We feature step by step DVD video demonstrations to help builders of experimental home built aircraft. Visit our website for full library of videos. Subscribe to our RU-vid channel to receive notification of video Tips as they are published!
You can thank the EAA for doing nothing also thank AOPA. I droped my subscription to both, that helped pay, 10yrs x. Subscription rate = almost full payment for inspection.
As of May 12, 2024, the website shown in the video is no longer operational (domain is for sale), but I was able to find the new website with a simple Google search. I can't link to it here, because RU-vid doesn't allow external links in comments.
Nope, the FIRST ultralight would be the one built to PART 103 specs AFTER the FAA placed 103 in the public register, anything built prior to that CANT be the first ultralight, cause ultralight vehicle didnt exist until it was published in the register. Whoever advertised or otherwise announced an ultralight on oct 4 , 1982 had the first ultralight
Hi sir, its great what you do , thank you for sharing information and especially the practical knowledge and tips [you have remarkable experience,als a good method too]. Thanks a lot . Best regards
Good morning sir, thanks for this crucial information and peatcal knowledges. Please sir which resin you used. epoxy or what ? And how you prepar it and how minutes do you have a task for this repair or structure repair manual. Best regards
Hi sir, I find all this practical knowledges are crucial , I studied structure repair at airbus hélicoptèr but I have long time don't practice !! I like this job, please I want also a video about high lock rivet and where we use this différents rivet because it's not easy except for the critical éléments on hélicoptère or plane. Best regards
I'm always a bit worried when someone say consult the manufacturers instruction while adding NO information. Hexavalent Chromium is extremely toxic and will seep into ground water polluting wells for miles around. Also carcinogenic among other things. Hydrofloric Acid is one of the most dangerous acids there are. Composed of Hydrogen and Flourine. Oxygen (atom #8) is often called ONE of the most dangerous chemicals because it oxidizes with carbon and more. But next on the atomic table (#9) is Fluorine with 7 free electrons, no other element has as many free to bind. As a result is reacts with almost everything. It's a solvent and soaks into/through your skin and will cause bone to fizz like Alka-seltzer. When exposed patient should be stripped down naked and placed in ice water bath untill life flight and paramedics arrive. Subject is transported to hospital, a chemical (if availible) can be injected to neutralize HF acid. Other treatments are amputation ahead of spread through bone. It's extreamly painful and typically results in death. I wouldn't touch the stuff personally, too much risk just to make a chuck of mettal pretty. My health/life is far more important. I've seen many vids showing high voltage amp repair with advice that will KILL you. And of course the pretty plexiglass lightning figures using old microwave oven transformers (very high voltage/amperage) have resulted in 50-60 deaths so far. Funny how people worry about everything EXCEPT whats actually important.
Get you the handle off of a hand held weed eater and use that for your control on the stick. Then you could use the trigger setup on that for your throttle. I think that you would like that better.
I worked at an aircraft company at Harlingen Texas airport where we built a crop dusting plane and i was in charge of the wing department which was made very similar to these wings. The airplane we built were like the old stearman bi planes except much stronger. We used spruce and mohagany to fabricate the ribs and the spars. Used weldwood powdered glue and small tac's to put them together. then assembled them and moved them to get covered with cotton fabric sewn together to make it big enough to cover the entire wing, then used something they called dope, a liquid that we brushed on the fabric that would tighten fabric up like a drum.Then came the rib stitching then dope and fabric with several coats of dope that kept the fabric tight. Each plane took 2 upper wings and 2 lower wings. Very interesting work. Loved it.
Why did you not show the weighing process? Was the tail wheel still resting on the table when you weighed the airplane? The weight you report is pretty hard to believe
It makes me laugh people think you need big horse power for the ultralight to fly and when you se guys build ultralight part 103 and have 2 10 HP engines and I know an old guy no avaition experience built and flew an ultralight 2 seater and CASA in Australia vsaidvit could not fly as the shape and power of 2 8 HP engines and it flew great with 2 people in it and he was a big guy to the props were small but the thing is if the prop is shaped right it will make the torque required to make it fly I was about to fly in it no one else wanted to but he snapped the fibreglass leg on landing so we could fly but he had done about 100 flights and most with him and his wife it was made from a drop fuel tank off a Saber jet fighter the wings were very skinny weid looking aircraft but it fly and preformed better than most ultralight aircraft for something build by and flown by some old guy that took the risk and no aviation experience and flying training all self tough and even though he did it people never said well done I praise the guy as this is how aviation started and it shows anyone with a bit of get up and go can do it it's all about learning and thanks to people like Jon you show people the simple way and a few pointers they need to do it . Thanks for you time making the videos
The Affordaplane has a reputation for requiring more power to fly. I was hoping this channel would prove that wrong, but it hasn't. I have a J3 Kitten ultralight that flies just fine with the good old 28 hp Rotax 277 (62 lbs weight). Many people have tried that on an Affordaplane, and it just doesn't work. This HomeBuiltHelp channel is posting some extremely useful and informative videos, and I'm grateful for that. But you'll notice it's been 1.5 years since this video was posted, and he hasn't posted one single video of the Affordaplane actually flying with the 33 hp Polini 202 engine (about 53 lbs total installed weight). He spent years building it, with videos posted on a regular basis. And then suddenly, complete silence about the Affordaplane. Several people have posted, asking him to post a video of the plane actually flying. And we get nothing but crickets. It's quite easy to get the wheels off the ground on almost any plane. But once you get the plane about 20 feet off the ground, it is much more difficult to stay aloft. This is called "ground effect," which means the airplane stays off the ground much, much more easily when it is close to the ground. You'll notice in this video, the wheels never get more than 6 feet off the ground. It is well known in the ultralight aviation community that the Affordaplane requires at least 40 hp with a well-matched prop to fly. I admire this man's attempt to "Build it light" and prove them wrong, but this plane is obviously not flying with that motor. Most ultralights would fly just fine with this motor, but the Affordaplane has design problems. I was very attracted to the Affordaplane for its low cost and easy build, but then I found out about its design problems. I would love to see a video of an Affordaplane flying with the Polini 202. I really would. But unfortunately, I don't think we will ever see that.
@@mme7dm I'm not an airplane designer, but I've seen aerospace engineers comment that the fuselage shows unsafe flexion and vibrations. Aluminum has different fatigue cycles than steel. Even minor flexion can induce fatigue in aluminum, that accumulates over time and leads to failure. Also, for some reason, the Affordaplane doesn't fly with low HP engines. My own J3 kitten ultralight airplane, with a 500 lb total takeoff weight, will fly great with a 28hp Rotax 277. The Affordaplane, at the same weight, might get its wheels off the ground with that engine, but won't fly above ground effect. I don't know *why* that problem exists, but it is a well-known problem with the Affordaplane. When I discovered these problems, I stopped following the Affordaplane. I was hoping this video would show the plane actually flying with the 33hp Polini 202 engine, but it barely gets into ground effect. That was more than 1.5 years ago, and no more videos? And refusing to answer questions? Why do you think that is? He's selling DVDs for $69.00 with step-by-step instructions on how to build the Affordaplane. And I would like to emphasize ... those are probably very good videos for learning how to build an airplane. Jon has lots of good information in his videos, showing specific techniques that would help people build any airplane. But I just think the Affordaplane is the wrong plane to build. It's tempting because it's cheap and easy to build, and even looks pretty good. But, because of the problems I've spelled out above, I think it's not the plane that I would build.
@@mme7dm Yes ... he is a very good builder, and he put a lot of work into that plane. And I would be tempted to buy his DVDs, just for the general knowledge that could be applied to building *any* plane. He's created a wonderful life for himself, traveling in a converted ambulance and making a living off the internet. I can't fault anybody for doing that. I just wish he would spell out the complete picture of the Affordaplane for all of his viewers. My concern is that there are a lot of people attracted to Ultralights because they don't require any license or training to fly. These people will look at the Affordaplane and not understand it's problems/limitations. They might be really excited from watching Jon build and then "fly" the Affordaplane with the 33hp engine. They won't understand that the plane wasn't actually flying in the video; because of their lack of training, they never learned about "ground effect" (explained above). They might buy the DVDs and spend years building ... and then they have to deal with the disappointment of realizing the limitations of this plane. I would also like to emphasize right here that nobody should ever try to fly a 3-axis plane like the Affordaplane without first getting at least some training. Get lessons until you are able to fly solo. With special emphasis on spin/stall recovery and other safety issues.
After seen this set of videos twice I think it is a very simple aircraft to build and could get it to the 254 lbs and I think they should up the weight to 260 lbs as it would make it easier and Jon cut holes in the seat and put a light weight mesh over the holes if needed and you will loose the 5 lbs great job
One thing with the rod ends there should be a big washer under the head of the bolt or nut on the rod end that is away from what it is connected to as if the bearing fails it can pass over the bolt head or nut and the rod end can fall off . So long as the washer is bigger than the rod end bearing if it fails the rod will stay connected to the control arm and it maybe sloppy but you still have control. It is hard to fall off but I have seen a few that the bearing failed and the rod end has come off but with some form of a larger containment slightly than the bearing end it won't come off
Please Do Not stand behind anything your cutting down! It can kick back many a logger has died that way I saw that and really hoped that would not happen ! Went whew when it landed . Old A&P guy here don’t think a cat can hurt good fabric .
So true Jon this is an aircraft that is not going to fly thousands of hours in 3 months and when people I hope do inspections at least every 100 hours in their ultralight and you look at these parts and if you find a problem you fix it but the bearing on this is 100% fine and I have seen many comments about the affordable plane that because the fuselage is different to other aircraft it's not safe on these forums and these guys are pilots and they have no idea about aircraft they need to look at other ultralights when they first flew they are designed to fly slow in good weather but these guys are expecting them to operate in conductions of a F16 . Aircraft are designed to operate in certain conductions and same you don't operate at an optional major airport where the jets are 2 minutes apart because they are to slow and people that critise are the people that want to operate in major airports with ultralights and bad weather conductions and I have seen guys that think like that. To me the affordable is a very simple great part 103 ultralight and seen the videos of it flying is what these aircraft are made for.
Hi: This video never shows the plane getting out of ground effect. (For non-pilots reading this post, "ground effect" refers to the fact that a plane stays in the air much more easily when it's close to the ground.) It's been more than a year, and no videos showing the plane actually flying above ground effect. This will cause people to think the plane might be underpowered. Can you give us an update to clear this up? Thanks!!
Jon can you advise the actual size of the stainless 1" channels that attach tubes to the square fuse please ? we can not purchase and ship from the affordaplane store , too expensive to the UK so we must manufacture ourselves . ( obviously I appreciate the internal width is one inch but what is the height of the sides of the bracket ? Ripley
Not sure I believe it is supposed to be made from SS (check your plans). But if its the part Im thinking of, I simply cut off the edge of a square aluminum tube to form a U channel. All the dimensions of square tubing are available at wherever you buy this stock. Match up dimensions with the pieces you are trying to join (those are all in your plans).
