I was looking at pictures of the 1030r/f on the team website and I realized that the front of my plane and the turtle deck do not.. match at all.

I have blueprints that say 1030R and 1100 on them for various parts.  Though I can't seem to find the blueprints for the fuselage or wings, only the landing gear and tail.

EDIT:  I found blueprints for the fuselage but...  it looks nothing like my plane.  This is the picture I have on the front, attached after the engine.  ??????

What on earth minimax do I have?  I thought it was a 1030R but now I'm not sure.

The other question is I want to ask, what is the difference between the 1030 and the 1100?  What's weaker on the 1030?  I realize I have a slightly oversized engine, but that's what was sold to me and I'm not interested in really.. selling it for a smaller one.  I'd like to know perhaps what I can reinforce to handle the stress? (kawi 440)

Here are some pictures of the nose of my minimax.  As you can see, its not really shaped like anything I have seen..

As you can see... What I have looks nothing like what the blueprint says.  Is this some known modification or like.. What's up?

What plane do I have? I have no idea anymore.

I suspect you have a plans built (not a kit), modified 1030. We will see what others think?

I talked to the builder and he said that he originally was going to use a 1/2 VW but changed to the Kawi 440.  I wonder if that affects anything..

as long as your weight-and-balance plus center-of-thrust come out ok, I wouldn't worry.  other than making sure stress-loads are ok.

For myself, I think I would ditch the turtledeck..... FUGLY.

Can I just cut it off and start over? I guess it isn't structural...

Also I'm glad to hear that it should be ok! I plan on a lot of ground tests to make sure.  Whats the best way to strap a minimax down for power testing?

TTman496,

One way you can tell the difference between a 1030 and an 1100 is the number of anti drag struts in the wings. The 1100 has 4 and the 1030 has 3 per wing. I've attached the relevant drawings as jpg's to this email so that you can compare them.

Thank you!  Is that the main difference?  I'm curious what areas are 'weaker' on a 1030 vs a 1100.  I'd maybe like to consider putting some of the 1100 bracing onto my plane to cope with the fact that my engine has 1100 levels of power.  I see that they remark on the 1030F website page that 'the airframe will be stressed by a bigger engine' so I'm trying to figure out.. what will be stressed, and how can I fix it.

TEAM (Tennessee) recommended restraining the aircraft by the tail wheel for engine testing. I've done it that way several times. In the beginning, when I wasn't comfortable with that arrangement, I would attach a second rope to the axle, as a back up. Can't be too careful, can we?

Interesting!  Did you do anything else?  Won't the thrust want to pull the tail wheel off the ground?  Or did you counter that by locking the elevator in the pull up position?  I'm curious how you would prevent the plane from wanting to rotate about the main gear axle and dig the prop into the ground.

Or was it fine and you simply just anchored the tail wheel with a rope to something heavy and that was that?

Did you sit in the aircraft during testing or were you away from it?

ITman496,

Like Greg Doe I used a rope attached to the axle, but in my case I used two ropes, one each side and routed them over the tailplane before tethering them to the bottom of a vertical post. That way the tail was held down by the rope and the more tension there was from the pull of the engine, the more pressure there was pushing the tail down.

Interesting idea!  I'll take all of those into account.  Thank you!

good tailwheel tie was good enough for me.

Just a personal opinion FWIW. Your Max's front end looks strong enough. I like the design.
The earlier builder has made box sections of both supports making them fairly strong, yet not heavy.
Just to be sure, I would do plenty of ground testing by running engine at various throttle settings and look for any vibrations / weakness in design.

IIRC, Dick Rake too had fabricated wooden mounts for a Kawasaki 440 on his Max.

Okay, glad to know I'm probably not at risk of ripping my plane apart during some spirited flying!  That's my biggest fear.  I want to have fun but also not break apart in mid air.

ITman496,

If your wings have the 3 anti-drag struts instead of the 4, then not only is it a 1030, but it's also likely to have the light tail too.

You can tell the difference because the light tail has 3 mounting bolts, 2 at the front of the tailplane that go to brackets outside of the fuselage, and one at the back that goes through the top of the centre of the rear fuselage. The heavier tail used on all other models has 4 brackets outside the fuselage, 2 at the front and 2 at the rear. Looking at the pictures of your plane, it looks like you have the heavier tail on yours, as I can see what looks like a rear tailplane mounting bracket outside the fuselage as well as the front one.

Also, the light tail has bracing wires instead of struts, 4 of them, 2 above the tailplane that attach to either side of the fin, and 2 below that join to a bracket that goes across under the rear of the fuselage and attaches to the front bolt that holds the rear spring. The heavy tail by comparison has 2 bracing struts that go from the top of the tailplane to the sides of the fin and no bracing below the tailplane.

Because of the differences between the light and heavy wings and tail, in the UK the VNE is set at 90mph for the light version and 100mph for the heavier version.

Oh, one other difference that might be there is the width of the fuselage. If it's a 1030 it's likely to have the narrower fuselage (20") instead of the wider one (22"). Again looking at the photos you posted it looks like yours has the wider fuselage, so is probably an 1100.

My plane is the UK version of the 1030, which is called the 88. For us the wider fuse plane, with the heavier wings and tail is called the 91.

I'll post a picture of the undercarriage on my plane so that you can compare them, and you'll be able to see that because mine has the narrow fuselage, the bracing struts that go from the bottom of the fuselage to the axle almost meet at the axle, whereas your bracing struts meet the axle several inches apart. I've ringed the axle where the two bracing struts meet with a red circle so that you can see what I'm on about.

It seems I have a mishmash on the tail.  I have 4 wires, you can see two of them on the ground in the picture, attached is a better picture of the tail section.

I see the four brackets, but I also have 4 wires and not two struts.

If it matters:  My minimax's first wing rib was marked as laid in 1990.  Did that way of telling the tails apart change over the last 30 years?

I have yet to go downstairs and count the wing braces, but I will later.  

What would cause it to have characteristics from a heavy and light tail?  And will the light tail be a problem for me, with my kawi 440?

ITman496,

Having the light tail won't cause any problems with the engine. I've got a 447 on my 88 (1030) with the light wings and tail, and the narrow fuselage, and it hasn't caused any problems. Although I think I might put 1/2 lb of weight in the tail to get the CofG a little further back, as the plane is a bit nose heavy. It's fine in the air, but landing with a heavy nose means landing at a higher speed to keep some elevator authority, and I find that I bounce the plane sometimes. So adding a little weight in the tail will allow me to land a little more slowly.

As for your tail, it looks like you've possibly got a mixture of the heavier tailplane, but fitted with bracing wires instead of the braces. Perhaps the builder preferred to have the extra bracing wires between the tailplane and the bottom of the fuselage, as it would help prevent any rocking from side to side of the tailplane on the narrow rear fuselage? Either that or they've made up a light tail, but fitted 4 mounting bolts instead of the normal 3. Looking at the photo you've posted above, you seem to have the centre bolt hole in the top of the rear fuselage as well as the two rear brackets, so perhaps the builder built it with the light tail, and either he/she, or a subsequent owner has added the extra rear brackets for extra strength. Or there may have been some wear or damage to the centre bracket on the tailplane itself, so someone has added the extra brackets to replace the centre one?

The difference between the light and heavy tailplanes as far as I know is that the leading edges of the light tailplane and fin are not solid, but are made up, with plywood bent over to form the rounded edge, whereas the heavier tail has solid leading edges.

You'll have to post up some more pictures of the plane so that we can all speculate on what changes the builder made from the original plans.

I went out to the garage and I managed to snag a picture that leads me to believe that I think my wings have 4 braces in them, not 3.  I can barely see the fourth one, but I think its there.

Here is the URL to a high resolution link.  I think I see the 4th brace..



The fuselage is also 24.5 inches wide, so I think you are correct with your observation.

This plane has never seen the air yet, the previous and sole builder, an old military aviation mechanic, with A&P number signed in the wing, had heart problems and decided to sell it, after building it for 28 years.

None of the bolt holes appear to have any wear, and looking at my tail, I believe all 5 holes were used to mount it.

I just squeezed the leading edge of the tail and I can indeed squish the curved section, so that leads me to believe I have the lighter tail.

I suppose the last question I have is:  If I have a wider fuselage, and 4 braces in my wings, but a light tail, does that set my Vne at 90mph like a 1030, or 100mph like a 1100?

ITman496,

I can also see 4 anti-drag struts, or at least where each of the outer three join the rear spar. So I agree that yours is the 1100 wing.

As to the VNE, an email to Mr Cooper at TEAM would confirm it, but I think yours is most likely to be 100mph, as I believe the VNE is set according to the maximum safe speed the main airfoil can move at before it starts to flutter. However, I could be wrong on that, so check with TEAM, don't take my word for it.

Is the fabric glued to the ribs? Or laced?

V_ne was likely calculated in accordance with FAR Part 23: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory.....06D0B6E?OpenDocument

As you can see, it is a function of wing loading. The 1100R was designed with a maximum takeoff weight of 560 lbs.  The 1030R must have a design MTW of about 460 lbs (254 + 30 gas + 175 pilot).  Then the V_ne of the 1030R must be about 90% (²√(46/56)) of the V_ne of the 1100R.

If you have an 1100R wing, you might assume your V_ne is 100 mph.  I don't know if I would make that assumption given your light tail.

V_ne is usually confirmed by flight testing.  I believe the 1100R was flight tested to confirm the V_ne.

Interesting.  Thank you very very much for all the input everyone!

I'm not sure how easy it would be to reinforce the tail a bit to line up with the wings, but if the only difference is a solid leading edge, that doesn't sound.. so hard?

@flydog: the fabric is not laced, only glued.  Boy its really glued on there, though.

I'll see about contacting team, I'm curious what they would have to say.

OK good. Must be an illusion. It looks like daylight shining between the fabric and the rib on the lower surface,

Oh yeah its not attached on the lower surface, only the upper surface.  I don't believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you glue the lower one, since air pressure is naturally going to want to push it up into the wing anyway?

I have the exact front engine mount style on mine with a half vw, the blue print on it used to be on the team site but I couldn't find it to post a link when I just checked, if I remember right it was called the mosler engine mount...??..  I've always liked the sled like shape of it in event of a forced landing in rough terrain potentially shearing off the landing gear, it would act as a tobaggen rather than digging into the ground.
I wouldn't consider ever having loose fabric on the bottom surface as in any way acceptable, not even close.

I just read through the covering section of the guide and I saw no mention about not gluing the bottom of the fabric..

So am I screwed?  The top surface of the wing is completely glued to the ribs, but the bottom surface is only glued to the front and back of the wing, not also to each rib.  Is this normal, or did the previous builder just completely forget?  Is there a way for me to recover, or am I going to be recovering these wings?    

As this is somewhat irrelevant, I'm going to start a new thread on that particular topic.

Just rib stitch the bottom. Problem solved!

Honestly at this point, since I was already planning on moving the fuel tank to the wing (because my feet do not fit under the tank when its in the normal place) I will just rip all the wing fabric off and restart. Have to learn eventually, and this being on a stay-cation for an undetermined amount of time seems like the perfect chance to have plenty of time to learn.  Thank you flydog for noticing this problem!