying a kit from Robert, although they ARE reasonably priced. Do you specifically want a WWI bird? Chuck Breeson did a SE5a using his unique construction method (riveted aluminum angle fuselage) but he promptly sold it, and there are no detailed plans for it. There are "concept sketches" and it is just built using the "Texas Parasol" methods, so nothing difficult there.

If you don't specifically want a WWI bird, the Texas Parasol is VERY similar to a Heath Parasol- change the shape of the tail surfaces, and change the landing gear and cowl. (that's a post-WWI bird... but a very pretty one!)

You can have inexpensive, you can have an accurate reproduction, but you aren't going to find both. It doesn't exist.

Another WWI bird you might look into is the 3/5 scale Voison that Corey Butcher built. As he said, for liability reasons, he won't release "plans" but his construction drawings and builder's notes are... and they are enough to build an aircraft from. The Voison is a pusher biplane, and it is NOT a taildragger. Here is the website: Voisin 35 Replica Bomber

It is an attractive little (ok, I use the term "little" somewhat loosely) bird. Even in 3/5 scale it isn't particularly small. It uses the same construction techniques as the Airdrome replicas, or the Graham Lee Nieuports.

Joe Perkel · 10 March 2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

Both the Dream Classic and the Bleriot have a certain "panache" about them.

For that matter, so does the Morane,

The new DH2 looks really interesting...

That's the trouble Brad, they all "look interesting"! The trick is to stop looking. It is soooo hard to do!!!

Pehaps we can start a new group (AAA) "Antique Aircraftlovers Annonymous!"

I'll go first......

Hi my name is Joe and I'm an Antique Aircraftaholic!