Don't know if you saw my reply on the other forum. I have never flown a 2 aileron Hatz, but I have flown a 4 aileron gap sealed ship for 20 plus years. The control forces are much lighter than a Citabria(with out spades) and the roll rate is a little faster too. It just depends on what kind of flying you want to do. My airplane seldom gets flown without being rolled a time or two. One 'G' aileron rolls are very easy and place no undue stress on the airframe.

Steve G
Hatz 215

Randy Brooks

I think I better jump in here to make sure correct information is being used regarding the Bantam. Just to get started, in general the Bantam is very much like a CB-1. The changes were made primarily to accomodate the much lighter Jabiru engine and secondly to reduce building time. With that said lets go down the list.

(1) I've only been on the controls of six Hatzs all with four ailerons. I also have some time in a Citabria 7GCBC with no spades. Not being a test pilot I can only discribe how I "think" it compares with the above. The Bantam is a much lighter Hatz than any others I've flown and it would be very hard to say it has any LESS roll rate than a four aileron Hatz. The closest I can think of would be a very light O-200 Hatz. The Bantam is light on the controls and you really don't wait much for things to happen. The Citabria is heavy on the stick and I would say it has a slower roll rate. Without any quantitative data to give I will go out on a limb and say anyone that flies a Hatz CB-1 or even a Classic won't be disappointed in the Bantam (even with only two ailerons).

(2) Mike is absolutely correct about the shorter wings (12" shorter per wing panel). I'm sure this contributes to a quicker feel.

(3) There are some differences in the ailerons. They are the same shape as a CB-1 but mounted with piano hinges (not Friese type) reducing the gap to less than 3/16". All the components are aluminum and covered with fabric making them very light compared to wood. The length is the same as a CB-1 except the ends are squared off because of the full end rib design.

(4) The top and bottom wings are built the same, just like a CB-1 only without ailerons on the top wing. The only wood in the wings are the main spars (the false spars are also aluminum).

(5) As far as aerobatics go, the Bantam doesn't know its an LSA. With shorter wings and the spars being the same dimensions as a CB-1 it would make sense there is also higher wing loading capability. I agree with Mike that a Hatz is pretty good as a "gentlemans aerobatic" biplane and not much more.

The Bantam was redesigned to take advantage current technology production methods and to accomodate some of the new engines that are available. The 100 H.P. Rotax 912 could also be a possibility. The fact that it came in light enough to qualify as a LSA turns out to be something many pilots are interested in. If one puts too many of the goodies back on the plane it might make more sense to just go ahead and build a CB-1.

I'm open for questions any time.

Mark Marino
www.hatzbantam.com
www.hangar10aerosupply.com
218-310-2333

(Especially Bob & Mark!)

"PLEASE" forgive me for forwarding information before I have double-checked the facts!

And,

"THANK YOU", Mark, for correcting my mis-information!

(I learned a good lesson!)

Thanx again,

'Til next time,

Happy Landings!

CM

Michael R. Devroy
P.O. Box 974
Lake Geneva, WI 53147
H: 262-248-4190
C: 847-224-5192
mdevroy@earthlink.net

We have been remiss.

The Bantam deserves its own conference under Building the Biplanes.

Eric, oh mistro of bits, oh manager of discussions, or administrator of Forum(s). How 'bout a new Build the Biplane conference for Mark's contribution?

Caasi