The Skypup doesn't need ailerons for two reasons. One it doesnt need them as full control is more then adequate. Two it would add a great deal of weight to the airframe as you would have to build a non twisting structure into the wings. I am not mad about two axis control aircraft but the Skypup is an exception. However I wouldn't use the blue dow foam at all. You need Divernecell boat foam that is not affected by fuel.Epoxy bonding is100% better as well in the rib structure.
Divinty cell foam is too heavy. If you used it the plane would violate FAR 103, but only if you towed it aloft as it would be unable to get airborne under its own power. There are 2 lb/ square foot urethane foams that might be used but I'd hesitate to deviate from the plans. At most I would only use it near the fuel system and exhaust.
It would be soooo easy to put aelerons on it !Plus upper aft vision is nonexistent. All you,d need is to use clear skin material or thin sheet scratch resistent lexan and ya can see above you. Istarted building a Jurka Sirroco when I was 9 and later was an USCG AD3 so I know what the fubar I,m talkin about. The only way I,d fly one of those flying coffins is with at least the mods I,v mentioned. Theres simply better/safer ultras out there. Fly safe, walk away safe.
It also has blue foam wing ribs! I had the plans once, it is like an enlarged model airplane.
misfitsailor 3 weeks ago
@misfitsailor do you still have the plans
tnhl77 3 days ago
@tnhl77 SKY PUP 6790 Reeder Mesa Road Whitewater, CO 81527 Plans are $70 within the USA and $75 for foreign orders (shipping included).
misfitsailor 3 days ago
How is it possible that that thing even meets the ultralite weight specifications unless that fuselage is made literally of tissue paper?
musicalmike235 2 months ago
@musicalmike235 Dacron, wooden frame and no ailerons, that's how :)
AmplifiedNonsense 2 months ago
not really. as long as your not fat its a good little plane. i want to try building one but im a bit busy.
Joesolo13 1 year ago
Useful load 205 pounds? If so, what a waste.
Landotter1 1 year ago
could this be modified to do water landings? like maybe change the bottem to be water tight and moreorless hull shaped?
Joesolo13 1 year ago
Wow this thing took 6sec to take-off and the landing was fast too.
alexinchains1 2 years ago
The Skypup doesn't need ailerons for two reasons. One it doesnt need them as full control is more then adequate. Two it would add a great deal of weight to the airframe as you would have to build a non twisting structure into the wings. I am not mad about two axis control aircraft but the Skypup is an exception. However I wouldn't use the blue dow foam at all. You need Divernecell boat foam that is not affected by fuel.Epoxy bonding is100% better as well in the rib structure.
pesher37 2 years ago
Divinty cell foam is too heavy. If you used it the plane would violate FAR 103, but only if you towed it aloft as it would be unable to get airborne under its own power. There are 2 lb/ square foot urethane foams that might be used but I'd hesitate to deviate from the plans. At most I would only use it near the fuel system and exhaust.
fredtheredshirt 2 years ago
It would be soooo easy to put aelerons on it !Plus upper aft vision is nonexistent. All you,d need is to use clear skin material or thin sheet scratch resistent lexan and ya can see above you. Istarted building a Jurka Sirroco when I was 9 and later was an USCG AD3 so I know what the fubar I,m talkin about. The only way I,d fly one of those flying coffins is with at least the mods I,v mentioned. Theres simply better/safer ultras out there. Fly safe, walk away safe.
pinwizz69 2 years ago
Not true. I fly a sky pup. It handles great even considering it has only 2 axis.
dodger2952 2 years ago
Only 2-axis controls? A big balsa model. Any wind more than 1kt and you're doomed!
hodgejr 2 years ago