Got it painted and wings covered, just need to start mounting fuel tank and rudder/elevator servo. Here's a couple of pictures of it assembled without engine.

SLightly different view.

hey nice work on it but sorry if have to admit i don't like the look of it although I really respect your work but i'ts not to my personnal taste because i really don't like the dr.j. fuse look because i think the canopy is to close from the engine and bipes have canopys far away from the engine...

but still great work, have fun on it i think i'll fly well

I second you mate

yes, sorry i don't like the old style pattern planes, especially when you use it later for a bipe, but a emc² could be great in a bipe thougth

Great Work Jeff!!

Hope you find it to yout liking.

I love it!!! it looks so different and almost like a dragon rapide on steroids!!!

Let us know how it flys. be prepared to mix in about 30% rudder to aileron mix though as it does not look like you have much (if any) anhedral on the top wing

Dave Stephens

I understand it's not a "typical" looking biplane but it is exactly what I was trying to accomplish.

1) I didn't want to mess with struts and assembly issues of a free standing top wing and

2) CHEAP! I had a dr jekyl fuse I got cheap at a swap meet. Plus I got wings from a crashed jekyl. So I have very little in it. Way less than a 2m kit.

Now gotta see how it flies. Hopefully next weekend.

hope it'll fly good jeff i'm very happy for you it's great work althougt i don't like the look, i'm sure it is goind to fly well dut you'll have to make more setup than a regular monoplane because of the two wings

You don't have to justify it to us, your own creation is you own creation and nobody should say anything negative about it ....just because its butt ugly. . Just Kidding.

Matt

ya he thinks you shoul've painted it bright orange

Hey, they laughed at the Wright brothers also.

I like the looks of it. Shows imagination, something sorely lacking in pattern designs for the last 20 years, IMO.

The only issue I think it may have is with the wing spacing, but test flights will tell.
Good luck with it.

Rick

I love it Jeff!

Great work buddy, that thing looks awesome. I'm sure that you will have a blas with it!

I like it too. It does somewhat resemble a Dragon Rapide doesn't it.

What I think kind of throws it off on looks is the fact that the landing gear looks too long. Other than that it's pretty neat and definately original.

Thanks guyys. I agree the landing gear appear a tad too long. I should of raised their mounting point higher. The landing gear actually looks better in person when your standing by the model. It's been fun and frustrating. If I ever build another, I'll know what to do! Actually, If I ever build another pattern bipe, I think the thing to do is buy a set of Ultimate wings from Dave Patrick and mate them to a pattern fuse. That would save a lot of time and grief. Hopefully it'll be flying in the next 2 weeks. I'll let you guys know if it's a keep or not.

Dude, it looks coolerific...

Funky as Bootsy Collins!

I really was just kidding, I used to cop alot of grief about my old plane so I thought I'd just pass some of it on, I really was just kidding, I think it looks like a barrel of fun.

Matt

Off the top of my head I can think of one real bibe that has the canopy close to the engine...Beachcraft Staggerwing

Cheers...

But the beechcraft staggerwing has REVERSE stagger...

Here's a Rapide. You can see the similarity.

Shoot, I didn't think of making it a twin! There are actually quite a few biplanes with the wings mounted directly to the fuse, the Polikarpov I-153 Chaika and the Lair super solution to name a couple.

10 for Imagination and building a Jekyll Bipe. It is a tad on the strange looking side. I think mainly because of the top wing having no space between it and the fuse. Just wondering if you went with four aileron servos or not. As far as your idea for the ultimate wings. I highly recommend them. Very good for a bipe... I am happy to see your completion date is near and can't wait to hear how it flys. On another note. What the H*ll is Electrick talking about. Pattern designs lack something in design for 20 years. What is that all about. Pattern planes are very good looking and guess what. They also fly the best. Hmmmm Guess I just don't get that one. Sorry for that, just my 2 cents. Good luck when you fly it....................

Yeah, four aileron servos.

Lack of IMAGINATION in design is a very DIFFERENT thing than lack of design QUALITY, which is what I think you inferred from my comment. Imagination has little do do with design quality, and they aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Design quality has to do with proven engineering. It CAN be imaginative, but not necessarily so.

I think we can agree that the vast majority of all pattern designs in the last 20 years or so look very similar to each other. There are some variances in fuselage shape, wing sweep, length/span/area relationships and such, but most of 'em look similar to one another. Not too imaginative or creative, if you ask me. Some designers even openly admit "borrowing" layouts from other existing designs!
Granted, there is a reason for this, and that is that form follows function. This is why all NASCAR cars, racing boats, etc., look very similar (along with rules restrictions). Nothing wrong with this concept, just that it becomes sort of boring to see year after year, in my opinion. The appearance of a few CANARD racing hydroplanes in boatracing a few years ago is an example of imaginative design.

Jeff's design shows IMAGINATION. A very different way to get the same job done.

Hopefully it will prove to be a good (i.e. quality, well engineered) design, as well.

Sorry to have offended you with my opinion.

Rick