Bloop 2 Flying Slow

[@lembriggs1075]

The world is a better place on account of you and your Bloops!

[@e1cycle]

The narration has that classic mutual of Omaha wild kingdom feel to it. One of my favorite shows as a boy. NICE job Mike on all accounts.

[@jucieandrade8573]

I simply love this video and have seen it dozen times along the years. No kidding. Mike, please post more videos. It's very nice to see you flying that beautiful machine.

[@kinno29]

Hi Mike! I've been whatching your work for quite a while. Sincerely respect for your great work and even a greater man who's sharing your work with the world. Realy a big heart! Even here, in these conditions I'm dreaming of building a Bloop one day. Thank you again!

[@mig7287]

I saw your videos 2 days ago and fell in love with your aeroplane. I am 65 y.o. but this plane just makes me want to fly it.

[@deldridg]

"I went flying... and I feel good". Yup - that just about sums it up. Nice one and cheers from Oz - Dave

[@alexyegon2381]

You sure do know how to do a commentary, ending wit the kicker I went flying and I feel good!

[@doranjaffas8432]

Looks like a ball!! I am an experienced builder and 30 plus year pilot with ratings so I would add ailerons to the lower wing without significantly adding complexity while adding a safety factor but the wide gear...nose dragger strut and slow speed are fantastic!!

[@airchairp]

I'm going to stick to my story that ailerons double the complexity of the control system, while not necessarily adding any margin of safety. There seems to be a widely held opinion that two axis control involves some inherent roll control limitations that can be cured by ailerons, but this has not been veified by experience. Ailerons make flying more complex and introduce their own set of hazards, and we might readily fly some kinds of airplanes more safely without them.

[@airchairp]

The squares are 2 x 2 inches. You can measure dimensions on a downloaded CAD file (.dxf) using Draftsight, a CAD program (not just a viewer) which is free and useful.

[@justincase1575]

I love that type of flying!

[@richarrrdj]

great flying aircraft.....simple and following in the spirit of the Wright Brothers who pioneered light flight. Like Einstein said......everything should be made as simple as possible, and not much more so. thanks for sharing these great bloop videos.

[@airchairp]

There should be more about construction, since this is a homebuilt, so I'll post some more building photos on my Picasa Album. Small tube bending to a large radius is easy. Ribs are bent by trial and error comparison to a template, the way hang glider flyers maintain their battens. I don't bend large tubing anymore, it's one the special skills I have been able to eliminate ( also eliminated: machining, welding, molds, jigs, sheet metal, spray rigs).

[@airchairp]

The building cost is a couple of thousand dollars for materials and parts, then a total recovery system (emergency parachute), then a paramotor power pack (engine plus propeller, starter, carburetor, and isolation mountings). The biggest cost item is the power pack, the biggest variable is whether or not to use a rocket deployed parachute (I use a hand deployed chute). Operating costs are fuel, oil, ground storage, and airport usage fees (club membership, usually).

[@jeyapaulsamathanam7057]

What an exciting plane ! It reminds me of the Quicksilver MX that I had once.

[@airchairp]

The Bloop is a lot like the original motorized Quicksilver (they both have open air flying, a pusher propeller, and two axis steering). That Quicksilver still wins the prize for being the simplest practical airplane, although the Weedhopper might also be a contender. The Bloop I have slowed down with a big, high lift wing, and tried to give it more crash protection. I wanted the pilot to crash slow, with clearance from ground objects measured in feet, not inches.

[@antoniysiverskiy3991]

Mike, спасибо за то, что Вы делаете! Очень хорошо, что на планете Земля есть такие люди, как Вы! На сегодняшний день, к великому сожалению, в России не развивают так повсеместно Малую и Сверхлегкую Авиацию, как в США. Очень приятно видеть, что Вы делитесь своими инженерными мыслями и конструкторскими достижениями. СПАСИБО Вам и успехов на пути открытия Неба для всего Человечества!!!

[@errolhusaberg3791]

Looks like a solid and foolproof design :D Unusually well-made video, too. Unfortunately, where I live there are no small aerodromes or open fields to TO/L in...

[@airchairp]

I'm not sure how much fabric is used. It is a conventional fabric covering using the lightest grade of aircraft fabric. When ordered as uncertified fabric from an aircraft supply retailer it comes on a roll about 61 inches wide.

[@frankcloskey7789]

Excellent Flying and video.12/5/2022yr

[@bluestudio67]

Pretty cool, man. Nice design! Two-axis sure makes things simpler.

[@alejandromartinez-jr5825]

Can you make a build video on how you bend the rib tubing and rudder? Or a bending jig. by the way great job on the bloop2. Looking forward on your reply.

[@droneanna]

nice build sir! hat off to you!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@dz1sfb]

Love your work Mike!

[@mike_van_in]

Magnificent man in a magnificent flying machine! Thanks!

[@airchairp]

It's a modern design, a logical response to objectified design goals, a robotic product which just happens to look kind of retro, not an homage to hundred year old heroic flying mythology! Well, maybe there are some style elements....

[@mike_van_in]

@@airchairp Protest all you like, Mike! ;-) A beautiful machine, regardless.

[@cristianogatao]

Hello, noble friend! I would like to congratulate him for the genius of its construction. I am the city of Three Hearts, southern Minas Gerais State, Brazil. I suggest that you, when you post other videos, has, in the end, schematic drawings, materials, dimensions, etc.. Hug the people here, in Brazil.

[@PauloHirth]

I love your plane, slow and safe fly, a dream of fly, i imagine a hidro version for amazonic rivers were i live. Do you think in a 2 places version?

[@ishady27]

Thank for the respond. I try to build a 50%scale using available aluminium tubing and waterproof fabric which I am not sure whether it suitable for the real size aircraft. After the 50% I hope I could count the aproximate cost for the realsize project. I plan to fly the 50% with remot control to test its safety and I hope its justified before making the real size one. I still test the aluminium tube to one metal lab to decide whether its reasonable to be used for the real size bloop2.

[@alejandromartinez-jr5825]

Nice job. Keep up the good work. can you put a bill of mat,list for the bloop on your web site please thank's

[@Threetails]

I love it! Reminds me of the old "Headless pusher," or maybe a DH2. Painted properly it'd be hard to distinguish from a plane from the early days of flying. When I can afford an ultralight, something like this is exactly what I'd like.

[@airchairp]

My gliders and airplanes often look similar to earlier classic designs, but this is deceptive. Modern materials allow a much lighter wing loading, which changes the character of flight altogether.

[@Threetails]

I'd imagine the wing loading to be comparable to a hang glider. How high's the ceiling?

[@readmedottext]

Really enjoyed seeing this. Does the Bloop 2 weigh less than the original? I notice the tail structure was different.

[@airchairp]

Look at the drawings on the Picasa website, you'll see that the empty weight of Bloop 1 is 187 lbs. and the empty weight of Bloop 2 is 195 lbs. I suspect that most of the weight increase is due to the greater number of coats of silvering (aluminum powder in dope) that I brushed onto the Bloop 2 fabric for durability in sunlight.

[@petroniomarques7850]

Great man. Thank you for Goat.

[@caddisking]

sorry I commented before i saw that. great videos!

[@airchairp]

More stabilizer might be a good idea, and the box tail (Bloop 1) does provide places to put it, so maybe somebody should try it. What happens is that you fly a new plane, fix the problems, and then you get satisfaction just from flying it, so you stop making changes except in areas of special interest.

[@hurleyinnh]

Very nice, and motivating!! I wish I could try that : )

[@choppergirl]

I want a Kolb Flyer. Lot less wires and maybe a bit more trailerable, and it supposedly came in at 185 lbs. Kolb called it the plane that weighed less than the pilot. :-) Cruise speed I think was around 40. These slow flyers are certainly out of favor but I think they'd be great if you just want to putter close to the ground hedge hopping. Update: I ended up buying a Volmer Jensen project and a Chotia Woodhopper Project

[@hdoug5]

can you tell me maximum weight it can carry? fuel, pilot,extra drawers just in case lol awesome design !

[@alejandromartinez-jr5825]

I am wondering how many yard's of aircraft covering do i need for the bloop 2 Mr Sandlin ?

[@daquilema2011]

Where may I buy this beautiful aircraft ? Thanks.

[@captaincrunch7944]

Plane almost doesn’t want to land lol ....what if you get hit with a side wind does the plane roll in the air or is is stable in high winds

[@SXAJT]

ΒΕAUTYFULL!!!!!!!! THIS IS REAL FLYING !! THE MAGNIFICENT MAN AND HIS FLYING MACHINE!!

[@hughmiller6476]

What's the advantage of the twin tail?

[@chrismillersrcfamily]

Very cool plane.

[@madermaxx]

Very cool :)

[@chrismillersrcfamily]

Bad Wobble yea and cheap to build . No need for pilot license.

[@madermaxx]

yeah I heard him say that,that makes it all so easy, can't happen down here unfortunately :(

[@ishady27]

chris miller Its not cheap, depending on your country, aluminium tube T-6061 cost usd 3.000 for raw material only, take half a year for me to built 80%, paramotor engine cost usd 2000-2500, I will upload my Bloop2 building shortly...I hope could test taxi in 2 months...cheers..

[@choppergirl]

probably would add a level of safety to include at least some roll control with spoilerons

[@airchairp]

+CHOPPERGIRL AIRWAR Two axis airplanes do have roll control, but it is indirect. Yawing the plane will increase the angle of attack on one angled up wing and decrease it on the other, the same thing you would do with ailerons, and the effect is similar. I have flown with spoilerons and don't find them inpressive, they have to be pretty big to be have the same rolling power as two ailerons (or one rudder!). The Bloop turns fast and I don't miss ailerons or feel the need to try other devices.

[@genogeno1234]

don't need them. See airchairp's response. Dihedral is the key. Had spoilerons on an old Quicksilver MX, and they were worthless except when parked and when making a rapid descent by pushing both up at the same time.

[@ishady27]

Sir, do you allow anybody who sell the Bloop commercially? No licence needed?

[@postman12100]

What would you say total project cost is?

[@genogeno1234]

Excellent! Reminds me a bit of the EZ Riser, but yours looks stronger and has a much better modern engine.

[@airchairp]

The Bloop 1 had a twin tail, this Bloop 2 does not. Have a look at my Question & Answer Page for comments on this.

[@525Lines]

Reminds me of the DH2.

[@1silvervespa]

Amazing !

[@alejandromartinez-jr5825]

are the rib drawings on the drawings Square 2 inches or 3 inches I'm going to draw the ribs by hand I cannot print them out on my Cad viuere

[@caddisking]

Mike..make a video with the camera pointing forward

[@airchairp]

+caddisking How about "Runway 9.wmv", made 3 years ago.

[@airchairp]

I don't know how I would allow or prevent anyone from doing anything with motorfloaters, and I know of no licences for buying or selling them. My website materials are available to all, in hopes that there will be increasing interest in flying motorfloaters, and eventually maybe there will be a commercial producer and a pool of used aircraft available. I don't plan to be involved with any commercial efforts.

[@chandrakantborate7732]

Great sir

[@smartman5745]

U r slow flying video is best & also want to see new videos 👌👌👌👌

[@kirbylee57]

I like that plane. I wonder how long it would take to build one. I've had a couple of Cessna's, and a Ercoupe. I'm in no hurry to get any where, so 24 mph, is just fine. Two hours flying time is plenty of time to get lost, and thats where I'd like to be. For a little while. Enjoy everything you can now, or put it off till tomorrow. Hell, you can put it off forever if you want, but I'm gonna have some fun.

[@leviterande]

real nice! Why biplane? why not quadru? , cold it be even slower?

[@airchairp]

Yes, the Bloop can fly slower if the airfoil has more lift, the wing is bigger, or the weight is reduced..Flying slow requires the wing to generate maximum lift on an aircraft of light weight.This comes from an effective airfoil used on a big wing supporting a light airframe. The number of wings doesn't really matter, but I don't want to add a lot of drag, and generally more wing tips mean more drag.

[@leviterande]

airchairp I see,. What I mean was instead of making each of the 2 wing bigger by thickening the chord a lot more(which result in bad L/D) why not divide the new bigger area over more wings. So the new Bloop would first have the double wing area as in your video. This new Bloop however would have the exactly same wing size except that we have 4 of them now in a stagger configuration instead of only 2 wings, which results in a doubled wing area. There should be much less induced drag this way than if we would attempt to jam all of the 4 wings´ area into only 2 very low aspect ratio thick wings.. Do you see what I mean? thanks

[@mavigogun]

Kaledius- clear as mud.

[@fhuber7507]

Multi-wings (bipe/tripe/quad...flying Venetian blind) need spacing between wings or the wings interfere with each other. You end up with a very tall and top-heavy aircraft. Ideal spacing is 1.5 to 2 "chords" (measure of leading edge to trailing edge of the wing) spacing between wings. Few biplanes space the wings that far apart, accepting some interference of (usually) the lower wing's lift by the upper wing. The Beechcraft "Staggerwing" which had the lower wing partially forward of the upper moved the lower wing out of some of the "down-wash" created by the upper wing, thus it was a more efficient than average biplane. It looked odd because everyone got used to the upper wings being more forward than the lower on most other biplanes. Another issue is that the wing-tips are a major contributor to aerodynamic drag. That helps the aircraft stay slow in a dive but if you add more wing-tips you need to add more power which means a heavier engine. you are getting EXACTLY the opposite of the desired result... If you want reduced drag and more wing area you go for a larger wingspan with the wing tapering to a very narrow wingtip, as seen in sailplanes. If more wings was more efficient then all sailplanes would be multi-winged.

[@sddhvjlsdfhvjlsdfhvlhvkjsbnvs]

F Huber very nice explanation 👍🏻 Can we achieve the same slow flying speed with a mono wing? Any example or Plan please. I prefer this speed for learning and safety with good control.

[@FirasASalih]

Plz.. Which wing airfoil is best for slow flyer

[@airchairp]

A slow flying wing should produce high lift and should not be compromised by considerations of multi-speed flight. This means the wing can be designed for a small range of attack angles, unlike the wing of an ordinary airplane or sailplane. A paramotor obeys this rule, and it is the most efficient of motor fliers on the basis of gallons per hour (the best?). For a motorfloater I use a simple airfoil with a mostly flat wing bottom, moderate camber, and no lower leading edge ramp. This is easy to build and gives me lots of lift, very practical as long as higher speeds are not desired.

[@bigbadjohn8207]

That’s soo cool!!!!

[@euchreairgaming]

I plan on building this in the next three months if my paycheck allows it. What would you say is the maximum range, altitude, and VNE for cross country flights if i wanted to take it up to EAA which is about 60 miles northward. and would you say that a small motorcycle engine would do the trick? I'm able to put a prop on it and it cranks out about 33hp. i was hoping this would save me money in fuel and the engine in general. Lastly, i see that the construction is mostly aluminum tubing, but what are the wing ribs made of and if they're not aluminum, could they be made from aluminum? Also looking forward to the Bloop 3. been following you for a while now and i have to say you're the best ultralight designer for chicken hoppers such as myself who don't need something high performance, can be transported, and is cost effective. as far as I'm concerned, the Bloop is perfect because its meant for one use and one use only; to be a grownups toy!

[@airchairp]

A custom engine installation might introduce delay and uncertainty into the program, and the economy of it is questionable in the long run. The exact kind of engine you want is available: the paramotor engine, fully developed and supported, with a propeller already on it, you can just bolt it on and have confidence that you have a practical propulsion system. This works as long as you are flying at the same speed as a paramotor. Use a five gallon fuel tank and wait for a tailwind, then go for that sixty miles! Look at the drawings to see what things are made of, the information is all there.

[@zjVIERA]

very nice

[@below-in9eb]

slow flyer rc planes are great , but in full scale it looks like epic , must be really cool flying that thing at walking speed

[@airchairp]

The drawings are a free download. See the website.

[@ArnoldsDesign]

Neat plane.

[@paulmryglod4802]

so no big deal if the engine cuts out. what happens with strong headwinds?

[@airchairp]

A sudden strong wind, like a gust front, can be a serious hazzard. You can land, but at this light wing loading how do you park the plane firmly on the ground so you can get out (escape)? This is why my designs always allow for an extreme nose down stance on the ground, and it partly explains why I don't use a tractor propeller.

[@MrM2hb]

I love this plane.

[@garybritt3504]

Is there a way to get plans for this

[@airchairp]

Have a look at the website, that will answer a lot of questions. The technical drawings are free and detailed. The link to the website is in the video caption.

[@garybritt3504]

Can u send a link

[@kiryankovich2179]

Is there a cheaper alternative for the engine?

[@airchairp]

Maybe you can find an old paramotor engine and prop sitting in a closet somewhere. The paramotor fliers are the ones to talk to. This engine with prop costs about $3500 new, plus shipping from Italy.

[@kiryankovich2179]

airchairp I have gotten mixed information about this, but if I have an engine that has the same RPM and displacement, does the horsepower matter?

[@DanasWings]

Kir Yankovich Horsepower IS what matters. You can get HP with small displacement turning fast or large displacement turning slow. That said, with the same displacement and rpm, you'll probably have about the same HP.

[@tioricardo1]

Hello congratulations very good is the solution for the low-income world and sports lover and am waiting avioacion plans to start bloop 2 mio parrot greetings from Argentina Pampa!

[@jany201077]

Hi what airport was it filmed at thank you

[@airchairp]

John Nichols Field, San Diego, California

[@brunotagliapietra6397]

All nice in good if you fly in absolutely calm conditions. Otherwise, any turbulence that would make the plane do a manoeuvre your controls can't, would throw you out of control.

[@airchairp]

Fair weather is always prefered, but wind and turbulence were not that much of a problem, certainly not to the point of prolonged control loss. I flew when and where I wanted to, I just had to accept whatever level of turbulence I flew into, like everybody else.

[@brunotagliapietra6397]

@airchairp nah you can't fly near hills or mountains in that thing, not even with little or no wind. The thermals would be enough to throw you around. Especially without ailerons

[@reachforacreech]

awesome

[@boater5797]

Wouldn't be even slower and more of a floater with a single surface wing?

[@airchairp]

+A single surface wing (but still a biplane) could provide as much lift as my double surface wing, so it would allow the plane to go just as slow. Without a lower surface my wings would be a lot draggier, partly because a lot of the internal structure of the wings would be out in the airflow. Struts and cables inside the wings are faired by the double surface, resulting in a cleaner, but perhaps heavier, wing. The single surface wing is aerodynamically quite functional at low speeds but can get draggy at higher speeds (I don't care much about this because high speeds do not mean much to me).

[@mohama2018]

what is name of the engine in this plane ?

[@airchairp]

+Go to the website for drawings, description of the motor, and other info. (Vittorazi Moster 185)

[@ricardopiedade8443]

How can I get one plans $$$$$ nice aircraft.

[@airchairp]

Go to the website for drawings, description of the motor, and a lot more.

[@1Skeptik1]

Nice! Greetings Mike - Do you know if any one in Florida has one in the air? Would love a look see. (In my 60's, build fly and design RC, thinking now or never - Chuckle) Thanks

[@airchairp]

From the drawings, you can see that the plane carries 2-1/2 gallons of gasoline, which will weigh about 16 pounds. .... Pilots heavier than me will be flying at a higher wing loading and will feel the effects of being in a more "normal" aircraft. They will have to do it and tell us what it feels like.

[@johnmcgillycuddy5696]

nice video ,,,

[@elcreador6675]

Excelente 🇩🇴🌎

[@petejulie1000]

So, you appear to weigh bout 145 lbs. What is the max payload??

[@airchairp]

You got my weight about right, but I haven't established a maximum weight for other pilots. I consider the Bloop 2 load factor to be 6 positive (untested) at my body weight, and additional body weight could be considered to downrate that limit based on the increase to the gross weight. The real functional limit to heavier pilot weight might be the elevator's ability to operate adequately while holding up the nose, unless counterweights are added to the tail, then the plane will be even heavier and woe to the landing gear! Eventually a heavy pilot will fly the plane and we will decide how to do it and what the limits should be. Of course the true magic of a motorfloater is the light wing loading, and some of that effect will be lost with a heavier pilot.

[@WWIflyingace62]

I would really love to build one of these. When will it get out of the prototype phase and into a more reproducible form? Like with blueprints or plans?

[@airchairp]

Go to the Webpage, you can download the drawings, which are detailed (but not called plans). This is as far as I intend to go with Bloop 2. The next version, Bloop 3, is mostly done. After it flies there may be drawings for that, also.

[@WWIflyingace62]

Be sure to post a video on it! Also, any tips for cost reduction like using a snowmobile/dirtbike engine, where to find aluminum tubing etc?

[@airchairp]

"This is a non-commercial project, so nothing is for sale". That comes from the web page, way down in the fine print. Have a look, it's good stuff. Sorry you can't buy one, maybe someday there will be enough of this kind of flying so that a commercial version will be offered.

[@ghgghgyuhkljjijijui]

HP?

[@airchairp]

+Right! High Performance, for sure!

[@sddhvjlsdfhvjlsdfhvlhvkjsbnvs]

🙏 , I got what I was looking up for!!! Are biplanes more stable than monoplanes? Can we build 3 axis aircraft with mono wings and achieve same slower cruise speed without stalling or spinning? Your suggestions highly appreciated.

[@airchairp]

I do not know of any stability trade offs between monoplanes and biplanes, they are equivalent as far as I can tell..... The Bloop program is intended to demonstrate that flying slow (mainly by virtue of a low wing loading) has benefits, one of which is not having much hazard of sudden stalls or spins. At the low speed limit the Bloop gets balky and starts wallowing around, without any dramatic stalling. A monoplane at the same wing loading should produce similar results. ..... If you are going to assume a 3 axis aircraft you should explain why, otherwise you leave me wondering. Is my demonstration of 2 axis flying not adequate?

[@sddhvjlsdfhvjlsdfhvlhvkjsbnvs]

@@airchairp thanks for your explanation! I believe I would go with Bloop 3 design may be incorporating electric motors for horizontal lifts. I prefer 3 axis else paramotors always the last resort but this Bloop is an old Gold. I think like it's a paramotor with solid wings😀. Can you fly it any time unlike paramotor? However, I was more concerned about stall which you said it's quite meagre on this design. Is this manageable if engine out mid-air? As you could sense I am more inclined for flight stability and safety. No desire for speed thrills!

[@jucieandrade8573]

Deadstick landing: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5_ZZomVgqucfbs

[@airchairp]

Yes, it flies much like a paramotor (same engine, open air seated, 2 axis steering, slow airspeed). It can tolerate stronger winds, but like most airplanes it is not pleasant to fly in gusty conditions. To a paramotor pilot I would say, "keep it moving and give it some runway".

[@lorriecarrel9962]

I'm in love

[@amk1108]

im going to try making this plane

[@ganeshramsinkemana2794]

I like it.

[@pooorman-diy1104]

So slowwwwww .... I like iiiiiiitttt .... but without aileron its more difficult to landing during side wind ...right ??

[@airchairp]

Yes, crosswind landings are more difficult than headwind or calm air landings, but they can also be more fun. In addition remember that using an aileron adds to control difficulty, you have to learn a whole new method of coordinated control, and you have to switch back and forth between your ground control method and your air control method. Contrary to that, a two axis plane uses essentially the same simple control procedures on the ground as in the air. As always, see the website for more discussion of this.

[@PortCharmers]

I'm not sure that "get OUT [of the plane] safely" is the right term.

[@airchairp]

As with every aircraft, there are special safety procedures for extreme conditions. The narration says that the pilot can get out of the plane on the ground for safely when the nose is down. This means, in a high wind condition, land with the nose down (to stop the plane and hold it on the ground), then get out promptly before stability is lost and the plane starts to get pushed around. So, in high winds, don't land tail down and don't delay getting out of the plane after landing.

[@PortCharmers]

@@airchairp I meant it looks like a vehicle that you sit on, rather than in. Like you wouldn't say "I get out of my bicycle". I like this plane very much, by the way, not that you think I'm disrespectful.

[@airchairp]

This is fine, I just don't want to miss a chance to write more about my airplane!

[@immortaljatt05]

Thought this was the wright brothers at first lol

[@doranjaffas8432]

Not denegrading your design. It looks really fun and has an old school look to it. There is...was an ultra light called a Sky Pup that used dihedral and just rudder as well and seemed to work well in very calm conditions. One was based at an airport I used to have a Sonerai 2 at and as long as no crosswind component existed the bird landed nicely. Once up it flew along as any airplane. This brings me to my original response. I agree about the added work to build in and skill needed to utilize ailerons correctly....but (oh jeeze) there truly is no debate that stands against the value of some type of wing control. Sometime...a gust small or large hits an airplane...light or not and close to the ground the control needed to level the wings needs to be there. If the aircraft lands wing low or is skidding on touchdown ( unless a specially designed landing gear is installed which negates the simplicity of the no aileron design) a ground loop or worse will ensue with minor to catastrophic results. Even while turning base to final ( where most spin accidents take place and yes...unco ordinated use of rudder and ailerons are usually the culprit) with a solid wing...should an elevated gust or event disturb the wing... without any means of leveling the wing...warping or ailerons for this purpose...even a very slow moving aircraft can spin with no means of regaining aerodynamic directional flight in time with disastrous results. Again..I think your design is incredible with the speeds and fun factor being what most of us fly for in the first place. I was only stating that I personally would add lower ailerons to keep them as simple as possible and add a safety factor for me personally. I would like to purchase plans but if you would choose not to sell them to me based on this then I could find another to pursue. A couple come mind ( biplanes) but yours is unique in the looks dept. that appeals to me. Good luck and Respectfully, D. Jaffas Central Lower Michigan

[@airchairp]

There is no lack of roll control in a properly designed two axis airplane. Roll control in the Bloop is fast and effective, but it is indirect rather than direct. Of course I fly in bumpy air frequently, and the effects are amplified by my low wing loading, but when I am rolled to an undesired bank angle I am being turned off course, so I respond by turning back on course, and the bank angle is corrected. In recent years I have actually been trying to reduce the roll response of the Bloop to make it easier for unskilled pilots to fly. The polyhedral angles of the outer wing panels of the Bloop 4 can be adjusted to tune roll response. Having a wing close to the ground during the landing is something I associate with ailerons while slipping, it's not a method I use. When I do my crab angle landing in a cross wind the wings are level, and if I am bumped around I just keep steering back on course. I think your reference to spinning without means of recovery is misdirected. The Bloop should be well suited to spin recovery since it has a big rudder which can be used in a natural manner to properly yaw out of a spin. I associate the misuse of ailerons with accidental sipn entries and with locking planes into spins. Have a look at the technical drawings, they are detailed and setup for online viewing or free downloading at the Bloop website.

[@doranjaffas8432]

Thanks for the response. I'll look at the drawings. I can be enlightened and I appreciate your explanation. Ever consider a 2 place side by side version? I'd like my wife to experience open cockpit flying and your design is very good.

[@fhuber7507]

A bit of both sides on this issue... Ailerons would come in handy in a lot of situations and if you need them but don't have them, you have severely limited your ability to deal with many situations, especially crosswind. The answer to the most notorious and fatal issue using ailerons at low speed is to rig "differential" movement where the ailerons move up more than down (sometimes ALL-up/No-down) Adverse yaw, the effect of the downward moving aileron (the wing you want to go up) dragging the wing to yaw opposed to the desired direction of turn, also tends to pull the nose up, which is a formula for stall-spin at low airspeed. Adverse yaw is worse at low airspeed, requiring more rudder correction and potentially having some designs turn left when you apply full right aileron and full right rudder. I used to demonstrate doing exactly that with an RC model. Its an extremely unstable situation that is on the edge of snap-rolling inverted and spinning. With differential aileron movement you lose aerobatic capability (not an issue with this design, since you won't be doing 4-point-rolls) I'd rather have fixed rudder with all-up/no-down ailerons vs rudder with no ailerons. Another option is "spoilerons," Panels that pop up just behind the spar to kill lift and add drag, which will roll the airplane and drag the nose around in the desired direction. These have some complex linkages and if they bind you are in serious trouble. But when they work they are very nice. I do fly models that have rudder but no ailerons, and others that have ailerons but no rudder.

[@ВалентинМакаренко-х1с]

Красава !!!! Огонь машина !!!

[@jhonzepol7216]

you are the men

[@SuperHyee]

Hurrah! Hurrah!

[@franciscorodriguez7960]

genial

[@PauloHirth]

You are right, and still slow fly and soft landing is the great point in your plane. today the carbon fiber from china is being no so expensive, i think in start a project light plane like your, for the pleasure of conquer built and fly.

[@1Skeptik1]

WOW! FL. is home, welcome a chance to see one. Any one up to show and tell? (Good excuse for a road trip) Thanks!

[@blacksky1966]

super, takeoff and stol... super super super

[@cowboy6591]

Great Plane. I built my Mono wing ultralight to have a concave shaped wing with dyhedral in it. Way back then we called them "Dirty Wings". Sort of like a rigid parachute, remember the GWS "Slow-Stick"? Sort of the same. You took off at 28 miles per hour, you flew at 33 Miles per hour tops. And you landed at 25 miles per hour. No envelope, slow but a blast. Don't kid yourself, any foolish pilot could kill himself in this. If the wind topped 10 mph I didn't fly. In a steady 25 mile an hour wind, you could fly away but could not fly back. You hovered till you ran out of gas and PLOP !! It's engineered for the Joy of Flight for the wage worker's budget on a calm day. The Fascist richy rich have all but ruined this concept in my opinion.. DON'T GET INTO A NOSE DIVE FOR ANY REASON. Be leery of wind shear that dreaded noon time phenomenon and or flying near mountains [roll wind] and thermals, hot paved parking lots, use your head and enjoy the best of flight this poster has just shown you.

[@airchairp]

A light, two axis airplane can be fun and safe, and it has its own special qualities, but, like any airplane, it has to be flown within its limits. For safety reasons, I don't do aerobatics, but I appreciate those who do, they show us what can be done and make a significant contribution to design safety. The motorfloater is an airplane for fair weather flying, but I flew in moderate winds along with my friends in heavier planes, usually in the morning or afternoon, without feeling much limited. If you are going to fly way downwind in strong conditions, you probably will be doing a real slow return over the ground coming back, and you will be keeping an eye on the fuel gage and the available landing areas. Fields of head high bushes and weedy hill sides are good enough for landings at my airspeeds. Power lines and deep water are the really dangerous things, but otherwise I feel pretty safe as long as there is an open spot nearby.

[@glennmoreland6457]

Airco DH2

[@dimitristripakis7364]

Generally speaking, the slowest an airplane is, the more susceptible to the winds it is, because of low wing loading (meaning its weight to wing area ratio is low).

[@airchairp]

The light wing loading has a lot of comfort and easy flying benefits, but it will get you bounced around in wind turbulence. I flew along with the other fair weather pilots, seldom flying in strong winds, and I was ready to tolerate some bumps, so the wind was not really a limiting factor in comparison to the other light airplanes.