the first tiger cub microlight

[Tom Wright 2]

Hi Malcolm.

Yes when you can get around to it any photos of the project would be welcome, thanks.

 

Tom.

[Tom Wright 2]

Thanks to the MOD that corrected the thread category .

 

TW2.

[Tim Mackey]

You see, I am watching after you Mr Wright

[Tom Wright 2]

Tiger Cub fire wall and rudder pedal lay out and another side view of power unit.

 

[Tom Wright 2]

The Micro Bipe after a long day of test flying circa 1981.

 

 

[Tom Wright 2]

Tatty three view of the Tiger Cub 440. PM me if you need a cleaner copy.

 

[Tom Wright 2]

Have been in the loft tonight and unearthed enough Tiger Cub related paperwork to sink a ship,unless you are interested in the monumental task of type approval, i will not bore you with any of that stuff. I even found the receipt for the white foam used to build the Micro Bipe, the cost including delivery was £105 .98p! The 250cc robin engine with gear down unit prop and delivery was £546 its possible that with the HS30 tube and other bits the total cost was under £1000 ,We probably flew 300 hours so with petrol cost it worked out at under £5 per hour.To hire a small aeroplane back then was between £55- £75 per hour.

 

TW2.

 

[Tom Wright 2]

The design process that resulted in the Micro Bipe was very primitive,just a few pages as per the example below.

 

 

Edited By tom wright 2 on 12/03/2011 03:22:10

[Tom Wright 2]

In contrast to the the Micro Bipe the Tiger Cub development was constantly knee deep in paper work,every nut bolt and bracket was drawn up ,along with flight test data ,static loading ,mathematical stress analysis,mod aprovals, material conformity,production facility approvals,and the list goes on......... .the drawing below is part of one of forty detailing sub assemblies.

 

Edited By tom wright 2 on 12/03/2011 13:57:41

[JoanW]

I recently came across this thread. It is my husband doing the restoration (currently stalled due other commitments) of the Tiger Cub that's mentioned two or three posts back. He has parts from several, and a complete one that fell, metaphorically, through the slats when the regulations were introduced. The one which is currently under reconstruction is G-MJSP, an example modified by Jim Romaine and his son John; John now runs The Aircraft Restoration Company and displays warbirds at Duxford.

More importantly, and my reason for registering to post on here is that some of you may be interested in this announcement [link] on the BMAA website about the CAA's forthcoming deregulation of airworthiness of single-seat microlights. Although it is still to be announced formally, word on the streets is that they be implementing the proposal at the next change to the ANO, pencilled in for 1st April (yes, really). That means Tiger Cubs may fly again without all the associated airworthiness approvals and paperwork imposed by the current air law. (Pilot licensing and other air law still apply).

Joan

Saxon Microlights

[JoanW]

PS. This You Tube video may interest too

**LINK**

[Tom Wright 2]

**LINK**

Just found this site .

Tom.

[Tom Wright 2]

[alan king]

Hi all I have two of the tiger cubs namely MMIH and MJXD and am proceeding with a full rebuild on MMIH at the moment MJXD is in pieces and needs reassembly and wings building although I have all main and trailing tubes, as deregulation has now gone through I will build MJXD with built up wings rather then solid foam core, MMIH is to have wings from both aircraft , interestingly I have four good lower wings and one suspect upper, the four lower all have ailerons and I will use these as a set for MMIH covering has been removed cores checked now covering will commence, the fuselage will have some mods too , these will be around rear structure which uses foam, although this was successful I feel longevity of foam to Ali bond is suspect so will be using cross bracing and fuselage formers from spruce, light as possible but longer lived I think.

Any modeller wanting details I am happy to help.

[Tom Wright 2]

Hi Alan.

Glad to hear of your work on the two aircraft, the built up wing versions sound interesting .If I remember correctly each wing half weighed 20 lbs so if a built up wing can be built lighter and take the same drag and positive / negative G loads and maintain at least the same torsional strength it would be all good. The foam wing cores had very good shock absorbing qualities which proved to be protective in the early days when some pilots had less or even no qualifications in terms of flying a three axis tail dragger . The original wing section I think tended to be a one speed affair employed for simplicity were as my original Micro Bipe design had an under cambered section, had you thought of employing a different section for the built up wing version ?

Tom.

[alan king]

Hi Tom

My thoughts on this have been to keep the original airfoil due to the fact that they work, have safe stall characteristics within the flight envelope suggested by caa the one thing I have debated though is perhaps if I find a good high lift profile with slower stall characteristics I may well go for this namely this will allow a slightly higher AUW if of course all aspects of structure are taken into account. Under new regs if more than 51% amature built the all up weight can be 390kg as long as the stall speed stays at 35kts .

This I believe opens up huge opportunity for structural improvement without eroding flight characteristics and safety, I believe in safety first having lost a good friend to structural failure on a thunderbird microlight that he was test flying, this is a south african built plane with a very good safety record, Garath and his father had been building and flying them for years, for want of a parachute or brs Gareth would be with us today, part of the safety system will include a BRS system.

I like the tiger cub it appeals to me in that it is simple and flies well, I am wary of messing with this too much, I like the foam core but would prefer to veneer it to add strength, this though will perhaps add too much weight.

I though will perhaps on MMIH veneer the leading edge and trailing edge in .8 birch ply with false rib caps in the same, this will improve the D section strength of the wing prior to covering, this will add a few kg but by covering in oratex I will still come out at same weight of ceconite with which MMIH was covered.

[Tom Wright 2]

Allan.

Your comments bring back memories of the debates we had about trying to balance simplicity, cost , performance and structural integrity. The recent change in regulations could indeed result in the opportunity to implement some interesting development work which I think should include thoughts on the undercarriage and the classic tendency to swing left during the take off roll. As for sheeting the wing this was done back in the day by a glider pilot in Lincolnshire, personally, as you suggest, I would have looked at wide ply rib caps, and part l/e sheet and a covering material that can be attached in line with airworthiness requirements. I would be surprised if additional wing strength was required it would be more a matter of improving the covering durability and appearance. Clearly with a foam cored wing the UV protection and the water drainage element would also need to be addressed ,but all the possibilities including GF could result in a diversion from the original simple concept to say nothing of significant extra material cost and construction time . Perhaps a cap to stand the covering off the core and then a GF band applied over the top surface might be worth looking at. We did at one stage have Dacron wing bags made that were pulled over the wing and then heat shrunk. The pit fall here is attempting to reinvent the wheel but I think modern materials and fresh thinking offer the prospect of some worthwhile improvements.

Tom.

 

 

Edited By Tom Wright 2 on 14/07/2014 16:21:20

[alan king]

Hi Tom

Always wary of reinventing the good old wheel, having built a very composite fg based KR2 I am wary of weight this can add, I agree the foam is a good basis but yes it needs protecting , I think thin ply attached to the cores with same glue used for applying the oratex ul600 is a good starting point, actually a full veneer with this could be very usefull. I have built a few a.c. and fg worries me the most in regards weight addition.

I think with a a bit of modernisation this a.c. could be really special.

[JoanW]

Hi again,

also worth remembering may be the modifications made by Jim Romain and his son, John (now of IWM fame).

**LINK** These apparently (according to test pilot Darrol Stinton) made the aircraft much sweeter to fly.

Also the design changes resulting in their Cobra type, which used more conventional built-up structure.

**LINK**

Jim will be quite elderly now, if he's still with us, but John would doubtless be contactable via the IWM Duxford.

There's also a thriving thread on deregulated single seat microlights in the BMAA forums which may be a useful source of ideas.

I agree with others on here, a large-scale model of the Tiger Cub would fly very realistically and be great fun to watch

Joan

[Tom Wright 2]

Joan

Hello again, and thanks for sight again of Jim's alternative approved modifications.Perhaps at this stage his intention was to use the basis of the the work we put in and use this to start an independent business as opposed to the agency he held with MBA. Jim and John's competitive spirit and determination remind me of the early aviation pioneering days which in this case resulted in the Cobra, I hope Jim is still around as so many of the modern pioneers are now gone.

This aircraft may have represented an improvement on the original design the reversion to conventional structures could be seen as a more expensive and time consuming diversion from the original idea, surely the clever thing would be to retain the simple foam cores and find a way of improving the covering method, other additions and improvements to comply with up to date airworthiness requirements which are well documented.

As you know Russ went on to design and produce the two seat Sherwood Ranger which was an integration of conventional design and Microlight philosophy. My last flight in a Microlight was in the prototype which to me felt very similar to flying a Tiger Moth, again it raises the thought of reinventing the wheel but can it be done at a lower cost and be made suitable for pilots holding only Microlight pilot qualifications?

I am now well out of touch with the Micro light scene other than occasionally seeing stunning examples of modern designs ,but the price tags do seem to be a bit eye watering and suggest to me that the movement has moved much closer to the PFA . Perhaps the powered para wing has been the obvious more recent answer to getting feet off the ground at minimum cost , and at the same time addressing hangerage /storage issue along with economical pilot training,although I appreciate that the lure of the "real" aeroplane format has an undeniable appeal.

I am constantly reminded that a scale RC Tiger Cub model has not yet been built , but must admit even at my age a full size project inspires more interest , but if I could hanger a half scale model at the field then who knows.

Regards

Tom.

[alan king]

Hi Tom

I read your latest post with interest and would like to offer my opinion on the use of foam on the tiger cub, on wing cores and flying surfaces I have little problem, the use of the foam as a structural support in the rear fuselage structure leaves me in doubt, the tiger cub I have has failed joints over the entire rear fuselage , this I believe is for two reasons, one is use of epoxy on aluminium to bond foam and the second the failure of the foam side of the joint.

On reflection perhaps if a more flexible polyurethane glue had been used then the Ali side of things would have stayed intact, talking about vehicle type body glues, but this would still leave the weaker foam side of the joint, I would think this could be improved with use of some ply but again the relative landing loads, etc are constantly flexing this part of the fuselage, weight is a huge factor so light braces and cable could be an alternative to this.

I am using spruce to brace the rear fuselage after building some very light spruce formers, considered all sorts of alternatives but felt this was best, am using sika polyurethane glue to join wood to Ali, bracing will be attached to the light weight formers, my structure comes out at a bit less then double the foam, but considering the amount of epoxy that was used and the ceconite over the tigertex I think my rear fuselage weight will definitely weigh no more.

I think lightweight very safe aircraft can be built cheaply and well, what costs the most is covering and engines.

What the deregulation may bring about is a cheaper reliable engine and cheaper user friendly covering , we are headed in the right direction just need to keep safe.

Alan

[alan king]

Hi all

Had a good read of the regs which I downloaded a while ago and see I was mistaken in regs relating to amateur single seat aircraft and being able to fly up to 390kg AUW , this only applies to aircraft with a valid permit to fly which existed prior to 2003 , you can only build or fly an aircraft with max weight of 300kg or 315kg with airframe parachute or 320 if on floats, there is no specification on if you have floats and an airframe parachute, of course the most important aspect is the 35 kts stall speed.

So you can't build a small high speed plane if it stalls at over 35kts, also need to remember this is max all up weight .

[Tom Wright 2]

Hi Alan

The spruce frames you suggest should indeed reduce the effect of torsional and bending loads applied to the moment arm during landing. Perhaps a single braced frame would be sufficient ? I also think it would be possible to reduce wing weight so the numbers resulting from your two versions should provide interesting reading.I think the design approach adopted to take best advantage of the proposed change in regs would depend on the pilots requirement for a reasonably efficient go places machine or just to potter around the circuit / local.

My own thoughts these days focus on low stalling speed, strong inherent stability,combined with positive low speed control and reliable power plants. If wing loadings of 2 lbs/ per sq / ft can be achieved while meeting structural integrity requirements then perhaps electric power becomes a viable possibility for a machine that flies on 5 hp or so .....sorry I digress but after building and flying a foam based electric powered model with 20 sq ft wing area thoughts go back to my original Micro biplane with an empty weight of 150 lbs.

Re the use of formers do you intend to use then as a complete substitute for the foam or adopt a hybrid solution?

Machines in the 390 kg and 35 kts stall speed category suggest the use of Fowler flaps slots and slats to keep wing size down to fit a compact overall design, but then the idea utter simplicity is again compromised.At the end of the day if a machine can be deemed safe in the hands of a reasonably competent pilot then much has been achieved.

Tom.

[JoanW]

It was a delight meeting Mark (OP this thread) at a motorway service station halfway between our homes for Ginge to collect the original Tiger Cub's propeller. It is the intention that this prop is retruned to flight in Ginge's restoration project. Here it is being brought in to it's new home

Apologies, by the way, to anybody following Ginge's project blog. Our web host has been sold and now we can't update it. I'm trying to move the site elsewhere (grr!)

Joan

Edited By JoanW on 29/05/2015 11:20:05

[Tom Wright 2]

Hi Joan

The prop shown in your photo above may have originated from the pre pro production Tiger Cub G- MBUE which now resides at Newark Air Museum I cannot be certain as many props were produced as part of on going attempts to find the best match for the 440, until recently this prop had been stored in my loft for the last 30 odd years.

As a matter of unrelated interest I am currently designing and building a large model based on blue foam with balsa and spruce sub structures to enable covering clearance to the foam,the model has a 32 sq ft wing area powered by a 50cc equivalent electric motor .

The photo shows the very early stages of construction.

Tom.