Closed Thread
Page 1 of 48 123456711 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 707
Like Tree58Likes

Thread: Synergy Aircraft

  1. #1
    Registered User Tom Nalevanko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    1,143

    Synergy Aircraft

    BuildingSynergy | SlideRocket, Online Presentation Tools

    What do you all think?

    Links
    Synergy discussion @ HBA
    Synergy discussion @ Oshkosh365
    Cafe Green flight challenge website
    Synergy photo-album @ Facebook
    EAA news reveals Synergy project

    Some specifications:

    Overall Length: 21 feet
    Wing Span: 32 feet
    Wing Area: 156 square feet
    Gross weight: > 3,100 pounds
    Competition weight: 2400 lbs
    Empty weight: < 1,650 pounds
    Gross in-flight wing loading: 23.2 lbs/sq. ft.
    Power: 180-hp two-stroke V4 turbo/super diesel Delta Hawk
    Cabin Width, interior: 56 inches
    Gear: Tricycle, retractable
    Minimum flight speed: <55 KIAS (dirty)
    Range: >1,500 nautical miles w/std reserve

    Synergy video

    Last edited by autoreply; June 6th, 2011 at 07:15 AM. Reason: Added relevant information

  2. #2
    Registered User Mac790's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poznan, Poland
    Posts
    1,570

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Nalevanko View Post

    What do you all think?
    Honestly? you might want to look in this thread Fairly brilliant design...

    Seb
    Amor Patriae Nostra Lex

    "Time, training, training, training and more training is the key to any success."
    Francis "Gabby" Gabreski

  3. #3
    Registered User Tom Nalevanko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    1,143

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    This is the first presentation of the flying model; I believe. And a nice view of the construction...

    It is really somewhat of a flying wing. Interesting concept!

  4. #4
    Registered User berridos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    madrid
    Posts
    699

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    It looks a little unstable at landing as a model. Should have a small cg range.
    And somehow I dont like the guy whos talking...

  5. #5
    Registered User Voyeurger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northern Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Posts
    658

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    Quote Originally Posted by berridos View Post
    It looks a little unstable at landing as a model. Should have a small cg range.
    And somehow I dont like the guy whos talking...
    How about Bill Gates, do you like him? Are you a PC or MAC guy? The proof'll be in the pudding. Assuming all is as promised by the test data of the first flight, will you be able to like the product regardless of the man? OF COURSE! Give the guy a break. He's gone balls to the wall to launch this project. He deserves every consideration. IMHO.
    Gary
    Voyeurger
    "Spitting In The Eye of Doubt"

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    293

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    Quote Originally Posted by Voyeurger View Post
    How about Bill Gates, do you like him? Are you a PC or MAC guy? The proof'll be in the pudding. Assuming all is as promised by the test data of the first flight, will you be able to like the product regardless of the man? OF COURSE! Give the guy a break. He's gone balls to the wall to launch this project. He deserves every consideration. IMHO.
    Gary
    Fair enough. John took some heat on this forum from some folks including me, for not disclosing specifics on his new design despite discussing it for quite some time.

    Now that he's publicly putting cards on the table, I have much greater appreciation for the plane, and wish him full success.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    5,945

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    Quote Originally Posted by berridos View Post
    It looks a little unstable at landing as a model. Should have a small cg range.
    Difficult to establish any handling opinions from models simply due to their scale and the flying environment, and of course the skill of the RC pilot. Making that statement just by looking at one RC landing is probably a bit unfair.

    Regarding the aircraft's CG range, yes, a first glance might suggest a narrow allowable range due to the short coupled nature of the layout however, remember that this airplane does not use flaps and as such is not penalized in a way that a more conventional layout might be.

    Given the scope of this development and the combination of technologies they are employing in the work, I'd suggest giving them a fair chance, rather than criticizing based on the briefest of glances.
    "To live is to learn; to learn is to live" (author unknown)

  8. #8
    Registered User berridos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    madrid
    Posts
    699

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    I was just kidding. (still remeber the old thread)
    I understand their enthusiasm and a appreciate a nice design with innovative ideas.
    However they should let the plane talk and dont be that aggressive in their marketing statements. 80% drag reduction? Compared to what? Any wind tunnel data comparing the plane to a piper cub?
    The plane has plenty to say (factual) and is really overshadowed by unserious/pedant marketing.
    Last edited by berridos; April 30th, 2011 at 04:01 PM.

  9. #9
    Registered User Voyeurger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northern Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Posts
    658

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    Berridos,
    I agree that, based on history, lofty claims are off-putting. BUT, the unfortunate reality is, that they need investors. Imagine putting everything you've got and ALMOST being there, and needing just a few more things ($10 or $20K). Their marketing, I believe, is only to lure investors, and involuntary. And likely as repugnant to them as it is to you.
    Regards,
    Gary
    Voyeurger
    "Spitting In The Eye of Doubt"

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southern Spain
    Posts
    214

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    I admire everyone's endeavour for pursuing precision. His words are at least backed by hard work. I see a thinking work, a built shop background and these are just not theories.

    I'd be interested in listening to his model flying with zero power or idled.

  11. #11
    Registered User Synergy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kalispell, MT USA
    Posts
    294

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    Hi everyone. Thanks for your comments. Just a clarification, the video was a mandantory requirement of all competitors in the GFC back in August, and both EAA and CAFE Foundation requested permission to use it because they liked what we said and did in it. We had to say no for many months, and there are things about it that we don't like outside of their original (limited) context. But it is better than anything else we have right now.

    I think if I understand Topaz correctly, everything is marketing, but there is nothing for sale here. I am just trying to build a cool airplane based on some things I've spent a long time refining. I already know that cool airplanes are what we all like, and if this all works out we'll get to earn a living from it. That's the dream, anyway. It's harder than most of us are willing to find out.

    Thanks again guys. I get back to work Monday so if anyone wants to interact with me now is a pretty good time (after my nap, anyway. 21 hour day yesterday, four hours sleep).
    Viscosity is a bullwhip.

  12. #12
    Registered User Voyeurger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northern Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Posts
    658

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    Quote Originally Posted by Synergy View Post
    Hi everyone. Thanks for your comments. Just a clarification, the video was a mandantory requirement of all competitors in the GFC back in August, and both EAA and CAFE Foundation requested permission to use it because they liked what we said and did in it. We had to say no for many months, and there are things about it that we don't like outside of their original (limited) context. But it is better than anything else we have right now.

    I think if I understand Topaz correctly, everything is marketing, but there is nothing for sale here. I am just trying to build a cool airplane based on some things I've spent a long time refining. I already know that cool airplanes are what we all like, and if this all works out we'll get to earn a living from it. That's the dream, anyway. It's harder than most of us are willing to find out.

    Thanks again guys. I get back to work Monday so if anyone wants to interact with me now is a pretty good time (after my nap, anyway. 21 hour day yesterday, four hours sleep).
    Heck yeah I want to interact with you! I just got in, so I'm a little late.

    John, seriously, how far away is first flight? Have you installed that hot new diesel (Deltahawk?) in it yet? All made up and being assembled? Please don't give me the old 90% saw. 30,60,90 days? Where's final construction and taxi tests to be done?
    If you will answer any 3 of the 5 questions above, I would be very happy.
    Thanks,
    Gary
    Voyeurger
    "Spitting In The Eye of Doubt"

  13. #13
    Registered User Synergy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kalispell, MT USA
    Posts
    294

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    Quote Originally Posted by Voyeurger View Post
    Heck yeah I want to interact with you! I just got in, so I'm a little late.

    John, seriously, how far away is first flight? Have you installed that hot new diesel (Deltahawk?) in it yet? All made up and being assembled? Please don't give me the old 90% saw. 30,60,90 days? Where's final construction and taxi tests to be done?
    If you will answer any 3 of the 5 questions above, I would be very happy.
    Thanks,
    Gary
    1. six weeks
    2. No
    3. No
    4. KGPI

    Count again, Gary!

    OK, people, completing this project on someone else's schedule utterly depends upon being able to fund it. We are 100% committed to completion and it's presently worth $24,000 a day to us to do so. Without some tiny fraction of that being available in advance, we will all just have to wait. This is FYI because I have been on the record about this need from the start, and anyone who wants to get on my case about the schedule ought to at least have bought a T-shirt to ask.
    Viscosity is a bullwhip.

  14. #14
    Registered User berridos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    madrid
    Posts
    699

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    My subjective opinion:
    I would have tried to do the wing tips rounder to reduce the interference between the horizontal and vertical surfaces.

  15. #15
    Moderator autoreply's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Posts
    7,650

    Re: Synergy Aircraft

    Quote Originally Posted by berridos View Post
    I was just kidding. (still remeber the old thread)
    I understand their enthusiasm and a appreciate a nice design with innovative ideas.
    However they should let the plane talk and dont be that aggressive in their marketing statements. 80% drag reduction? Compared to what? Any wind tunnel data comparing the plane to a piper cub?
    The plane has plenty to say (factual) and is really overshadowed by unserious/pedant marketing.
    I think there's a cultural background in that too. US marketing is vastly different from what we see here and honestly, if I'm looking at the ads of Cirrus or Lancair, I get the same feeling.
    Yepz, those 80% seems implausible (if you "benchmark" against a Cirrus 22 for example). But let's face it. This is one of the very few places on the internet where we can actually talk about design and where everything, different then a spamcan isn't immediately rejected or laughed at. It looks like most people (pilots) lack the knowledge, the interest or an understanding about actual aircraft design. Thus, it's not necessarily unwise not to talk too much about that, simply because the big majority is more interested in other things he does discuss.



    Regarding the design; I like it. Some criticism:
    *Retractable landing gear? I think many have made (and proven) a good case for welded-down landing gears. Lots cheaper to develop too I would think, not to speak of insurance for pilots.
    *The tail. I follow (or think I follow) the reasoning behind a "fat pod" and a Prandtl wing, but I would suppose that a continued upper "wing" has lower drag and weight, compared to this configuration and a structural advantage too. Is that correct?
    Last edited by autoreply; May 1st, 2011 at 09:25 AM.
    Aude somniare

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 48 123456711 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts