Badland Part 103 Pilots and Builders Forum

Kurt, I think you were trying to do a Boeing stretched version of a Badland Ultralight with that 16'5" length!



Todd

Recently bought a SkyRaider 1 kit. The fuselage is almost identical to the Badlands. Probably because the same guy designed both. I am sure Chris changed the badlands a bit to make it his own. I can say that it is a strong airframe. I plan to try to make it Pt 103, even though many say it can't be done. I love a challenge! Kit was in great shape with no major repairs needed. And I think I got a great deal on it. Since it is the granddaddy to the Badlands, let's get to work!

I like the SkyRaider. It's a pretty nice looking aircraft. I went with the F5 from Chris for the very reason you state you're going to try and make it into a Pt 103. I want to take the F5 ultralight and make it do things ultralights aren't supposed to be able to do - the challenge is a lot of fun. The light weight of the F5 should allow me to put in a lot of features that most ultralights don't have. Plus, lately I've been thinking about asking Chris what he thinks of the idea of putting leading edge slats on the F5 to increase its STOL capabilities. I'm planning on hanging a Hirth F-23 flat twin two-stroke on the front. That's 50 HP on an ultralight along with a ground adjustable variable pitch prop to help keep it at the 55knots max speed. The climb out should be outrageous. Lots of dreams and desires - I'll see how that goes. Right now I'm about 165 days from turning in my resignation and will retire a few months after that. With the economy in such a mess, things may get pushed back a ways. I may not be able to sell my house and move to Florida as soon as I want, and get to building my plane. Only time will tell.

Take care,
Todd

Same engine I plan to use. One thing I like about the SR is seperate flaps and ailerons. Good luck on the retirement. You won't have time to do anything after that.

Hahaha, I've been told that by my sister and her husband, both retired!

I actually steer towards flaperons. I've heard what Trent Palmer covers about flaperons here:



He goes over how well they work on his KitFox, which as you know the Badland aircraft are modeled after. What I also agree with is that the wise pilot is the one that know what works best for him/her. If I was to buy a Hummel Ultralight Cruiser, I wouldn't want flaperons. I'm a function first type of person. The flaperons are great on something like the Badland, but unless I'm planning on dive bombing with the Ultralight Cruiser, they don't really make sense having them on that plane. Plus, back to, each pilot has to choose what works best for him or her. Unpopular thinking today, but we "aren't" all the same.

I've seen the video. One thing about flapperons is that without differential ailerons, they cause a lot of adverse yaw. Easily corrected with rudder so not really an issue.

I've heard about that. Plus I think Chris mentioned to Peer that with the flaperons on the Badland fully extended that the upward deflection is almost non-existant. It would be rare to go full flaps, but if unaware of this, it could be a nasty surprise. I like that Trent comments about how two KitFox's that are identical in design may not fly the same because of the little differences in construction. Meaning, each pilot must be aware of how their own bird will fly. It's like when I drove to identical Nissan 300ZX's, trying to choose if I wanted the black one or red one. I decided on the red one, it drove slightly different in the turn, more to my liking. I've also been somewhat impressed by watching some YouTube videos of pilots doing the first test flight of a home built. Most are really good at not pushing the plane and becoming accustom to whatever they are flying before they get deeper into testing. Wise choice. A brick could be flown if the pilot gets accustom to how it reacts in flight - just ask F4 Phantom pilots

Todd is right - at full flap setting, there is almost zero flaperon "throw". I actually plan on blocking off the full flap setting on my plane to prevent accidental use of full flaps and the resultant loss of aileron authority.

You know that didn't even cross my mind and sounds like a good idea. I would hate to be in a position to go full left or right aileron roll, and to have the plane just keep heading into a wing over stall and spin!

Todd

In an aircraft like the Badlands or Kitfox lite, flaps (flapperons) are really not needed. Only advantage would be a steep decent and a slip does the same and probably better in a bird like the Badlands or Lite. In an aircraft like the SkyRaider, the flaps are part of the wing so they add lift as well as drag so they do have some positive effects. They are not detached like a Badlands bird. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Most all STOL or Bushplanes have seperate flaps and ailerons, why, I haven't a clue, unless that is just the way they do things normally. It would be interesting to see some real world comparisons between the two. I don't dispute what Trent Palmer says, but he is one person's opinion. When you are talking Badlands, Kitfox lite or SkyRaider, one can't compare them to a C-150, which in my opinion is a underpowered dog.

Allen, I disagree with your conclusion of no need for flaps or the flapperons on the Badlands UL. The Badland is marketed as a STOL UL, so the steep decent is actually a need. A slip into a rough LZ isn't advisable, especially if in a canyon area where winds are typically a little more unpredictable. I also don't agree with "flaps are part of the wing so they add lift as well as drag so they do have some positive effects." This would be under the assumption that because the flaps on the Badland and for that matter all aircraft that use flapperons instead of ailerons and flaps incorporated into the wings actually have smaller wings because of this. When the opposite is true. The wings on such aircraft have more smooth and cohesive wing area because the wings aren't downsized because of the flapperons. Where an aircraft with flaps and ailerons built into the wing actually change the lift characteristic of the wing when moved. The Flapperon method does not create this change for the wing. Plus as Trent pointed out, the flapperons actually stay in airflow and create more lift for the aircraft because they are in the direct air stream of the air flowing under the main wing. This creates more stability and better control as he mentioned. This is why it is more difficult to spin a wing that has flapperons instead of built in ailerons and flaps. Albeit it is as the cost of additional drag. I would like to see some real world comparisons between the two methods of control, what are the measurable benefits and drawbacks. I'm sure for cruise and efferent flight the incorporated into the wing ailerons and flaps are better. Slicker smoother is always better for that type of flight. For STOL control, the flapperons (if set up properly) I think are a better choice. As you also mentioned, this is just as much opinion as Trent's comments in his video are. I have no real data to prove otherwise. I'm with you totally on the C-150. That's what I started in for pilot training. At times I wondered if my CFI and I were going to get off the ground out of Fallon (just shy of 4,000ft and on hot days DA took that into the 5500 range). It was a really old 150 too, manual flaps. I think my CFI said it was a 50/150, meaning the horse power was 50hp - I hoped he was joking. Soon after my CFI got a 152, which was actually much better. At least it was until another student wrapped it around a tree in Tahoe (where he wasn't supposed to be flying). Unfortunately he also died in the crash. I went to a 182 after that. Now that was a much more comfortable to fly airplane. As I understand it, the Continental 200-a was with 100hp was used in the original 150's. Cessna did good though considering over 23K of them were built. The question is if the original 150 had an 11/1 weight/hp ratio and I mount the F-23 on the front of my F5, having a 5.5/1 weight/hp ratio - can I out climb a 150?

There are valid points on both sides. I normally fly in and out of the mountains of WVa. I use slips all the time vs. flaps due to being able to kick it straight and be flying almost instantly rather than milking the flaps off and establish a climb. I think you will find that aircraft such as the Badlands will do things, in a good way, that most aircraft can't even think about.

Wow, the envy I have for you being able to fly in the WVa mountains. I was born and raised just 45 minutes from the Sierra Nevada mountain range. I've always loved mountains, so this move to Florida on my retirement will be different for sure. I'm looking forward to it, being able to fly a great deal as well as landing on beaches and coastal islands.

I agree, valid points on both sides and as you and mentioned, opinions too. I think that shows the human nature and diversity of liking different things. That's a good thing in my opinion otherwise life will certainly be boring if we were all the same.

I remember practicing slips coming into Fallon. I certainly needed more practice. Too often I would dip the wing way more than I was comfortable with. I was better at crabbing. Similar to what we're discussing, both have advantages and disadvantages.

From what I've read of other Badland pilots and from the interviews with Chris, I think you're right about the plane doing things in a good way.

Before I get to doing much more than taxiing in testing, I've got to get some tail wheel training and even some seat time in the air. I take it you've flown both tricycle and tail wheel aircraft? I'm pretty sure getting up in the air, flying, and getting back on the ground won't be too difficult for me. However, I have this jittery feeling about once down doing a ground loop and bending a wing. Chris has mentioned to other Badland builders that the plane tracks really true, so the chance of a ground loop is really low. It's still an unknown to me, so somewhat concerning. I've been thinking about asking Chris about adding 6" more on the landing gear. This would give the F5 a little higher stance, but also a wider stance, reducing the chance of a ground loop a little more. He may not advise that because it'll also put a little more strain on the gear itself. Or, that may be offset because the gear would have more swing, thus reducing impact stress when the plane's weight shifts from flight to the ground. What do you think?

Oh, and welcome back. Good to be chatting with you again. I am looking forward to hearing about your build one of these days.

Todd

Don't be too concerned with tailwheel training. It teaches you to land with everything just right. Landing at 30 mph is so slow that you can easily correct errors. You will love flying a tailwheel, it's never boring. Nice chatting.

OK, that made me laugh - "You will love flying a tailwheel, it's never boring." Uh, ok, why is that

Just joking - and I think you're right, at those low landing speeds even a ground loop can't be too bad.

Thanks,
Todd

Todd,

I sent you a PM. I am possibly also into the F5, still deciding.

I have not yet sussed out what setup that would look like and i'd like to get the weights for all the parts and then put together a package that produces the most performance in a 103.

I'll try to attend the zoom that's coming up

103F wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:24 am Todd,

I sent you a PM. I am possibly also into the F5, still deciding.

I have not yet sussed out what setup that would look like and i'd like to get the weights for all the parts and then put together a package that produces the most performance in a 103.

I'll try to attend the zoom that's coming up

That sounds like a good plan. I looked at what I wanted to do with the plane and what it would be worth to me to do it. The F5 is the only one that fits the bill, although rather expensive, I figure I can't take the money with me when I eventually leave this earth. Performance is exactly what I'm looking at - how far can I fly, how much fuel will be used, what type of power (I'm pretty well locked into the Hirth F-23), along with other desires I want the plane to be able to do. The 28 to 30Lbs savings from the titanium frame, along with adding on BRS which will give another 14 or so Lbs to play with, I should be able to mount that F-23 on the front and have a heck of a nice plane. The goal is not just cross country (the airport to airport in state type), but actually crossing state to state. I'm investigating a carburetor that behaves more like fuel injection without the hassle and complexity. It increases power by approximately 10% and fuel economy by up to 30% more. Think of it more like a throttle body, but it's still a carb. The carb also adjusts fuel mixture automatically for altitude changes. The fuel economy could go from about aprox. 1.75 gallons per hour to aprox 1.225 gallons per hour burn rate.

I hope you can make it on to the Virtual Fly-In. Hopefully Chris will be online with us and you can get more information from him and some questions answered.

Todd