Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 271

MPH, and safety being very important as well.

Some other questions are


the viability of winglets, NACA inlet for the carburetor vs inlet scoop,
engine and engine compartment cooling, minimizing front-plate area vs
wetted area, and exhaust outlet placement for thrust recovery.
I have already consulted and spent time with aviation design expert
Martin Hollman in California. He thinks this is a very good design and
would work quite well. I have also consulted with propeller design expert
Paul Lipps. Paul has designed many propellers for the top winning
Formula One and Biplane racers. He has also designed some for other
GA aircraft increasing speed and efficiency. Paul has advised me on what
RPM and diameter would work best for this new plane.
A little info of how Formula One planes race. We start with 8 planes on
the runway in a 3-2-3 configuration (runway is 150' wide) with about 200'
between rows. A green flag drops and all planes accelerate then climb to
a race altitude of about 50' AGL (field elev. 5,000') and fly around 3
pylons at each end. There is 1 mile of straight on each side and 1/2 mile
of 180deg. turn on each end for a lap of 3.18 mi. We race 8 laps. Out of
24 planes racing in heats, the slowest is around 180 MPH and the fastest

First of all, thank you for contacting me. This is the kind of project I love to
do, as it's not only something new and different in 3D, but it's fascinating
One, but only as a spectator, and from my RC fabrication days.
I need to know a few things, in order to put together an estimate for you:
I assume from your email that you have all the documentation I'd need
to build this. (at least 3-views, if not cross-sections)
What is your timeline for having the 3D model ready for visualization?
What do you want at the end, as a final product from me? In other
words, will I be creating images and animation, or do you also want a
specific kind of 3D file?
If you can let me know those things, I'll get an estimate to you
immediatelyl I've done so many of these things that i have a good idea of
how many hours it takes, and so I generally start by outlining to you the
hours involved, and then settle for a flat rate, which will undoubtedly save
you some moneyl (because the "tweaks" involved always take longer than
expected)

Date: Marcr! 2011 6:06:52 AM GMT-05:00


To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Hello again, Curtis!

I thought I had heard your name somewhere, buT3.0o qon790079wing q 0.979074 Tc

Thank you for the comments, and your work looks very nice as well.

of Rhino that I'm running, (Mac) I can also export .STL and .3DM files.
(Images and animations are a no-brainer - All standard formats available)

I have attached the NDA.

Hello Curtis,

Hi Mike,
The name of the plane is: XR-7 Twister (eXperimental Racer) the race
number will be 7.
Here is just some basic stuff. I have a list of fairly close details (that I am
trying to find) but this is a rough idea for now. One item is addressing
integration of some things for the IF1 rules (International Formula One). I
would like the drawing done with conventional gear (image 003 and also
in 005, 006, 007, and 008). The reason for this is KISS. Later I will have
the gear designed like a sailplane with the two wheels side by side in the
fuselage. The IF1 rules state that the gear i befixned (d a redy goto

I just received your second email with the tail info. Thank you.
By your standards, I'm an amateur aerodynamicist. But I know some
facts from designing RC planes and UAV's, and I think you're really onto
something with this design. ( http://www.nextcraft.com is my archive site
for that stuff.)
Having closely followed the "dynamic soaring" types in RC, (completely
unpowered slope gliders cm9smarious cpeed records, basically looping in a
strong hillside rotor, at over 50 G's) that this planform is probably the
most efficient, overall. I'm sure you know the factoid that ("all things being
equal") you gm9smore lift per degree of angle-of-attack, by increasing a
wing's cpan, than by increasing it's chord.... and less drag. Of course, in
your case, it has to take a lot of G's too, so I see the reason for the shape
of your wing.
I'm 56, and think we live in a great time, because drag and weight are two
things that can be tackled very efficiently today,smostly thanks to
computers for the design, composites for the structure, and lighter, more
efficient engo ovfoopingET obv cpehanhan athouare plano kn soank slprobonTj ET Q

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Preliminary 3D sketch (Mike James)
Date: March 17, 2011 6:37:15 PM GMT-05:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Hi Curtis,
Obviously, this is just a rough sketch, un6il I get llsnu0.9 aayawings 0

measurements.

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com
From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Subject: Re: Preliminary 3D sketch (Mike James)
Date: March 18, 2011 3:07:31 AM GMT-05:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
Looks pretty good! CFD and FEA are after all of the design work is done.
That needs to be almost the last thing. I don't want to change things after
CFD work is done. Yes, initially I am just trying to get a model very close. I
don't need animation at all. Panel lines can just be surface markings. At
this point colors are not needed.
Almost all of the drawings I submitted to you are NTS (Not To Scale) the
pylon was way over sized. The actual prop diameter will be about 44"-46"
and the tip of the prop can be about 4"-5" off the top of the fuselage. So
the center line of the pylon would be 26"-28" and the length will be
determined by the prop extension, pulley length, spinner type/length and

I only have hand drawn drawings, that is why I am using your expertise.
I'd rather stick tonfo9dmnF fnF d r small parts fnF now. T r and m usse.

Hi Curtis,
Thanks for the new info. I know a lot more about the design and how
we'll do it, so I can work up a cost estimate and get it tos late this

flight, the inverted tailplane is a great idea. It's amazing to me that we


don't see them more.
NACA inlets are fascinating to me. I've used them on a few RC models,
and they performed as advertised, as long as they were built right. You've
probably already seen the NASA proportional drawing for these. It's very
specific, which is great. Not sure how they work on curved surfaces, such
as the side op engine nacelle.
By the way, on the subject oppilot safety, how the hell are you supposed
to get out opthis aircraft quickly and safely, in flight?
Thanks again! I'll send estimate and some questions later today.
Take care.
Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From:

Slipper (WS 21'-6") has about a 300 deg./sec roll rate. I know from talking
with David Hoover (AR-6 with a 24' wing) that his roll rate is only 200 deg./
sec. Plane Mantis (a fairly stock Cassutt with a 15' wing) has a rate almost
320 deg./sec. Some of that is based on aileron size too.

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Cost estimate from Mike James
Date: March 18, 2011 4:46:42 PM GMT-05:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Hi Curtis,

Great comments from you today. I knew you had thought this through...
Just checking! I have a list of questions, but will send those separately,Mike JameQ q 0

And of course... I'm honored to be involved in an exciting and worthwhile


projecsFe this. I want you to be "right" about the concepts you're trying,
and I want you to win!
About showing you progress:
Typically, the way I do this is to create a private page on my server,
known only to you and I, and invisible to internet search engines. Then, I
can post any size images (and occasionally, an animation, to explain
things) without the worry of overloading email servers. It's faster for you
too, when all you have to do is click a link, rather than sorting through a
ton of email. MaFe sense?
I think that covers everything, but if you have any questions, let me know.
Talk to you soon!
MFe James

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site:http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From:

Here are two images, with the first one being the fuselage airfoil upright.
The second one is with the airfoil inverted. (at 0 degrees AOA in both
cases) It wasn't a perfect match with your drawing, but close. I had to
make some "fit" choice, so I chose to align both with the top edge of your
drawing. Which do you think you prefer?
I have to gea back to you on the empennage. I think I'll have some
questions. For now, I simply placed the parts at the edge of the totallength measurement. (The rectangular wireframe thing at the bottom is a
reference "ruler" for me, showing the total 18.5 feet. (222 inches)

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Laminar bodies
Date: March 20, 2011 3:54:46 AM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Here is an article about similar airfoils as bodies:
http://designaplane.blogspot.com/2008/08/naca-66-020-body-dragcoefficient.html
Curtis
From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>
Subject: Re: Fuselage tests (Mike James)
Date: March 20, 2011 3:59:54 AM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Hi Curtis,

Ok, on the fuselage. Right now, it's just a flat polygon. So tonight, I'll give

it some 3-dimensional shape, and we can start tweaking it. Can you send
me a sketch of what's supposed to happen at the tail, with both the
fuselage and empennage positions? Honestly, I'm a little lost on the plan
for those right now. (Plenty to do in the meantime, though.)

Do you have an approximate thickness (in front view) for the landing gear
struts? I ask, because having placed an appropriately-scaled NACA 0009
at the strut fairing position, it loomtho,foil m (Plbh ofst on t (n I'lls Tcg795 0 0 -0.979079

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Spinner
Date:

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: Spinner
Date:

Spinner.htm )

I was just checking some measurements for the pylon diameter, it looks
like the pylon diameter would only need to be about 10", the smaller sized
spinners are 9" at the back of the prop (front of the prop in our case) so,
cake it whatever it needs for fit/look but keep that in mind.
Keep up the great work!
Curtis

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Pics
Date:

Curtis

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject:
Date:

The midget plane has quite the pylon with a lot of structure! Of course

Web site:

that's right, as we move along.

Subject: Questions, and a video (Mike James)


Date: March 23, 2011 12:51:02 AM GMT-04:00
To: Curtis Weinman <curtis@(Email address removed for this
document)>
Hi Curtis,
I've posted a video for you at http://www.mikejamesmedia.com/media/cw/
032211_xr7_questions.mov (not visible to the public) which shows some
of the issues to solve. This movie is a little over 200 MB, so give it a few
minutes to download.
To go along witt dw.ue here's a render witt some orthographic views, so
you can mark it up, or just use as a temporary reference. Each of the grid
squares in dw.u render are 12 inches.
Talk to you soon.
Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Adjustments
Date: March 23, 2011 3:09:09 AM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
The CAD work looks impressive!
Issues:
We can have a little swoop under the fuselage and into the tail, the tail
could be a little bit oval. Also the top planform just past the TE can swoop
in a little and have more of a constant to the tail. And speaking of the tail...

From:
Re: Adjustments
Date:
curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Hi Curtis,
read. (See below)

Curtis

document)>
Hi Curtis, I've attached a QuickTime movie of the model as it stands right
now. (It loops.) ALso attached an orthographic view, so you can see
where the pilot and engine are located. I think this is starting to look slick.
(meaning right, aerodynamically) Here are some things to notice, and a
couple of questions...
Landing gear - Nose wheel, Tail wheel?

To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Wow, looks great!
I would like to make the horizontal hinge line 90 degrees to its respective
plane. 25% chord hinge line, on the horizontal I would like the hinge line
continuous and parallel for both sides. That way I can use 1 control arm
to drive both elevators. If the horizontal moves up a few inches it looks
like it will be in enough prop wash. Flow from the prop widens and should
pick up the surfaces well enough. And with a 4 bladed prop there will be
better/more continuous flow, less choppy.
For the vertical it should also have the hinge line 90 degrees to the
longitudinal axis. With a 25% chord that will set the sweep automatically.
I included some pics of the AR-6 wing fillets and tail design. If you notice,
the widest part of the section at the horizontal it at the TE on the AR6.
The tail-boom could transition up and into the bottom of the horizontal to
provide more stability.
There will be a retractable tail wheel at about 30" forward of the leading
edge (at the root) of the vertical stabilizer. I am including a pic and wireframe of one from Symmetry. (I want to have the one on XR-7 to be more
like the position on a P-51 Mustang)
The engine and pylon will probably have to move back to get the CG
more balanced. Just a guesstimation maybe 8". And the top of the turtledeck could be raised up several inches at about 6" after the TE of the
wing. TEX will probably will be added to help keep the prop from being in
turbulent flow near the tips at low speed.
Thank you,

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Re: Details (Mike James)
Date: March 24, 2011 3:22:29 PM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
The reference line for vision as per the IF1 rules are: 5 Degrees down
over the nose, 45 degrees vertically upwards, and 270 degrees
horizontally.
Since the avionics/instrument stack will be starting on the floor (like a
glider) I can get it a bit lower. I will probably use a MGL brand EFIS. I am
including a pic of Kevin Eldridge's setup in his NXT. That way I will only

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: Details (Mike James)
Date: March 24, 2011 9:20:17 PM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Hi Curtis,
If yosn give me the height and widtoi-rhree digital instrdocum :00

shape between the side tangents of the fuselage and at the bottom of the

Raised the turtle deck behind the wing's trailing edge


I've modified the spinner shape to more closely match what you wani.
Like everything else, we can continue tweaking it as we go.
By starting the canopy glass at the front center of the nose and moving
straight back, (and moving my proxy instrument panel down slightly)
you've now got a little over 9 degrees visibility down over the nose, (line
highlighted in orange)with the other parameters easily covered. (I'm
allowing a bit of headroom for your helmet.)
Also highlighted in orange is the new engine position, resulting from
moving the pylon afi. I don't see any problems created by thai. (second
image attached)
Would you mind sketching what you have in mind for the fairing on the
bottom of the horizontal stabilizer, so I understand the proportions more
clearly?
Have a look at what I've had to do with the width of your seat, (blue) to
keep it from protruding through the fuselage. It's only the area colored
red, at the very bottom, that's an issue. We may wani to consider

From:

about the frontal area. It has very little effect to the drag in airplanes. It is

erode some of that performance, and a proper degree of cynicism


prohibits ever mentioning efficiencies greater than 87 percent in
professional company. The principal disadvantage of a tractor propeller is
that some portion of the airframe is bound to be within its wake or
"slipstream." Since the propeller accelerates the air in the slipstream (just
as a wing supports the airplane by accelerating air downward, a propeller
drives it forward by accelerating air backward) those portions are in effect
going faster than the rest of the airplane, and experience increased
"scrubbing" drag. Drag is a function of the square of speed, and so this
penalty sounds as if it oughtair bac 72!ificant. It should be especially

Hi Mike,
The CG as per IF1 rules has to be between 8-25% MAC, In the racing
world almost everyone has it set around 21-25%. The vertical CG will will
probably be centered on and just a few inches below #2 cylinder (the left
rear cylinder).
You got the 25% chord correct on the vert and horiz, for the ailerons it will
be 18% chord. The rudder chord is fine, on the horizontal the sub-trailing

The vertical thickness may have to change a bit more to have some meat
at the horiz/vert intersection. This way the airflow above and below the
horiz. will be more proportionate. I will work on this and get it to you this
evening. I am excited about this change.
Thanks,
Curtis
From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>
Subject: Re: Today's updates (Mike James)

Weu 0e6 ref

Date: March 27, 2011 2:05:35 AM GMT-04:00


To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com

For the seat, I just measured the width of my hips and it is 15", also,
sitting in a recliner I checked the radius of my butt and it is rounded into
the seat. I think rounding the bottom both directions would work fine. I do
have a 1" and 2" thick "G" foam pad that I can cut and/or place anywhere
too.
Thanks,

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: More seat numbers
Date:

by how thick your fuselage is, too. Right now, this one is the fictional
"infinitely-thin" 3D one.
By doing nothing except raising you about 1 inch and moving you
rearward about 1 inch, I was able to increase the red area's width to
about 13.5 inches.
Next, I built the new main landing gear parts, and adjusted the fuselage
bottom, as you suggested, to cover all three "issues" Now, you can
easily have a seat that5oinbiuffre ninc67oreviousnfiproI wmthe r ve selage

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

Date: March 27, 2011 4:57:10 PM GMT-04:00


To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: LG
Date: March 28, 2011 2:28:12 AM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hey Mike,
The sides (and c Q er arm) of the landing gear brackets will probably be
made from 1/4" (either 2024 or 6061 T-0) aluminum, machined, then bent
to shape, welded, and re-hardened to T-6, then clear anodized. The

If it's ok with you, I'd like to get the tail right first, then I'll go back and fix
the details on the landing gear bracket shape, fuselage thickness, etc..
Here's the new tail layout, with the correct chords and spans. But I
don't know what you meant, on the TOP horizontal stab, where your
drawing note says, "Tips to match same as bottom horizontal sweeps. If
you mean that it should have a straight trailing edge, as the previous
horizontal stabilizer had, then this is right. Otherwise, let me know.
If you're happy with the chords and spans for the tail parts, then you can
let me know what airfoils you want to use for the horizontals, and angles
of attack. (I assume the vertical stab remains the same?) We can then

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Re: Tail changes (Mike James)
Date: March 28, 2011 2:37:34 PM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,

Looking great once again!


What I was trying s7i11307sntLtheg sp and bottom horizontal will be !

-From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)

Subject: Tail adjustment, fuselage widen


Date: March 28, 2011 2:58:02 PM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
The thing I noticed is the fact that NXT has parallel sides along the chord
of the wing and horizontal. If we move the bottom horizontal forward so
the TE is at the thickest point of the rudder chord, then we may not need
much of a fillet. For the wing, having the widest part of the fuselage at the
TE would be best too.
If the fuselage had a little more radius in the sides so at the pilots elbows
the fuselage shape back from there would then be almost straight through
the wing section. There would be less drag on the back edge of the
canopy seam too. I attached a pic of V-Max probe for reference, I think
those fuselage shapes work well.
Thanks again,
Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Got the info (Mike James)
Date: March 28, 2011 3:12:19 PM GMT-04:00
To: Curtis Weinman <curtis@(Email address removed for this
document)>
Hi Curtis,

(and diagonal) tT about 4" in front of the crotch at the seat. It must be a
XML file.
Thanks,
Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: Panel dimensions?
Date: March 29, 2011 12:29:45 AM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Hi Curtis,
I can send you the dimensions tTmorrow, and will add the 4-inch column.
But... I can't output 3D files tT XML. I can send it in the 3D formats shown
below, or in any standard image formats.

Talk tT you then.


Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Re: Panel dimensions?
Date: March 29, 2011 12:46:48 AM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
I1 says that it only reads XML but can export to dxf, pdf, png, jpg and gif. If
you give me a drawing with grid or dimensions I can enter it manually. (or
give it a rough shape)
Tomorrow is fine.
Thanks

Subject: Panel dimensions with 4" wide column (Mike James)


Date: March 29, 2011 10:16:11 PM GMT-04:00
To: Cbject Weinman <curtis@(Email address removed for this
document)>
Hi Cbject,
I'm still pretty slammed with other work, but took a half hour out to get you
these panel renders and dimensions. I'll get back to your design again
tomorrow evening.
Talk to you soon.
Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com

From:

The top horizontal planform will match exactly the lower one, in fact make
2 of them, then cut the span down to a 24". (I will be using the same
molds)
I am driving to California today (Thursday) and will be getting in late there.
(it'r13 hour trip) I will be checking my email every evening/night while I
am there. I will be returning to Utah on the 10th.
Thankrgain,
Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: XR7 tail partrdjusted (Mike James)

perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. At 25% chord the sub-trailing edge/hinge line

From:

Bottom Horizontal Fin


Root chord: 24 inches
Tip chord: 14 inches
Span:
Elevator chord: 25%
Hinge line must be perpendicular to aircraft axis
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Top Horizontal Fin
Root chord: 24 inches
Tip chord: (about 22.5 inches)
Span: 24 inches
Elevator chord: 25%Hinge line must be perpendicular to aircraft axis
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Apparently I'm missing something about these tail parts. Not sure if it's
wrong measurement, or just brain lock.
Thanks.
Mike James

bottom. The bottom TS is 70". I can come up with the exact tip chord of
the top horizontal, but I have to go now.
Curtis

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Tip chord, top horiz
Date: April 2, 2011 8:21:13 PM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
I laid out some metal to see fairly close what the tip chord will be. It looks
like it will be 20.6", I am not a math wizard but I am sure there is an exact
way to calculate the dimension.
Thanks,
Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: Tip chord, top horiz
Date: April 2, 2011 10:05:43 PM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Ka-ching!
Last night, my measurement of the 3D model was 20.6327", so I'd say
we're pretty close!
Once I get the tail pieces verified, I'll send you more renders. It's getting
there...

Take care.
Mike James

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>

I liked the look of aT oval fuselage ahead of the wing. I know that it would
be hard to transition the shapes.
Thanks,
Curtis
From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>

Here's the 20.6 -inch tip chord.

You can see that th0 sweep angles and control surface areas are th0
same. (Disregard th0 small misalignment here, due to th0 faked control
surfaces.)

Do you see what I'm doing wrong?


Mik0 James
mik0james@mik0jamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mik0jamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject:

Don"fr c66178se canopy. I've rounded it ase rearmorfr t, wheTc

Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: XR7 updates

To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
For the canopy, on the horizontal the actual gap will be centered on the

More items
From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Subject:
Date: April 5, 2011 3:26:38 AM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamestejat7e 00 -d64sc q 0.9790795 0 0 -0.9790795 72 68909.95

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: More items
Date: April 5, 2011 4:49:01 AM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Hi Curtis,
I got your earlier emails, and will start on some of those things asap. My
3D software is tied up until sometime tomorrow afternoon, rendering an
animation.
What angle of attack do you want the aircraft to sit at, when at rest or
taxiing? Knowing that would allow me to visualize things more precisely,
for a better parts fit. At first glance, my thought is that whatever you do to
stabilize the plane on the ground should be as far aft as practical. (The
wing supports idea you mentioned would indeed be less than ideal.) I
assume you're landing pretty hot? (80 knots-ish?) You definitely need
something solid and less "squirrelly", at those speeds.
Yes, send more sketches! Sketches from you save me a ton of work,
avoiding the rebuilding of things based on emails and numbers alone. I

Date: April 5, 2011 12:02:16 PM GMT-04:00


To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
The tail will be about 6" off the ground. (tip below the rudder)
In the design with the dual tail wheels (outrigger style), the wheels will be
about 36" behind the TE of the wing. So a little short coupled. The Pitts is
one of the squirrelly kind, it didn't take long to overcome the different feel.
You really have to be "ahead of it" thought wise.
About the panel I tried every way I could to import the file. When I get
back to Utah I will call the manufacture to see if there is a way to convert
the file to XML.
Thanks,
Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: XR7 updates (Mike James)
Date: April 6, 2011 1:54:47 AM GMT-04:00
To: Curtis Weinman <curtis@(Email address removed for this
document)>
Hi Curtis,
Fixed the canopy frame width, adjusted the landing gear parts, (although
I've only got it down to 13 inches wide, so far) cut out the tail control
surfaces, and created the -20 degree bevel indor pone of the rude)orol

gear to the left side.

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Re: XR7 updates (Mike James)
Date: April 6, 2011 12:04:53 PM GMT-04:00
To:

Hi Mike,
For the control surfaces, I will be using a full radius on the leading edge of
the elevators and rudder. They fit in to a pocket with the skin surface
extending almost to center line of the hinge.

down almost 3/4" each waidili/erate pressure. That is too

linkage. I was thinking of using Kevlar/aramid braided cable (fire resistant


and stronger than steel) for the rudder control.
When I get back to Utah in a couple of days I will work on many of the
finer details. I will also talk with Martin Hollman about some details as well.
Like the aileron chord, wing and horizontal incidence, pylon/prop
incidence and a couple of other things.
Thanks,
Curtis

probably fine for your tail surfaces. For the wings, I don't know which
would be easier for you to maintain... some kind of cables and bellcranks,
or rigid torque tubes.
On "what I need":
Yo5n't tell me too much, as a rule. It's better for me to know all In, in
case it affects how I plan things in 3D. If a piece of information isn't going
to matter, from my point of view, it's easy enough to set it aside.
Yo5didn't respond to my question about the deposit. This is an important
part of the planning for my move, so please let me know as soon as you
can.
Thanks, Curtis.
Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site:

0meue o settlement agreement)

These settlements are always a pain. It seems that constant pressure is


almost always required. Hope yours works the way you expect it to.
On your questions:

Hi am- Curtis,

0015 or NACA 0018" I asked him how much he would charge to do the
flutter and stress analysis, he said that he would have to charge me for
it.?.?
I will send another email to him.
Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: Comment from Martin H.
Date: April 13, 2011 6:42:14 AM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)

Hi Curtis,
Well, I certainly understand hardware problems... recently had my own
rather major one. I bet you'll get it working, but if not, you can get some
great scanners today really cheap.
I"ll look forward to seeing your new drawings. Thanks.
Take care.
Mike James

plate in the bottom/back of the scoop slides parallel with the fuselage skin
to expost the wheel/leg. The NACA scoop will be for cylinder cooling and
be an upflow setup. The scoops can be lower on the fuselage.
The shock absorbing or flex will be designed in to the legs. I will have to
find different 100mm wheels as they will be subject to high side loads

(100mm) size wheels on them, as on the tail wheel.

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address remos 0.5.com Q qm0b044 5hm BT1b0kd c 14 0 0ny02s

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject:

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
WeH site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com
On Apr 17, 2011, at 11:11 AM, curtis@(Email address removed for this

I have the main gear layout. The gear will have a stop arm to lock the
gear in a "race" position. It will only be in this position for take-off. It will
not have a shock in this scenario. The tire will be positioned so there will
be about 3" of clearance below the bottom of the cockpit when the tail is
up in normal flying/take-off position. There will be a separate gear door/
cover when used in this configuration.
For landing the gear will extend to have a shock absorber in line.
When not in race configuration the wheel will be fully enclosed/retracted.
A different set of gear doors will be used in this configuration. This setup
will be for practice, time to climb, speed over distance, and if I get IF1
rules changed to allow retractable gear.
I attached a drawing of a sailplane gear that I modified to also show the
"race" position.

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)

off and landing, there is 3 inches clearance under the lowest point on the
fuselage.
Jle5roblem changing the fuselage shape. I started with a copy of the
previous one I saved, and made it as oval-shaped as I could, from your

In fact it would probably be better om uhw the legs forward a couple of

Subject:

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)

showing some of the issues with them, (too big for email at around 70
MB) at

was thinking of having them drop almost straight down (and a little out
away from the fuselage) to clear the bottom of the fuselage, then swing
about 90 deg. into position. It is hard to explain the idea. This is
conceptual, you got it to work. That is a great accomplishment on your
part! We can always tweak it later.
The item on the bottom of the engine is the carb air box. That is for a
stock plane, I will not need that and will be using a 3" dia tube to the
bottom of the carb for air feed.
Thank you,
Curtis

Thank you,
Curtis

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Wing design
Date: Ap 3m /8/TTe2 Tc 14 0 0 -14 5 39:5 9AM GMT-04:00 0.4235294 0.4235294 0.4

From:

The tip of the ailero8 is about 14.5" back from the end of the tip. I would
like to have removable tips split at 12.5" that way it leaves about 1.5" of
hard point for the end of the ailero8 pivot to reside. This also gives a nice
hard point to attach the tip.
Thank you,
Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: New wing, moved horizontal stab, and questions (Mike James)
Date: April 23, 2011 5:39:57 AM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)

You don't have to draw it that way.


The look of the lower horizontal seems not so TLAR. I am thinking of
moving it back 1" and up 1", then move t14 ea.04habthte lbalanct havg of

Here are a couple of renders.

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com

Hi Mike,
Happy Easter! The tail looks great, it really seems balanced placement
wise.
Could I see a side ortho so I can double check the rudded blanketing and
a top view to look at the wing?
If this helps, I calculated the aileron placement. Starting at the tip moving
toward the root, 14.5" to 72.5" gives an aileron length of 58" with an
aileron chord of 18%.
Thank you for the wondedful work!
Ct ncs

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


XR7 Ortho view (Mike James)
Date:
To:

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Re: XR7 Ortho view (Mike James)
Date: April 24, 2011 5:35:50 PM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Yes, these are nice and clear. The rudder blanketed area is good. More

Mike James

Date: April 26, 2011 12:38:12 AM GMT-04:00

guessing the sub-spar will be about 2-1/2" long (chord).


I have included a tailwheel drawing as well. You can leave what you have
for now. My goal was to have some shock effect to help the hard hitting
1-1/2"-2" runway expansion joints. When taxiing we use full up elevator to

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Re: Fuselage size (Mike James)
Date: April 26, 2011 8:28:44 PM GMT-04:00
To:

I did a new seat layout/test and now I have 25" from the seat bottom to
the top of my head. I need 1.5" for a helmet (I had written helmut, it must
be the German version, OK it is 2 am) I also need a little over 1/2" for the

The seat could have an adjustable back and/or slide to make sure the
angles work for different pilots. The rules just state the plane must
accommodate an average size pilot. The test pilot I will be using is
6'-1" (Dave Morss) and I am 6' tall. So I'd like just a hair extra wiggle

The fuselage changes I made were only to the section in front of the

To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Cool, thanks.

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: XR7--- New and Improved! (Mike james)
Date: April 28, 2011 9:20:24 PM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Curtis,
in your previous email you told me to move the engine forward. Do you
now want me to move it back where it was? If not, how far back do you

Mike James

The nose and back to the leading edge of the wing looks more like a
triangle. It should be more of a constant radius so at the rear edge of the
canopy line is in a lower pressure area. That way the canopy line wont trip
the air much before it goes by the wing. I read that the best shape is close
to that of a high-powered rifle bullet. Added a pic for comparison, and of
the V-max 3 view.

document)>
Yeah... "Attach" before "Send"...
Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Re: XR7--- New and Improved! (Mike james)
Date: April 29, 2011 2:00:07 AM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
I mean back as to the back of the plane. From now on I will only use the
word back to re-locate an item to where it previously resided. I will say
forward or aft for position change.
Yes, aft!
Thanks,
Curtis

PS> Hope your settlement eloking out. I have to do a variety of


expensive things this month, (pack and ship a lot of stuff to Ohio, pay
apartment deposits, pay for software upgrade, buy tickets, etc.) so can I
still expect some kind of payment from you soon?
Thanks.
Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Re: Outriggepl m Ous

Jrom: Mike xames <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>

I'm up way too late, but...

Comfort:
I don't know how long you spend in these planahemimte, bu (I'mjust .)Tj ET Q q 0.9790

The hardest thing is brakes. Once the engine is started the plane wants to
roll forward. We have to keep on the brakes for almost 10 minutes. The
quads get really tired. One thing that I plan to add to my plane is a
hydraulic parking brake lever. I would use it for all but the last minute.
In general most racers only have a 5.1-8 gallon fuel tank. The longest the
plane can be flown is about 40-45 minutes at 65% power. Or 30 minutes
at full power.
I am planning on a rear hinge canopy. There is a small area just in front
of the wing that extends back. In that area would be a good place for a
hinge mechanism. OR

the bed of my truck and drive around with it at various speeds and
"torture" it as much as I can. I will have telemetry/data from the engine to
log info as well. The altitude at my house edoih300' almost exactly what
Reno ed. There are roads around up to 9,000' so I can do some good
testing. My truck only goes 121 MPH so there will be some limitationd.
Maybe with the airplane engine I can go faster? My diesel truck edoalmost
at 100,000 miled. Once et hisdhouM9crkom the enginwarrantyse ed uk anId.

I am sure I will have to play with rudder pedal/brakes positioning and


comfort too. Overall cockpit ergonomics will take weeks of work to get it
right. Starting with the seating m0s withkey. Anowitreransih rhe on0s t it

From:

The outrigger will be wider than before. It will be located at the end of the
wing center section at 72". The center of the wheel/outrigger will be about
2.5" inboard. The theory is when the wings are pulled off, the fuselage
can continue to stand up by its self.
If the outriggers don't angle forward but slightly aft, and when the tail is
down the legs are perpendicular to the ground. Typically when the tail is

lot. Robbie built new thicker (plate aluminum) gear. On the next test it
vibrated fairly bad at 60 MPH, Robbie again worked on it and added some
gussets at the top and bottom. The gear now vibrated at 80MPH. David
Hoover was not happy and went to another gear builder and it was made
from 1-1/4" thick wall chromoly tubing, gusseted at top and bottom and it
worked well. No vibration at any speed and didn't sway at all. As it turned
out the new steel gear was lighter than the aluminum gear. Hmmm, but it
worked on paper...

mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Re: Landing Gear option (Mike James)
Date: May 1, 2011 8:30:48 AM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi MIke,
Did you know the T-38 Talon is my favorite jet of all time, then the SR-71
is second.
That looks great!
Thank you,
Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: Landing Gear option (Mike James)
Date: May 1, 2011 8:36:29 AM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Hi Curtis,

shape.
The T-38 is a current work-in-progress for my next tutorial DVD. If you
want to see more of it, including some more animation, the article is at

60" max. If there is room I would really like to use online (symmetrical
airfoil shaped) chromoly tubing. If the tubing at the side walls is long and/
or onong enough guide tubes will not be needed. (weight reduction) And
they can index in to a slot for anti-rotation if round tube is used.

attached)
Thanks.

vibration and bending resistance. I was thinking if inserting a solid


aluminum "I" beam (square or rectangular with lightening holes) stiffener
i 3tcbni9ine tube to help dampen (vibration andgive moareflexibility/ )Tj ET Q q 0.97907

Do you have a pretty good idea about wh 80tNACA inlet isod ing to

I just got back from a 5-mile hike, over near the airport (Ted Stevens
International) It was freakin' gorgeous today... Blue skies, in the high 40's, clean
crisp air, and all the hikers, joggers, and bikers were out, enjoying some of the
best weather we've had in over 6 months. Nice! (photo attached)

Thanks.

carruld be interesting. So it looks like the best spot will be just below

As far as I know I will be building all aspects of this plane by myself unless
I solicit help from others in the local (Salt Lake City) EAA chapter. Salt
Lake is about 25 miles from where I live. At this point I am not too keen to
jump in to another racing partnership. Prenup?
Do you need NACA inlet drawings? I have a couple. I think I sent you one
before too.

On Nemesis NXT they used the inner circular inlet for fuel injection/air box

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Carb inlet
Date: May 4, 2011 1:57:43 PM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
I was looking at the cj ET Q /C and wishing we could fair it in a little better.

was running at full throttle (brakes on) Yikes!


Curtis

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject:

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: Canopy release
Date:

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Another subject (Mike James)
Date: May 6, 2011 8:02:46 AM GMT-04:00
To: Curtis Weinman <curtis@(Email address removed for this
document)>
Hi Curtis,
One more thing...
I've included a render showing what I hope never happens... the flip-d fr
you referred to. Spooky, but shows the the canopy area involved.
Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com

mount, even if the entire pylon broke/bent off there will be a lot of
chromoly in the spar area. They don't allow the vertical tail to count
taking/shaoanya lad ei thr.

Just noticed that I accidentally sent a "jpeg2", rather than the usual "jpeg",

positions?
Thanks,
Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject:

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: Good news

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: XR7 Cooling inlet and Pitot (1 8f2cs 0 sc q 0.97e4 8r1-14r.974 n: d7t:

Anchorage, AK. 99517


I'll move the inleiCn a bit, and send you more renders tomorrow. On
the pitoid/e... I have the full exposed length of the tube, as shCn on
the company drawing, which is a On

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)

Just rambling...
Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: XR7 Notes (Mike James)
Date: May 9, 2011 2:08:38 AM GMT-04:00
To: Curtis Weinman <curtis@(Email address removed for this
document)>
Hi Curtis,
The inlet is easy to adjust, so for now, I moved it down about 4 inches.
That places ut at about the same height as the bottom of your ribs. (And
matching it the shape of the fuselage at that lower point also meant

forward to whatever we come up with that will make both of those safer
and more consistent for you. I think you're doing very well on the shape,

Plane Mantis was built is 1985 and first raced in 2000. Several of the race
planes are from the early 70's and are still racing. If maintained properly
they can last 20-30 years. Nemesis raced for just over 10 years and was
the first all composite plane. John Sharp donated the plane to the
Smithsonian so nobody else could use/race it. (I think for liability reasons)
I included a pic of a German motor-glider with an interesting gear
arraignment. This plane kind of has a similar look, high wing, long tailboom with "T" tail, however has a 75' wingspan. Huge rudder and vertical
too.
Curtis

Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Re: Got your check (Mike James)
Date: May 12, 2011 12:37:39 AM GMT-04:00
To:

To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,

completed by by May 31. They have missed many deadlines throughout


the 3 years of this case. It was opposing counsel (and the client, Ray) that
set to the May 31 date, it was agreed to by us in the beginning of
January. Technically they have 12 days to have it all done? It may be

being able to pay me in June? Give it some thought if you need to,
because it's an important answer, for me.
In the meantime, we can keep working... No reason not to. I'm in a bind,

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Update
Date: May 22, 2011 12:35:19 AM GMT-04:00
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
that offer for what should be the last time. It was sent to Ray Friday
afternoon. I am hoping I should hear back with a final answer Monday or
Tuesday.

Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>M 7ld1E875 146727 0.423529

type of shock system.


The internal structure I will need is the Chromoly center section. It will
incorporate the engine mount, wing mount, pylon structure, landing gear
mount, aft end of the engine compartment where it attaches to the tailboom, and firewall/outrigger attach points. Yikes! That is a lot of stuff.
I don't need a paint scheme done or any of the fake parts. I was just

Mike James
mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Web site: http://www.mikejamesmedia.com

my house contents to storage in Utah it was $10,000. Then 1 year later


as I was selling my house (I was doing a major remodel) I had to move
the contents of my 1,000 sq. ft. workshop and 2 car garage. It was 15,000
lbs worth and was another $8,500. These were discount/employee rates
as my uncle works as a manager for Mayflower Moving.
I am still awaiting a reply from opposing counsel for the acceptance of my
offer. How hard is it to say yes or no? It has been another week, I am
guessing I may hear by Tuesday or Wednesday. I am in desperate need
of money too. I have a lead on someone interested in one of the planes.
Hopefully that plays out well and fast.

The fuselage shape looks great! The wetted area increased a little, but
from what I have been reading the drag should go down. The aft edges of
the canopy gap (perpendicular to the flow) should alonThe at1 Te0/7T 0rq 0.7s9 q 0.97

simulate, they want to use heated air to see how much difference there
will be.
I do plan to put the XR-7 in a wind tunnel once it is complete. No wing of
course, unless I go to the NASA Ames research (in California) facility.
They charge $2,000 an hour with a 24 hour minimum, ouch!
Curtis

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: status
Date: June 8, 2011 4:41:24 AM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Hi Curtis,

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: update
Date: June 12, 2011 12:10:54 AM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
I just agreed to the settlement offer (with a few minor changes) and will be
sent back to opposing counsel Monday morning. Ray's lawyer wants
everything drafted and signed by June 17th and then we have 30 days to
make the exchange from Idaho. I have to go up there and pick up
everything and I want to do it ASAP. I guess I will see how fast Ray can
get his end done.
I was interested in having the top of the canopy have just a little more
radius and the bottom a little less on the side profile. If there was more
roundness as viewed from the front (less square corners) a taller pilot
could fit better. Then taking that amount out of the bottom longitudinal
radius to keep the cockpit thickness about the same. On the bottom
starting e morin front of the landing gear/wheel. This will give a bit more
ground clearance as well. The top line can carry back onto the wing a little
more. From your previous change of widening the fuselage there is more
elbow room and the knees can tilt outward more too.
Curtis

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: One more
Date: June 12, 2011 12:31:52 AM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com

be in big trouble. (Costs about $1500 per month for al sc q . asics, here.)

Thanks!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi Curtis,

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: Status
Date: July 12, 2011 2:15:04 PM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)

p
I
s
h
n
s
s
a
I
y
d
S
a
t
p
w
R
y e

a r

t h

h t

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: Status
Date: July 15, 2011 3:29:19 PM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)
Curtis,
I hope that you'll send what you can when you sell the next thing. I've
always understood that I was "working in advaice", but with the original
statement that you expected it to happen "by the end of April", this has

document)>
Curtis,
It's been 10 days since you said you expected to "sell your gun this
weekend", and I haven't heard anything from you. What's the status? I am
in a desperate situation, and need some sort of payment from you.
---------------------------------------------Curtis,
I hope that you'll send what you can when you sell the next thing. I've
always understood that I was "working in advance", but with the original

Date: July 27, 2011 2:23:20 AM GMT-04:00


To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
I did go to the gun shop in SLC this morning. The dealer offered me

something happens.
Yes, the info below is correct. Sending (or wire transferring) money
directly there is the quickest way for me to gain access to it right now,

just barely enough for me to pay my mortgage. I have sold over a dozen
things on ebay which is also just enough to keep the bill collectors away.
And to add to the stress and worry we just found out that my wife is
pregnant. Ouch!
I lowered the price on the gun I have for salq 0.9y t cri.et
salq and it is not selling in this market. ( a new one sells100, and It
have $2,6tof extras on it, so I have over $7,7tin it) I will be adding at
night vision gun scopq 0.9itemssalq. I paid about $3,6tand it should
sell bout $2 t-2,500. The scopq will be an auction so whatever it
sellsover $2 t will be it. At this point I am lowering the guns price
almo.etdaily to get atsalq.
July 25:

My gun did not sell on y1.97735 w re 1 CS7cm313725.97.305882T3.14 0 0o52Tm /TTa

as a Buy It Now sale and will do it as a 10 day auction with a start of


$3,795. He meems pretty sure it will sell in a couple of days for the Buy It

Date: August 14, 2011 8:05:57 PM GMT-04:00


To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Hi Mike,
Apparently there seems to be some confusion about the work done.
On March 18th I responded to your email and it is as follows:
I had received quotes from a couple of CAD design shops when I was in
San Jose, CA before I left to Utah and one was $4,500 and the other was
$6,000 but that included a fully working (controls, rigging and animation)
rendered model in Siemens NX and would be CFD/FEA ready.
Your price and terms seem fair. I have to wait until I sell one of my planes
before I can start this project. It sounds like that will be done by the end of
April. I still have to dial in some more of the details anyway.
"Your price and terms seem fair" is not acceptance of a contract and/or
authorization to begin work. That was merely a comment about the
amount compared to other quotes I had received.
You stated on March 21st;
"I remember that you mentioned the end of April as the time you
could send my
deposit, but it doesn't hurt to ask... If you're able to send any
part of it
now, it would make this large headache somewhat smaller."

I don't know how you thought I sai.979at I would pay you at the end of
April. This is only 5 days after I got a quote from you??
It already sounds like you had financial problems and wanted to start
before I agreed to anything. Then your computer goes out and you need
money? I had specifically stated 79at I cannot start this project until I sell a
plane! You sai.979at you would compile things before getting started. Di.9I
ev 16m3.0vK, lets start before I sell a plane? NO!
I am sticking by my guns! I gave you an advance for work done as a
courtesy that you imposed upon me. I di.9see that you were doing some
work and felt guilty that the official start had not begun yet you di.9have
1 Tf -0 iua6 Alsoe. l santed979at I have to dial in some detailfirsect! Yoe

were jumping the gun and doing work before it was compiled properly. As

From: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)


Subject: Re: Invoice?
Date: August 15, 2011 3:29:20 AM GMT-04:00
To: mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com
Just another point: "On the contrary, you sent nearly daily updates with
commentary, sketches, photos, and so on, encouraging me to continue."
your comment made but, it is because of your previous statement of...
"Understood, regarding the budget. I'll be looking forward to jumping in,
when you're ready. Feel fre Q q send additional specs, remarks, etc.,
whenever you feel like, in the meantime. I'll keep collecting them, so I'm
well-armed to start. (I'll go ahead and startont some of the prerequisites...
downloading airfoil profiles, searching for info on the engine, etc.)"

From: Mike James <mikejames@mikejamesmedia.com>


Subject: Re: Invoice?
Daie: August 15, 2011 3:31:46 PM GMT-04:00
To: curtis@(Email address removed for this document)

didn't get changed. One time you sent some renders after I had made
that comment and you asked how it looks. I answered that the fuselage

relationship goes from here. Are you now denying that you owe me
$4000 for the work I've done? If so, I need to read that in your very
next email, if we're discussing a "payment plan", or lack thereof,
is indeed an entirely different thing, and I need to know that right
now.
Why would you have any problem answering this? It's a simple question.
Mike James

animated design. I was expecting that you were doing the same thing for
$5,000. When you talked about phase one I expected that was just the
skin/exterior and surfaces so I could get the CFD work done (in case
there was changes) with phase two being the internal structure/controls.
All of that done for the $5,000 quote. Now, less the $1,000 advance the
balance once we start will be $4,000.
Curtis

I am not using the design for anyt9878 dadu 0a o1 s6:st.

simply be a factual account of what happened, and everyone can judge


your character and mine for themselves.
Anyone who looks at the emails and files will have no doubt that we've
"started". These word games are silly. If you want to keep repeating that
you never said, "OK, let's go ahead and start.", then naturally, the same
mysticism applies for me too, right? Well, then you never said "Stop", nor
did you ever describe your $1000 payment, (less then 1/2 of the deposit I
asked for) as an "advance". You've been behind, every step of the way.
Why even state your example on payment plans, when according to

that and put my cards on the table? Because I am a nice guy and felt
confident with you.
I don't understand what you are arguing about as there was no legal start
I authorized to the work. As it Te0gently stands you are still gathering info
for the project. And when "I sell a plane" then we can start. Does this
sound wrong?
If you are a professional then you'd know that the Testomer is always right
and hopefully you wouldn't want to tarnish your image. I am losing faith in
you every email I get.
Who is acting like a 12 year old? Can't you admit your error? Whose is at
fault? Show me a copy of our contract and things will be different.
Curtis