Summarized question: What are the differences between the larger max (1100+) wings/tail and the 1030 wings/tail, and is it worth converting the 1030 ones to be the stronger style when using with a larger (kawi 440) engine.
Long story: I have been trying to search around but the search system has not been cooperating with me..
I have the 1030 with the hollow tail, with wires on it, and a strange wing which we discussed at some point that if I remember correctly, was the lightweight wing with thinner anti-twist things, but had 4 of them instead of 3? So some kind of hybrid?
As I have yet to (but must, because its bad) pull all the fabric off the wings still, and I was wondering what the difference is.
How much stronger is the 1100 style vs the 1030 style? I know my engine (a 440) is a bit hotter then the one the 1030 is meant for.
Also, at some point I may be moving to the UK in the future, and their single seat limit is 660lbs, I believe. So I am contemplating converting to the stronger style.
What would be involved? Is it as simple as replace the anti-twist things with the thicker ones and the leading edge of the tail with a solid piece, or is there move involved?
Or is all of this completely unnecessary and the 1030 design can easily cope with anything I could throw at it? Just want to think of this now when I have it all apart.
Apologies if this has been talked about before, tried to search for it but didn't have much luck.
About all I can add, looking at the MiniMax comparison chart, 1030 vs 1100, they both have the same recommended engine, empty weight,gross weight, and Vne. So is there really any difference between those wings? Although I took advantage of the free plans and downloaded all the hotter/heavier models, I have no plans for the lighter ones so cant actually say definitively. On the other thread, was it TTT who asked if free plans are still available? Not last I looked.
It looks like the compression rib lower members are under sized. It should be RS7 on the bottom and RS5 on the top. RS7 is 1/2x3/4" while RS5 is 1/4x3/4". Yours look like RS5 for both. Just glue another RS5 size piece on top or underneath the existing member to double its thickness. The 1100R has a rear spar upper cap doubler, I can't tell if it's there in the picture. With similar gross weights and Vne I would expect the wings to be nearly identical. I can't imagine TEAM changing the wing design to try and save a pound. The 1100R is in fact lighter than the 1030R because it doesn't have the nose bowl, spinner and wing tips of the 1030.
Okay, that leads me to another question, what is the difference between my wings and say, the heavier/hotter maxes? Are they very different designs, or just, thicker pieces in places like you mentioned?
The gross weight of the 1030 is 500 lbs, and for 1100 it is 560 lbs. It is possible there may be many 1030's out there that operate above the 500 lb limit. (?)
I stand corrected if the 1030 has only 3 diagonal drag braces and lighter compression ribs. The slight lower gross weight allows for this I suppose. And we have to remember the 1100 was designed with a greater freedom of engine choice, up to 100 lbs and 50 hp, I think. Vne is largely dictated by the stiffness of the spars outboard of the struts so inasmuch as they are the same between the models, the Vne should be approximately the same. The 1030 might also be a result of a refined analysis and testing. As far as the heavier/faster models, I don't have plans but aren't they all two-spar and two strut-braced? Then I would imagine thicker spar webs, larger spar caps, heavier drag braces and compression ribs. I think the regular ribs might be plenty strong already. Extra nose ribs, maybe.
I got this from the Team website. It shows 500 gross for both vs Keith's post showing a discrepancy, hmmm. Oh well whats 60 lbs
OK, never mind, was going to post a pic of the chart but error msg says "not valid format" , my pic is a jpg. which should work. Some days I hate technology!
I stand corrected if the 1030 has only 3 diagonal drag braces and lighter compression ribs. The slight lower gross weight allows for this I suppose. And we have to remember the 1100 was designed with a greater freedom of engine choice, up to 100 lbs and 50 hp, I think. Vne is largely dictated by the stiffness of the spars outboard of the of the spars struts so inasmuch as they are the same between the models, the Vne should be approximately the same. The 1030 might also be a result of a refined analysis and testing. As far as the heavier/faster models, I don't have plans but aren't they all two-spar and two strut-braced? Then I would imagine thicker spar webs, larger spar caps, heavier drag braces and compression ribs. I think the regular ribs might be plenty strong already. Extra nose ribs, maybe.
(Vne is largely dictated by stiffness of spar outboard of strut) ? stiffness would matter both inboard and outboard of strut attachment for a given Vne I think or is it because of the aileron deflection at high speed?
(Vne is largely dictated by stiffness of spar outboard of strut) ? stiffness would matter both inboard and outboard of strut attachment for a given Vne I think or is it because of the aileron deflection at high speed?
I calculated a wing torsional flexibility factor for the cantilevered wing section that was in agreement with the published dive speed of the 1100R, 111 mph. I assumed that the wing section inboard of the strut attachment was constrained from torsion by the struts and that only the cantilever section could twist.
Flydog, Since it is noted elsewhere on the site as 560 lbs for 1100, the figure in the chart could possibly be a typo. (The chart pasted earlier by me is from the MiniMax flight manual. )
BTW, I do appreciate your efforts to perk up this group. Even I was guilty of not participating after my build was complete 2 years ago, but your post a few months ago lamenting the group's inactivity and gradual decline is what prompted me to write something ( anything ) occasionally. Being a first time builder, I am not the most knowledgeable person, but a lot of folks on this forum helped me with my build, so I hope the forum continues to help builders by answering their questions.
I feel this group can still be revived, if only members still remaining with us, would post something once in a while.
The sudden downturn in group activity is perplexing indeed.
The Fisher web group was also revived 2 years ago as a google group. That group is also presently on life support, with no activity in the past one year.
The rival Facebook group may be siphoning away some of the activity from this ETLB forum; but there may be other causes too. Possibly, there may be less folks getting into home-building which could be one reason for reduced forum activity.
Not to forget, the web is also still evolving. Maybe after 4 or 5 years, Facebook may become extinct and something else may take its place.
Another factor is that the physical world around us is also changing. Turbulent and polarized politics, wars, the pandemic etc may have disrupted lifestyles in the last decade, so it is only realistic to expect that the web also mirrors some of that churn.
Sorry for the digression. Coming back to this thread's topic:
============
I happen to have the plans for the 1030 and 1100. I did some checking on the wing structure.
Some observations:
(Bob Daly has already covered most of these points. But anyway, here is a summary, limited to what I know.)
No difference in spar construction between 1030 and 1100. Both have just one RS-8 doubler on the underside of the upper spar cap (on the rear strut attchment point only.) No doubler in front spar.
Compression ribs:
Both have RS-5 on top.
1100 has RS-7 in bottom. 1030 has RS-5 at bottom.
Drag brace
1100 RS-9 in first two diagonals from wing root. RS-8 in next two diagonals.
Total 4 in each wing.
1030 RS-9 in first diagonal from wing root. RS-8 in next diagonal RS-7 in 3 rd diagonal None in last diagonal
Total 3
The real difference between the heavier Maxes and the 1030 and 1100, may be the doublers in spars.
The heavier Maxes have 2 doublers in each spar ( one on top and one on bottom) at each strut attachment point in front and rear spars.
Compression ribs: are RS 5 on top, RS-8 on bottom.
Drag braces seem to be from RS-9 ( not sure whether all 4 are of RS 9, or if outer two are of RS-8 )
I think the struts are also of thicker gauge in heavier Maxes.
So what is the Heavy Max that I refer to ? I figured V-Max ( Gross 700 lbs) , and 1650 ( also called EROS ?? ) (gross 625 lbs) are the two heavy Maxes. (Not counting the Aero Max in this.)
There are several other Max model numbers depending on engine choice, but they all have gross of 560 lbs except Max 103 or 1030, which is 500 lbs.
So to ITMan's question. If you feel the wing is a 1030 wing, then you coud beef it up to 1100 specs based on what Bob suggested. This modification is easily done. If you already have the 1100 wing, then the Kawasaki 440 is similar to Rotax 447, so you should be good, provided your gross is below 600. Gross should be limited to 560, but 40 lbs overweight should not make the wing buckle or fail. That much of safety factor is usually built into the design.
One possible explanation for two different gross weights for 1100 R:
If using a Rotax 277, then it can be built to part 103 ( like Lake_Harley built his ), in which case gross is limited to 500 lbs. The lower gross weight is due to a less powerful engine, and not due to airframe/ wings not able to handle 560 lbs.
If using a Rotax 447, then the 1100 R can be built as EAB, in which case Gross goes up to 560 lbs. The engine may weigh only 15 lbs more than R 277, but one can add wing tanks, carry more fuel etc. And you have more power to haul the added weight.
Yeah I am going to probably build this to EAB standards with wing tanks and such so I'm just looking to see what I can do to beef it up as much as possible when I have all the skin off. Referring to the doublers in the spars on the "heavy" maxes, is this something that's possible to retrofit? I'd love to beef all the stuff up to the standards of the heavy maxes, but I'm not sure if thats practical. When I peel the skin off I'm sure it will be easier to tell.
At bare minimum I'll definitely make it to 1100 standards.
What about the body, also? Is the way the fuselage is made the same across all maxes and its just wings/tail that are different?
It would be difficult to add spar cap doublers. The purpose is to increase bending strength, compression in the top flange and tension in the bottom. So the doubler has to be continuous. You would have to cut the parts that interrupt. Also, the landing gear is part of the lift truss so it might be heavier in the heavier models, you could use the all-steel gear. I would just try to achieve the 1100R equivalent. The 1100R can take an engine installation that weighs up to 109 lbs according to the TEAM analysis report.
Logged
