In aviation, more than on land, weight is the enemy.
the motto of Daniel Dalby, designer of the Pouchel is "Build seriously and fly carefully". The only concession, of size to the empty mass is the assembly of the pyrotechnic reserve parachute ...
I agree that weight is important in the construction of an aircraft, but the search for the minimum weight at a price first in exotic materials, steel 4130 aluminum 2024T3, carbon fiber, resin expoxie, fiber oriented
nothing but the engine mount if made from a 4130 thin tube, an expert is needed to weld it, while in amateur construction the designer has grown to fill the welder's lack of expertise (not aviaton)
there is also the lifespan and the aging, an airplane must be still sufficiently solid after 10 years or 2000 hours of flight.
Now it's all very well to cut back on the structural weight, but let me explain why we carry a structural parachute in these planes (while this weight could be lifted rather in the reinforcement of the longitudinal members or structural) since c is that what a parchute is for? when the structure breaks, not for an engine failure.
Why don't we see a structural parachute in the Piper J3 or the D112 or the Cessan 150? however they are not much heavier. (it is when we hear a wing of J3 has torn off? even we make him loops and tight turns repeatedly.
However, these cuckoos are 50 years old.
As for performance, most of the planes that I have flown alone on board or in pairs
With the two motorized sub in the taxiing difference is minimal, the climb rate is felt up to 50% less on some aircraft, the cruising speed or maximum speed practically no difference.
structural resistance G decreases rapidly with load
Andre
!
, except to sacrifice one of the stated criteria (which is always possible in the context of a record attempt).
...
