Why no flaps?

[kenryan]

Thanks Bob. Nice report.

[Razncain]

Glad to see everybody still here adding their this and that's. I haven't went further than just buying my plans since I'm taking care of an elderly parent the last five years which needs plenty of attention with his memory problems. Sure hoping the Bearhawk community continues to grow. Still looking fwd to a scratch build, whenever I can invent more time.

[Jenki]

Hi everybody, very nice discussion here about flaps vs no_flaps solution.
Even though it is quite easy to understand that original LSA construction is perfect, still there will be people thinking to make sort of combination LSA+Patrol.
The reason can be for example really different rules for aircraft operations around the world. For example, the best way for me would be to have Patrol but keep it in the category under 600kg/1322lbs MTOW due to local rules. For Experimental category is here very limited support from government side rather suppression than support, but we have pretty nice category for home-builts /-kit-planes below MTOW 1322lbs (no restrictions nearly).
The engine availability is another story and can be limited as well. ROTAX has very strong position here due to long and good record of reliability / but it seems to be definitely not suitable for Patrol.

[svyolo]

I wouldn't be surprised if the weight of the Patrol fuselage is more than 50lbs more than the LSA. Probably less. The Patrol flies faster so needs 10 lbs of lead in the elevator for balance. That probably requires 40lbs more engine weight to offset.

You could build a very light Patrol, but I think it would cost you "CG" useful load. The LSA is designed for a lighter engine, and lower Vne.

I am building a 4 place, but my second choice would be an LSA. Brilliant design. Nothing against the Patrol.

[Bcone1381]

Another data point..... July 2008 Beartracks.....(the LSA was not designed at this point)

"Testing was done a Patrol to explore it for an LSA. Using 80 hp it took off in 600', using 100 hp it took off in 400', and cruise at 120 mph on 80 hp. The LSA version of the Patrol back then would have 27 gallons of gas, no interior, no control surface lead weights, an O-200 or 0-235, and weight about 850 lbs. (850? ....Thats what it says...) "

The red line was limited from 165 mph to 140 mph by leaving the control surfaces weights off. I think that would also demand no electrical system, no avionics, wood prop.

The lightest weight O-360 is about 270 pounds. An O-200 would save 70 - 100 pounds, a Rotax would save more...the internet says they are half the weight of that light weight O-360. It would need a long engine mound to place the CG in a user friendly position.

If I wanted an LSA aircraft I would build the LSA.

[Jerry]

Hi guys, I'm new here. Been reading the flap comments with great interest. I have the LSA Bearhawk plans and I am scratch building a quite different airplane. It is 2 place side by side and it will have flaps. Using the Lsa wing. The reason I am using flaps is only partly due to lower airspeeds on landing. I have been flying the back country for almost 50 years, 30 in Idaho. Even though I have been slipping airplanes with and without flaps for years, landing at short rough strips the visibility and control with flaps is superior to slipping IMO. The plane will have a 30 foot wingspan , 160 horse ) 320. Currently is setting on the gear and wing assembly will be starting soon. Looks just like the 4 seater only smaller.

[svyolo]

I came to the same conclusion, except it makes me want an LSA. LOL.