FlyBaby, BabyAce, Fisher FP303 or something else?

valittu

valittu

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
136
Location
Fredericksburg, Va
Display Name
Display name:
Marvin
If you had to pick an open cockpit, wooden wing single seat plane to build, partially build or restore, which would you pick and why? Which has the best safety record for an unmodified build? I'm interested in building for building's sake. I'm looking for a project that I can enjoy working on weekends and fly 15 years from now in retirement.
 
Last edited:
valittu said:
If you had to pick an open cockpit, wooden wing single seat plane to build, partially build or restore, which would you pick and why? Which has the best safety record for an unmodified build? I'm interested in building for building's sake. I'm looking for a project that I can enjoy working on weekends and fly 15 years from now in retirement.
Click to expand...
Of the three, I'd tend more towards the Fly Baby or Baby Ace, as they're more likely to have a traditional engine (Continental) vs. a two-stroke.

The Fly Baby and Baby Ace are similar enough that the biggest decider will be personal preference: Do you prefer a high wing to a low wing?

Fly Babies' wings fold, but it's not a simple process (compared to more modern designs) and thus may not be that much of an advantage.

Check the cockpit sizes out...never been in a Baby Ace, so don't know how much room it has. Check that you can comfortably get in and out as well; a Baby Ace gives you struts you have to maneuver around, but I believe they have door which would make access easier.

Ron Wanttaja
 
My suggestion, buy the little airplane you want now. Spend 15 years building a boat. In 15 years private GA is going to be illegal in America. Then you can launch the boat at night and sail to freedom.
 
ClimbnSink said:
My suggestion, buy the little airplane you want now. Spend 15 years building a boat. In 15 years private GA is going to be illegal in America. Then you can launch the boat at night and sail to freedom.
Click to expand...

Yeah but where would that be ?
 
ClimbnSink said:
My suggestion, buy the little airplane you want now. Spend 15 years building a boat. In 15 years private GA is going to be illegal in America. Then you can launch the boat at night and sail to freedom.
Click to expand...

How I wish I could disagree with this.
 
I've owned my Flybaby since 1988. Buy one - you'll have no regrets! It's faster than the baby ace too. Spins like a dream and is just a hoot to fly.

I have an A-75 mounted on the front and it has great performance (relatively speaking :). I've had friends topping out at 6,4" that have flown it too. While they're a little cramped they still came back with an ear to ear grin on their face.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm pretty partial to the Flybaby, since I have one. That said...if I were to build a plane today..there is no doubt I'd be building a Sonex.

Built correctly, and maintained correctly, I consider the Flybaby to be relatively safe. At the end of the day though you are still flying something that glides worse than a brick and has a fuel tank mounted in front of you. Maintain your engine...
 
It still glides better than a Pitts! :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jesse you bringing that thing to the Antique Airplane Association's flyin Labor Day weekend??? If you bring yours I might bring mine.

Paul - DSM


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Not a Piet! They are cool looking but they are small inside and fly like hooey compared to a Flybaby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I would've given a good look to MiniMax. The basic version is open cockpit. It is not as much of an airplane as FlyBaby, no doubt, but I heard it was easier to build and the factory support is still available. Since it's newer you won't have to ask "where do I find the buckles" and such materials that went out of circulation when Pete Bowers was still alive.
 
Wooden wing? Why? Mosquito was wood which is why they had a short life. I'd build a hatz bi plane but better yet buy one already built with good horsepower . Like most they are dogs with underpowered engines. I've never flown the ones mentioned but they look like a lot of fun.
 
ClimbnSink said:
My suggestion, buy the little airplane you want now. Spend 15 years building a boat. In 15 years private GA is going to be illegal in America. Then you can launch the boat at night and sail to freedom.
Click to expand...

That's b.s. After World War Two, EVERYONE would have an airplane for going to work, going on vacation , or as a business tool. All this was also B.S. Business aircraft are mainly bought as a tax dodge, or for status. (The average " business trip") by corporate aircraft is 300 miles with two passengers.) the only thing that might finish off G.A is the destruction of the middle class. Walmart workers and bed makers or leaf blowers usually do not buy an airplane.
 
Spacewalker 1 and Stewart Headwind top my list for a different reasons.
 
The Fly Baby is my first choice for a wooden wing aircraft. The low wing and the "real" power plant, as Ron pointed out, makes the difference. The high wing planes all seem kinda claustrophobic. I have no experience metal working, but I've been working with wood my entire life so I figured I already had the skills in place and I would enjoy building some component every weekend since I'm in no hurry.

The Space Walker I looks like a nice low wing plane with cantilevered wings and that appeals to me, but I don't think it can be built to fly Sport Pilot, which is something that may not be important right now, but I'm considering for later.

I don't fit comfortably in a Minimax, I know that for sure. I did consider the Onex, but I'm not a metalworker.

This Hatz Biplane looks like a hoot to build with an EAA chapter, but not by myself.
 
Last edited:
I'm biased (of course), but one of the big attractions to me is that the Fly Baby is an "antique" that isn't priced like one. The Baby Ace, somehow, looks too modern.
gupid.jpg

I also like the view from the low-wing, open cockpit design. Parasol airplanes (and biplanes) seem a bit claustrophobic.

Ron Wanttaja
 
And note that even MODERN Pipers know they should bow in respect to Fly Babies....
respect.jpg

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I'm biased (of course), but one of the big attractions to me is that the Fly Baby is an "antique" that isn't priced like one. The Baby Ace, somehow, looks too modern.
gupid.jpg

I also like the view from the low-wing, open cockpit design. Parasol airplanes (and biplanes) seem a bit claustrophobic.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Wow, what a sweet Fly Baby.

I read an interesting article in EAA's Sports Aviation magazine about a guy who would fly his Baby Ace during the good weather months and restore or rebuild a segment of his plane during the winter months. That seemed like an exciting immersive experience year round.

So, how do you go about scratch building wings? I assume you build the different jigs and repeat until you have the number of ribs and other elements before assembly. Is there a raw material "kit" you can buy or even a wing kit and fuselage kit? How does it work exactly? I know Ron offers plans on his site, but if I were to happen into a "project" plane, how would I know if it's worth finishing or restoring?
 
valittu said:
So, how do you go about scratch building wings? I assume you build the different jigs and repeat until you have the number of ribs and other elements before assembly. Is there a raw material "kit" you can buy or even a wing kit and fuselage kit? How does it work exactly? I know Ron offers plans on his site, but if I were to happen into a "project" plane, how would I know if it's worth finishing or restoring?
Click to expand...
Fly Baby wings don't need jigs. You put a stack of 1/8" plywood together, tack a paper rib template to the top piece, and run them through a bandsaw at the same time. Or you can make a physical template from ~1/2" plywood, and use a router to cut out multiple rib sections.

Aircraft Spruce sells material kits, they're grouped by type of material, not aircraft component. I've got material lists at:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/index.html

...and each entry is identified as for what part of the airplane. You can select just the materials for the wings, etc.

I've got a plans sample on the web page that includes the fuselage-building portion:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/plans_sample.pdf

The wings aren't in the free sample, but the biplane wings are built the same and I've got those plans or free download as well:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/biplane_small.pdf

This'll give you can idea on building the wings.

Knowing whether a project plane is worth buying is a bit tougher. Since a Fly Baby has wood structure, storage of the parts is critical. Often, these get shunted off to less-than-optimal locations, and they may get wet, etc. I looked at one in a carport once, and it was in surprisingly good shape. Sold for $1200, and the Cub wheels/brakes/tires alone were worth about $900. Friend found another literally on a trash heap...wood parts all weathered, etc. But the welded components looked in pretty good shape, and could be cleaned up and re-primed.

But, they really have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I've joined the Fly Baby Yahoo Group. There seems to be a wealth of information there.

Question for any Fly Baby Owners: Has anyone ever modified the landing gear to absorb more of the shock from a rough landing? It looks pretty unforgiving.
 
valittu said:
I've joined the Fly Baby Yahoo Group. There seems to be a wealth of information there.

Question for any Fly Baby Owners: Has anyone ever modified the landing gear to absorb more of the shock from a rough landing? It looks pretty unforgiving.
Click to expand...

Not that I'm aware of, but it's a non-issue IMO. I don't notice the lack of suspension basically ever. Granted I do have the larger, per the plans, 800x4 sized tires which are pretty expensive to use these days.

Modifying anything with the landing gear really isn't that simple since it's part of the structure for the wings. The flight load is placed on the flying wires (wires on the bottom) which attach to the spars and also to the end of the gear axle.

The whole top half (landing wires and turnbuckle) do basically nothing in flight unless you go negative.

headon2.GIF
 
Last edited:
I can see a nifty way to mod the gear for suspension, but it wouldn't be cheap or easy, and as you say, not particularly needed.
 
valittu said:
I've joined the Fly Baby Yahoo Group. There seems to be a wealth of information there.

Question for any Fly Baby Owners: Has anyone ever modified the landing gear to absorb more of the shock from a rough landing? It looks pretty unforgiving.
Click to expand...

As Jesse posted, the landing gear is part of the whole wing-bracing system, with the flying wires (which support the weight of the aircraft in flight) attaching to the center of the wheels. If the wheels were allowed to move up and down, you'd need replacement rigid structure for attaching the flying wires. Not impossible, but certainly more complex than the stock system.

On the plus side, the rigid landing gear is incredibly strong. It's embarrasing to bounce it, but it rarely causes any real problems (I once pegged a G-meter at +4Gs with a hard landing). Goose the power, level out, try again.

If you really like the design but want to add some sort of shock-absorbing gear, you can build the biplane version. The biplane doesn't use the landing gear for bracing, so different gear can be substituted. However, you can't switch back and forth between monoplane and biplane unless you switch the gear back to stock as well.

I recently posted an article on the Fly Baby Biplane for the Biplane Forum:

http://www.biplaneforum.com/showpost.php?p=101484&postcount=1

Ron Wanttaja
 
Henning said:
I can see a nifty way to mod the gear for suspension, but it wouldn't be cheap or easy, and as you say, not particularly needed.
Click to expand...

Something like this, but with the trailing arm offset forward for taildragger....
tri2.gif


Ron Wanttaja
 
Fun thread, thanks.

Is there a steel tubing option for the FlyBaby fuselage?

A very recent issue of EAA Experimenter featured another candidate in this group: The Acey-Ducy, a two place parasol. It looked pretty interesting. The prototype would meet the LSA requirements with a Continental 65. I am thinking a single place version powered by a Corvair conversion would make a nice LSA-qualified local flyer.

I always liked the look of the Pober Super Ace but it never seemed very popular. Anyone know why?
 
l8evator said:
Fun thread, thanks.

Is there a steel tubing option for the FlyBaby fuselage?
Click to expand...

Kind of ironic, when you consider that Pete Bowers was flying a single-seat, low-wing, open cockpit A65-powered homebuilt with a steel tube fuselage at the time he designed the Fly Baby...

story.jpg


There has been at least one Fly Baby built with a steel tube fuselage; a biplane that actually flew before Pete released the "official" biplane plans.
punk2.gif

No plans for a steel-tube fuselage have ever been released, but I suspect it wouldn't be too difficult to put one together. The only issue would be coming up with a pair of welded carry-throughs for the front and back spars.

l8evator said:
I always liked the look of the Pober Super Ace but it never seemed very popular. Anyone know why?
Click to expand...

Might have just been confusion...there were a lot of parasol-winged homebuilts around, at the time.

Ron Wanttaja
 
l8evator said:
Fun thread, thanks.

Is there a steel tubing option for the FlyBaby fuselage?

A very recent issue of EAA Experimenter featured another candidate in this group: The Acey-Ducy, a two place parasol. It looked pretty interesting. The prototype would meet the LSA requirements with a Continental 65. I am thinking a single place version powered by a Corvair conversion would make a nice LSA-qualified local flyer.

I always liked the look of the Pober Super Ace but it never seemed very popular. Anyone know why?
Click to expand...

Corvair crankshafts are not well suited for direct mount props. You would want either a support bearing and a nose housing with a drive spacer mounted on the bell housing flange, or get a billet steel crank made. There are several cases where the end of the crank broke off. They aren't made to take the gyroscopic loads a prop can impress on them.
 
KeithASanford said:
Great info on the Flybaby!

Let's say the builder's a big guy. How can I build the single seat Fly Baby with the useful load approaching the Helve Classic tandem two seat version without deviating from both original proven designs? Is the powerplant the main factor in increasing the useful load of the single seat version? I'm curious because I've read my share of NTSB reports about modified experimentals falling out of the sky.
Click to expand...

I'm about 275 pounds, and my Fly Baby hasn't broken yet. If you're really interested, you can increase the spar size (3/4" to 1"), use the alternate flying-wire attachment method (recommended), and use 5/32" cable for the forward flying wires. Heavier weight means reduced performance, but a C-85 or O-200 engine takes care of that.

A stock Fly Baby once successfully underwent structural testing to show compliance with FAR 23 (required by Finnish regulations) to +6 and -3 Gs. Flying heavy reduces the margin, of course, but for normal flying there's good margin if you're a bit heavier.

One thing to keep in mind is the "usefulness" of useful load on a Fly Baby. There is, as the limerick goes, "Enough room for your *** and a gallon of gas..." but not a whole lot of volume for baggage. So build the airplane for your fuel tank size, your weight, and ~25 pounds worth of stuff in the turtledeck.

Fly Babies have had a number of wing-failure accidents. These can be mostly reduced to a couple of causes:

1. Neglect. Many Fly Babies were built in the '60s and '70s, and sold cheaply enough that they appealed to those who really couldn't afford the upkeep. A couple of Fly Babies were left outside in Florida (owners couldn't afford hangar rent) and the spar carry-throughs rotted. Bowers developed a reinforcement for the carry-through structure (metal straps) but it's not really needed if the plane is cared for.

2. Material substitution. Surprisingly, this stems from substitution of MORE expensive components, not less. Some builders have used solid flying wires instead of the stock cable/turnbuckle system. The solid system eliminated the "slip joint" effect of the cable, turnbuckles, and shackles. It transmitted vibration into the steel plates that attached the braces to the wing spars and these would fatigue-crack.
pplate.jpg

(BTW, chrome's a no-no, but this showed the fatigue so well...)

I recommend sticking with the stock cable/turnbuckle system (upgrade front ones to 5/32" if desired) and going with the alternate wing-wire attachment method.

Stock system:
block2.jpg

Modified system (from the Fly Baby plans):
platea.jpg

3. Builder/Maintainer Error. A couple planes lost their wings because the builders used pliers instead of Nicopress swages. Another accident occurred to a newly-purchased Fly Baby that was not properly rigged after re-assembly.

Lots of Fly Baby safety information at:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/index.html

Advice for pre-buy inspections:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/used.htm

Ron Wanttaja
 
Man I just can't figure out how you guys do it at those weights. I weigh 160 and about 300 fpm climb with 16 gallons.

I should weigh mine to see what it really is. I also suspect a rigging issue might be tanking my performance.
 
Jesse, Ron and others,

What kind of fuel burn are you getting and what, in your opinion, is your sweet spot altitude for performance?
 
wanttaja said:
I'm about 275 pounds, and my Fly Baby hasn't broken yet. If you're really interested, you can increase the spar size (3/4" to 1"), use the alternate flying-wire attachment method (recommended), and use 5/32" cable for the forward flying wires. Heavier weight means reduced performance, but a C-85 or O-200 engine takes care of that.

A stock Fly Baby once successfully underwent structural testing to show compliance with FAR 23 (required by Finnish regulations) to +6 and -3 Gs. Flying heavy reduces the margin, of course, but for normal flying there's good margin if you're a bit heavier.

One thing to keep in mind is the "usefulness" of useful load on a Fly Baby. There is, as the limerick goes, "Enough room for your *** and a gallon of gas..." but not a whole lot of volume for baggage. So build the airplane for your fuel tank size, your weight, and ~25 pounds worth of stuff in the turtledeck.

Fly Babies have had a number of wing-failure accidents. These can be mostly reduced to a couple of causes:

1. Neglect. Many Fly Babies were built in the '60s and '70s, and sold cheaply enough that they appealed to those who really couldn't afford the upkeep. A couple of Fly Babies were left outside in Florida (owners couldn't afford hangar rent) and the spar carry-throughs rotted. Bowers developed a reinforcement for the carry-through structure (metal straps) but it's not really needed if the plane is cared for.

2. Material substitution. Surprisingly, this stems from substitution of MORE expensive components, not less. Some builders have used solid flying wires instead of the stock cable/turnbuckle system. The solid system eliminated the "slip joint" effect of the cable, turnbuckles, and shackles. It transmitted vibration into the steel plates that attached the braces to the wing spars and these would fatigue-crack.
pplate.jpg

(BTW, chrome's a no-no, but this showed the fatigue so well...)

I recommend sticking with the stock cable/turnbuckle system (upgrade front ones to 5/32" if desired) and going with the alternate wing-wire attachment method.

Stock system:
block2.jpg

Modified system (from the Fly Baby plans):
platea.jpg

3. Builder/Maintainer Error. A couple planes lost their wings because the builders used pliers instead of Nicopress swages. Another accident occurred to a newly-purchased Fly Baby that was not properly rigged after re-assembly.

Lots of Fly Baby safety information at:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/index.html

Advice for pre-buy inspections:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/used.htm

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...


No, not really...wow...:nonod: That is pushing cheap to new limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top