Hello, and welcome to My Wooden Airplane project!

This is actually the old version of my website. I started this project back in March, 2008, but had to stop because of material selection issues. If you'd like to see the current version, you can click here.

I created this website for several reasons. The first one, of course, is to give distant friends and relatives the opportunity to stop by and check up on me, and to see what I've been up to recently. The second reason is that the FAA requires that I maintain a "builder's log" to prove that I built at least 51 percent of the airplane. While photos aren't absolutely required, they go a long way towards showing all of the work involved.

The third reason is a bit more esoteric. When I was researching the type of plane that I wanted to build, I couldn't find very many websites that detailed the construction of a wooden airplane. (I found TONS of websites detailing the construction of an RV, however!) My goal is not necessarily to publish a "this is how to do it" type of instruction manual. Rather, it is to present a sort of "this is how I did it" journal. Hopefully, it will be of some use to the next person who decides to build a wooden airplane, and wants to see what might be involved, and how someone else did it.

Of course, there's always the Experimental Aircraft Association (http://www.eaa.org). The EAA is a fantastic world-wide resource for anyone thinking about building their own airplane. I am a proud member of EAA Chapter 1300 in Las Vegas, NV (http://www.eaa1300.org). Unfortunately, there aren't too many people in this area who are familiar with wooden airplanes. Most appear to be building, or have already built, some sort of RV airplane. (Don't get me wrong. Van's Aircraft (http://www.vansaircraft.com) appear to produce wonderful, sexy-looking airplanes. They just don't happen to have anything that meets my specific requirements.)

The next question someone might ask is "Why wood?" Well, again, there are several reasons. The first reason, I guess, would be the fact that I'm more comfortable working with wood. Not that I'm any kind of expert or anything. Far from it. It's just that I've had more experience working with wood than any of the other materials out there, and I figured it would be a good choice for my first airplane.

Another reason is expense. Wooden airplanes are traditionally made from Sitka Spruce, a special and rare type of wood that grows only in the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, "special" and "rare" are both synonymous with "expensive". However, many airplanes are also made from Douglas Fir. According to the FAA, Douglas Fir is a suitable replacement for Sitka Spruce. It's slightly heavier, but it is also slightly stronger, so I should theoretically be able to use a correspondingly smaller amount of wood and have an airplane that is just as strong as one made from spruce. It is also about 1/3 the price of spruce, and as a bonus, is available locally.

Another reason is weight. One of my goals is to use this airplane as a Light Sport Aircraft. LSA's must have a maximum gross weight of 1320 lbs. While there are certainly several airplanes made from metal and fiberglass that meet this weight requirement, there are many more that are made of wood. Also, these metal and fiberglass airplanes seem to have a heavier empty weight, which means less payload.

Besides, the very first airplane was made from wood, and if it's good enough for Wilbur and Orville, then it's good enough for me!

So, what is it that I'm building? I'm glad you asked. It's sort of a wooden Piper Vagabond replica. How did I arrive at this decision? Well, that's a bit more complicated.

As I've stated earlier, my goal is to build a plane that can be used as a Light Sport Aircraft. During my research, I came across several designs that fit this category. Many of them were even made of wood. There's the Fishers (http://www.fisherflying.com), who produce very cool-looking geodetic airplanes. Unfortunately, just about the time that I was starting my project, they went into "semi-retirement". I could still get plans, but no more kits. I went ahead and ordered a set of plans for their Dakota Hawk, but decided not to build it.

Then there's Light Miniature Aircraft (http://www.lightminiatureaircraft.com). They produce great-looking 3/4 and full-scale Piper Cub and Taylorcraft replicas. I went ahead and ordered at set of plans for their full-scale Taylorcraft replica. While I won't be building one of these planes specifically, I plan on using several of their building techniques.

There's also RagWing Aircraft Designs (http://www.ragwing.net). They produce several easy-to-build experimental and ultralight aircraft using wood and common woodworking tools. I bought a set of plans for their RW-11 "Rag-A-Bond" design. Again, while I won't be building this airplane specifically, I will be using several ideas of theirs.

Another company worth mentioning is JDT Mini-MAX (http://www.jdtmini-max.com, formerly TEAM Aircraft). Like RagWing Aircraft Designs, they produce easy-to-build ultralight and experimental aircraft that look like they'd be fun to build and fly. Unfortunately, they didn't appear to have any two-place designs.

What does all this research add up to? Well, it turns out that none of these companies produce a design that exactly meets my specifications, so I've decided to design my own. Believe me, I've heard plenty of gasps from all sorts of people when they heard that. Most think that, for my very first airplane at least, I should build an design that's been "accepted and tested", even though it won't meet all of my specifications. "I can always build another one later," they say. Well, I guess if I had access to all of their money and resources, maybe I could do just that. In the real world however, I can't look any further ahead than just this one plane. That's not to say that I won't ever be building another airplane. I'd love to spend the rest of my life doing nothing but building airplanes! But who invests years of his time and thousands of dollars to build himself an airplane knowing full well all the time that it's just a "temporary place holder"? That's kind of like getting married to the one girl in town who's been married herself 17 times already, just because "she's more experienced" and can pass some of that knowledge on until you find "the right one" for yourself. I guess there are some people who think and operate like that, but I'm just not one of them.

So, what are these "exacting specifications" that I keep talking about? Well, since I'm not confident that I'll be able to keep a current medical certificate, I plan on taking advantage of the new Sport Pilot privileges. To excersize these privileges, one must have a Light Sport Aircraft. In addition to the 1320 lb gross weight limitation that I mentioned earlier, an LSA can have no more than 2 seats, one (reciprocating) engine, a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller, an unpressurized cabin, fixed landing gear, a maximum speed in level flight of 120 knots, and a maximum stall speed of 45 knots.

In addition to these requirements, I want an airplane that has an empty weight of about 700 lbs or less (for a 600 lb useful load). Here's the real stickler, though. My airplane has to have a cabin width of at least 48 inches. This is where most other designs fall short. I find it hilarious that designs with 42-inch wide cabins are advertised as having an "extra-wide" cabin. I find it incredulous that the original Piper Vagabond and Taylorcraft designs had a cabin width of only about 38 inches. What's even more maddening is how advertisers claim that "our plane fits extra-large pilots - up to 6 and a half feet tall!" as if "large pilots" can only grow in one dimension. That's not to say I'm grossly overweight. At 5'10" and about 200 lbs, I'm certainly heavier than the FAA's "standard" of 170 lbs. I just find it uncomfortable to be squished together so tightly in an area that doesn't normally come with air conditioning, and I'm in a position to be able to do something about it.

The only other requirement (of mine) is that it be powered by a four-cycle engine. I know they are heavier than the two-cycle engines, but I've heard and read about too many other people who have had reliability issues with two-cycle engines. And while they supposedly no longer sound like angry chainsaws buzzing overhead, I feel that having a four-cycle engine will make my airplane seem more like a "real" airplane, as opposed to an ultralight. I'm sure that's my perception only, but since it's my airplane, I can have all the perceptions I want. :)

So, where does this leave me? Well, of the many designs I considered, the one that most closely matches my specifications is the Taylorcraft replica from LMA. It's a two-place design that can accept a heavy (up to 160 lb) four-cycle engine. As designed, it has an empty weight of 600 lbs, and a gross weight of 1100 lbs. I've spoken with the designer, and he's assured me that the design can handle the increase in gross weight, although it would be at the expense of the maximum structural limitations (+4.75/-1.88 G instead of +5.7/-2.3 G). But didn't I say earlier that I was building a Piper Vagabond replica? Yes, I am. While structurally the plane will be very similar to the LMA Taylorcraft, externally it will appear much closer to a Piper Vagabond. It will be wider, of course (48 inches instead of 38 inches). It will also have a nosewheel. Sacrilege you say? Well, perhaps this design will be like a KitFox that can switch between nosewheel and tailwheel configurations. It's first incarnation, however, will be with a nosewheel. (P.S. - Some will say that this will make it look like a Colt instead of a Vagabond, and while this might be true in a general sense, they're actually different.)

For power, I haven't definitely settled on a particular engine yet, although I'm leaning towards a VW deriviative. While I'd love to have a $20,000 Rotax 912 ULS, or even a $15,000 Jabiru 2200, there's something appealing about a $7,000 engine that I can build myself. There are several reputable companies out there that I've heard plenty of good things about, such as Great Plains Aircraft Supply (http://www.greatplainsas.com) and Aero-Conversions, Inc. (http://www.aeroconversions.com). Hopefully, I'll be able to get it to work with a direct drive, 62-inch prop, but if not, then I'll have to get a reduction drive.

So, can I build a plane that will meet all of my demanding specifications? Probably not. Will that prevent me from trying? Nope. I plan on giving it my best effort, and hopefully I will learn a great deal about (successfully) building a wooden airplane. While I will no doubt make several mistakes along the way, I invite you to follow along and learn with me. I'm sure I'll quit and give up several times during this project, but with any luck, we'll soon be flying off into the sunset (albeit low and slow)!

Randy Holland
March, 2008

P.S. - I want to also mention that I probably would not be able to embark upon this project without the help and support of my wife Rachael. I know of several potential builders who aren't even going to be able to start on their projects because their spouse has expressly "forbade it", or at least is extremely uncomfortable with the idea. Fortunately, Rachael knew when she met me that I was an airplane nut, and we've shared many pleasant flights together (just as long as I wasn't trying to teach her how to fly!). She's gently pushed me to pursuing my dream of building my own airplane, and even insists that we call it "our" plane, which it certainly is. She's even graciously offered to give up her parking spot in the garage so that I can take over the entire 3-car area. While I haven't taken her up on that offer yet, I may have to before the project is completed. Thanks, Hon! I couldn't do it without you!