Closed Thread
Page 55 of 109 FirstFirst ... 5454950515253545556575859606165105 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 825 of 1632
Like Tree122Likes

Thread: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

  1. #811
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,320

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    Henryk,

    I just got off the phone with Paul Weston, the Sea-Era designer.

    Turns out Paul knew Kasper from the late 1970's to two years before Kasper died. Paul actually first learned to fly RC models with a Kasper model that Paul built from Kasper's design. Kasper, I think, ask Paul to build a scale model for Kasper. Paul learned about vortex from Kasper and use to visit Kasper every month to talk about aero. Paul's designs uses vortex lift in part because of Kasper's influence. Paul knew about the black AL airplane that crashed and the white composite...

    Paul tried to get Kasper to use scale models and said that it would have helped with the two airplanes that crashed. Paul built some other model for Kasper and it did not fly well. Paul said that Kasper had a lot of good ideas, but some of them were not totally figured out. Kasper claimed, for example, that a round wing would be lighter than a flat wing...??? Paul thought he was an interesting guy and enjoyed working with him. Paul was not so sure about using the Kasper wing for my roadable.

    So, I got an inside scoop on the Kasper wing and the aerodynamics from Paul. Interesting conversation...2hrs. Small world...

    Happy new year.

    Holden

  2. #812
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,320

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    Quote Originally Posted by Aircar View Post
    Welcome back - I have just read the posts since my last a few days ago and have still to catch my breath before wading in again . It is high summer here and not dark till 9.00pm and I have been working extending my workshop till dark each day and pretty much buggered thereafter --much of the discussion is interesting in itself and needs detailed teasing apart on each issue but a couple of recalled points :- the in line landing gear is certainly advantageous (see 'Australian Opal etc' thread for photos of both my earlier aircraft which each had centreline gear - and the rhomboidal road configuration (the 1907 Sunbeam Mabley being first in production to use it ) the Yugoslav Pevnic and some others as prototypes . I have built several bicycle type rhomboids --all is not sweetness and light though so be prepared for some learning experiences.

    The other theme coming through is about freewings (and even combined with putative vortex lift) --the experience of Dan Zuck with the freewing Planemobile was described much earlier -it was unstable in roll amongst other things and the much awarded Freewing company has dissappeared without trace since winning the Discover magazine new technology award for plagiarizing Zuck et al and 'revolutionizing' aviation . It is intuitive to raise the nose on landing and can be confusing to have no change of AoA with speed (the Mignet types drop their rear end as speed decreases despite the all flying front wing /pseudo Spratt . Rudy Paspa solved the freewing problem by having a free wing plus tail which is really a sort of servo set up. Holden, your new engine sounds great but don't count your chickens until they hatch - at least design for what is at hand and that goes for props as well (gear change props have been tested as early as the 1920s --the single bladed Everell has the sort of self adjusting feature you describe --most definitely the noise problem HAS to be solved but it has been shown already by NACA tests on a converted Stinson with a five blade prop and the better known YO3A Vietnam surveillance aircraft (co designed by Irv Culver at Lockheed ) -reducing the power NEEDED at low speed and climb is the starting point .
    Any form of powered lift is fraught with danger -even slipstream blowing , as it works well until it doesn't and then all sorts of complications happen at once (lift loss.trim. and climb for starters ) plan for power failure.

    have to catch up on lost sleep for now.

    Happy new Year to all (we beat you guys to it ..) and keep designing .
    Aircar,

    Please share your experience with rhomboidal configurations. What did you try, what did not work and what did work. Maybe you can save me a lot of wasted time... Maybe what I have in mind is new (doubt it). I am all ears...

    I agree with the freewing comment. I might be doing something like Paspa, but I don't know exactly what that is.

    My new engine is just a concept I worked on. I don't count it now, I just mention what I think is possible. Yes, I am working on the roadable with a piston crank in mind that is already off the shelf. As for the prop, yes, the first 200 hrs will be with a basic prop and as basic as possible to prove out the airframe. I like to make sure I can add it in if and when needed.

    I don't use powered lift, only power decent as an option. I agree that a power lift "requirement" is not good. A helicopter "dead man zone" is what I avoid. I would use power on landings mostly and be able to recover if the power fails. On takeoff, 50 ft acceleration, rotate and gone. Like a super cub, just with 2x top speed. Nothing that special. I have the momentum before I leave the ground. Yes, it is fraught with danger.

    Yes, if blowing quits then lift loss, and this needs to be considered. I want to be able to add in these to improve performance without starting from scratch.

    My goal now is to see the end game and then lay out a good design that can be built on. Nothing is fixed in stone. I am trying to build off my experience with the Sea-Era high wing and move beyond that.

    I spoke with Paul Weston, the Sea-Era designer tonight and he was not interested in a roadable...too much of a mountain to climb, regulations. He is 86 years old too... He is doing a delta (no added square wing) 2 place design (sent me a drawing) that can be towed down the road without a trailer, unlike the ICON. 19 ft long, 8 wide. The idea is to land and then you can have the local person pick you up and then tow the airplane to the destination where it is parked. The nose has a hitch that plugs into the delta and the delta wings fold like a Terrafugia does. This way you don't need a trailer when you are out far away. This is why an ICON makes no sense to me. What do you do when you land somewhere? Leave it at the lake? Drive back 1000 miles and pick up the trailer? Makes no sense. Paul's concept at least voids the trailer.

    Happy new year.

    Holden
    Last edited by Holden; December 31st, 2012 at 02:29 AM.

  3. #813
    Registered User oriol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain.
    Posts
    472

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    Hi everyone!

    Good news to know, Aircarīs back!


    Some threads back Holden linked a web discussing corrosion and other issues related to Jim Bedeīs old design the litestar.
    I was very surprised to see the vehicle naked (without fairing), It seemed very poorly designed.

    Anyway, there are some aspects of the design I like. Itīs an intermediate concept between aircraft and roadable, when people see the vehicle they inmediately think of an airplane naturally. The inmediate question would be does it fly? Because the thing looks like a natural flying creature.
    I guess people when driving would feel a kind of flying temptation.
    Itīs sad no one tried to make the Litestar aerial.

    One other interesting aspect is that it seems legally the Litestar is considered a motorbike. Despite having four wheels only three wheels touch the ground at once.

    Notice how similar the litestar and the BD5 are.



    Pictures 4 and 5 another intersting concept of three wheel vehicle different from the trike configuration: the sidecar concept.
    Although the sidecar in this pictures is not intended for aerial purposes it might serve as inspiration. Cheap and simple solution, sort of parasite solution or russian dolls like.
    The sidecar might be attached to the moto or not. While for roadable use it can increase the volume of the moto. It can also hold a specific aviation engine, to avoid the burden for the pilot to remove a heavy weight and install it by himself alone each time he wishes to fly.

    Just an idea Iīm not saying that this is the best solution for a roadable aircraft.

    More on sidecar possibilities (pictures 6 and 7)
    Snaefell Laverda Sidecar Project


    Aircar mentioned a previous thread ("Australian Opal") in there I saw the picture of a tandem wing airplane the stiletto. What an interesting configuration with such small wings! They look easy to remove and to store, ideal for a roadable solution where you have to remove/fold the wings!


    Oriol

    Roadable Aircraft DESIGN-1985-pulse2.jpgRoadable Aircraft DESIGN-bljet1.jpgRoadable Aircraft DESIGN-pulse.jpg
    Roadable Aircraft DESIGN-25646504cad5.jpgRoadable Aircraft DESIGN-6b9550119720.jpgRoadable Aircraft DESIGN-snaefell.jpgRoadable Aircraft DESIGN-snaefell2.jpg
    Last edited by oriol; December 31st, 2012 at 11:40 AM.

  4. #814
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    krakow,poland
    Posts
    2,441

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    http://koendu.pl/doc/MOCK-UP%20Model%20Company.pdf

    Scale Soaring Forum - BKB-1 BUILD

    1/3 scale BKB-1 - RC Groups


    epp-fun

    =at the paper end=VIDEO with flying modell \it is no BEKAS,but BKB-1 model\!

    -I have only this data with models...

    Holden! can yoy ask Mr Weston for some photos and moore data?

    I wont wish Him the best healthe and Happy New Year !

    BKB PaperGlider

  5. #815
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    krakow,poland
    Posts
    2,441

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    -some modifications \free-single surface wing controll,forvard wheel suspension=paralel movement\

    Roadable Aircraft DESIGN-bowden-046.jpg

  6. #816
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,320

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    Henryk,

    I don't know if Paul has "data" per se. He still has an old RC model of the Kasperwing which he modified a lot to get to fly better. Paul said that Mr. Kasper was an excellent pilot and could fly the glider BACKWARDS in the air. Amazing!

    Paul told me he thinks people followed what Kasper said because he could do such amazing things with the glider, but when it came to larger and heavier airplanes both crashed for out of CG issues, which makes you wonder. The wing loading on the glider is very low and once the loading goes up, it may not work as well, speculates Paul. When you build models and fly them low weight they can often fly well, and it is not until the model is flow at true scale weight do the real flaws of the design come out. This is what Kasper should have done. Hat Kasper taken the time to do engineered scale models he might have been successful with his larger airplane, according to Paul. I agree with Paul...

    Was the Mock up model of the large airplane? Maybe Kasper did do a model. I don't think Paul was in the loop and only did a model himself of the design. Paul knew the two partners (Peder Ping?...other guy?) who were killed in a Cessna.

    I think Kasper inspired Paul to learn aerodynamics and Paul later developed his own concepts, which still use vortex lift, but they don't follow Kasper's designs.

    Paul kind of got me going into aero study and taught me about RC modeling and the experimental way to design as opposed to calculations. Both are needed as I see it. I use predictive models based on wind tunnel data, but Paul prefers to believe only the RC model. I think both can be helpful.

    On of the reasons I did not finish the high wing is that my tunnel data model showed some issues I thought needed changing, but Paul did not agree. I was not willing to invest any more of my cash at that point and I stop the prototype build. I interpreted the RC model flight characteristic differently than what Paul believed after I could see into the dynamics via the stability cl-cm plot model based on the tunnel data. I think my approach is correct and had Kasper done the full RC and wind tunnel tests with an accurate model, he might have been successful and not crashed, IMHO.

    The forward wheel is an issue I have looked at. As I see it, it needs to not be in the way of forward down visibility. I sit on the wheel in the front seat... and the nose goes forward about 4-5 feet.

    Holden
    Last edited by Holden; December 31st, 2012 at 02:43 PM.

  7. #817
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    krakow,poland
    Posts
    2,441

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    -60 years old Witold Kasper and his frend All Willson are making series of many tumbles \forward and backward\ and halfloops with circa 2m radii !!!

    http://www.eaa55.org/Wingtips/wingtips2006/SEP 06 Wingtips.pdf

    =see page3.

    https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...ng/I41AuqnabvQ

    http://www.samolotypolskie.pl/samolo...sprzyk-Witold2

    =at 37,38,39 and 47 he was Soaring Champion of Poland.

    it is old video \from phototape\ with them...and many witnesses tolks.

    -concerning to yours concept=two mases \fuselage and wing with motor\ multiplayed
    by distance between them give greate inertia momentum \m*r^2\=iff aerodamphing is not anoth=it is possible to fall in autorotation mode!!!

    -after forward wheel hoovercraft suit is placed \curved line\...wheel box is eng,before measuremant table.
    not so bad visibility!
    and I have not another place for retracting wheel...
    \compromisses\.

    PS=another Deep Stall comment=
    http://books.google.pl/books?id=vldb...epage&q=witold kasper&f=false

    =and tumbling=
    http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-212216.html

    http://www.hgfa.asn.au/resources/Gra...Resistance.PDF


    http://www.acsol.net/~nmasters/vortex-lift/saab.html

    =vortex
    Last edited by henryk; December 31st, 2012 at 06:13 PM.

  8. #818
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    krakow,poland
    Posts
    2,441

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    Hang Gliding fun - YouTube

    -Mr Holden=aspatially for you for New Year !

    \separated wing and fuselage,very cheep\...

  9. #819
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,604

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    Welcome to 2013 - maybe it will be lucky for roadable airplanes..

    It is hard to know where to start to catch up on this thread -- I made some notes that are out of order now but in any case will cover a few points .

    The emphasis on the "Kasper type" vortex lift airfoil (wing) needs to be tempered a bit in my view - I studied vortex lift via the literature and some smoke tunnel work in the 80s and concluded that the Kasper flow structure doesn't correspond to reality . SAAB did a very thorough wind tunnel investigation (including correspondence with Kasper) and could not establish the flow pattern he postulated . SAAB virtually 'wrote the book' on separated flow high lift and their report should not be overlooked or dismissed easily. Recently work on investigating the flow around straked wings (leading edge root extensions of delta shape) from the F5 and F18 to the Rutan Ezes and clones has shown the conditions under which useful vortex lift can be counted on and they are very restricted -- the presence of a forebody is essential for example and the knife edged LERX and even a vent for Boundary layers etc etc (retro removed on the F 17/18 after wing rock and the vortex shedding and tail shake issue -in which I was very peripherally involved via the tail shake test rig at DSTO . Anyway, the presupposed vortex lift failed to materialize on the Ezes despite extreme high AoA ground rig testing --I had to allow for the local Cl's in proof loading the Stiletto and found the very low lift slope curve negated any hope of vortex lift .
    (the outer wings have stalled long before the delta effect can come into play --even with the upwash field from the canard on outboard panels )


    I would just caution about relying on what are experimental and not conventionally proven lift mechanisms --maybe the oscillating leading flap device can enhance lift to a very high degree as hoped also but the effects of trim,pitching moments, assymetric reaction to gusts, roll control and things like noise NEED to be answered before launching into detail design . The failure of the Zuck Planemobile for overlooked but really basic causes is a salient lesson --I spent one day and a night with Dan and only after showing me the 'remains' of the planemobile nest morning did he 'confess' to the basic flaw and this is highlighted in his unsold copies of "an airplane in every garage" as an addenda in the flyleaf ( I posted the NACA reports that revealed the instability previously and could do again if needed )

    We need to address the fundamentals with design for roadability before hanging everything on miracle concepts (which should have made their appearence in non roadables already if not actually new )

    I hate to play "cassandra" in this thread especially but see the need to stand back and reassess some of the underlying assumptions and principles . That is just a general observation - I'll try to work back through posts by number with specific comments -also to complete the assessment of the Carplane feasibility and several other topics not completed before the recent blizzard of postings (apologies to Henryk for the use of that word -- how do the climate catastrophists ever get an "average' temperature for a whole planet ? +40 here -40 there, average equals ....)

    I'll send short posts as I don't trust my connection (or telco-Optus)....

  10. #820
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,604

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    I lost two posts earlier today and gave up in disgust --this will be a very abbreviated third attempt -#785 shows a flow pattern that doesn't happen (reverse flow vorticies under an undercambered thin airfoil ) Lawrence Hargreave mistakenly thought that this is what occurred on bird's wings -in the 1890s .

    #783 - interesting Russian roadables - need more details (Henryk?...) one looks very much like a Texas flying car built by two retirees -it is on Roadable Times and a later version was forwarded to me for comment by a consulting engineer engaged by them ( I think the non disclosure period has expired but will check ) -it had no wing tip clearence from the retraction into the lower door sills and aggravated by sweep .

    #793 -the continuous power and peak power versus BSFC and load can be matched also by shutting down some cylinders (as was popular a few years back for cars ) - ATOL overcomes all the mismatches and other issues.

    Rhomboidal wheel layout - TRY adding 'training wheels' to your bicycle and see how it goes ; banking is essential and the relative stiffness of the four wheels is critical to handling - proportional Ackerman steering of the mid wheels and spin up are essentials but many patented systems like the carver using acceleration sensors and tilt control by electronics are seemingly needed (a bit like the Segway set up --complex feedbacks to 'seem' natural..... Morelli wrote a good paper about it.

    sending

  11. #821
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,604

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    just a brief note on carplane ( a lot of my very much earlier assessment of the Rutan BiPod applies equally --I actually informed john Brown of the existence of the BiPod (and I in turn was given information from a friend in the record recumbent bicycle communnitty who was involved with the BiPod -which is basically two record type velomobiles with added tailbooms and wings . Incidentally also I posted photos of my 1983 sidecar using the Stiletto pod molding and which I investigated as a potential configuration which was roadable but single seat in the first iteration using the standard road bike --the wings being carried between the motorcycle and sidecar and the bike left at the take off place . Later versions would have had two Stiletto pods and two seats airborne and on road --the moment of inertia in roll and yaw is enough to write off such "bi' configurations unless you just want straight and level flight ..

    Posting some pictures of the Carplane here would help others follow the critique (Holden-can do?...)

    The same drawbacks of separated pods on yawing inertia apply and don't inspire much confidence for spinning or unspinning and lethargic roll etc --with the Carplane there is just about NOTHING left to attach the pods to the wing after the complete area behind the pilot is cut out to permit the wings to swing through for rigging --I mean NOTHING . But for the canopies on the models it would fall apart and when the crash loads and just normal forces from the heavy central engine and the effect of road bumps and turning forces are considered there is just not enough load path available to make it a viable structure ;- add to that the fact that the main bulkhead has to be penetrated by the "tuningforks' that support the tailbooms (the bifuricated tailboom that is itself also not a structure and requires some sort of clamping or toothed or friction arrangement to even convey loads ) -thus there cannot be any solid diaphragm or web or even truss structure in this critical area. The rear end of the tail booms where they connect to the tail also has zero end fixity because of the telescoping and stowed wing set up --the booms are ultra spindly already and would be an ideal flutter demonstration device . The front canard is there to try to tie the separate pods together but demands also to be loaded for avoiding instability which brings forward the Cg and accentuates the mislocation of the main wheels (the strange external 'drive shaft' going to mid canard from the engine pod is a misconceived attempt to brace the engine but was once also meant to drive the front wheels although there is no way to allow steering and suspension . The complexity of the rigging system is itself a warning to others of the need to reassess things at various stages of design and be self critical as regards feasibilities -- scrapping bad ideas and starting again when something unworkable is found is par for the course and the mark of design integrity -- falling in love with some pet idea and ploughing on when there is no hope is a real trap for inventor.designers .

  12. #822
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    krakow,poland
    Posts
    2,441

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    "#783 - interesting Russian roadables - need more details (Henryk?...)"

    -this construction was examinated on the ground and water+only one fly test...
    very good solution for roadables=FREEwing \no problems with CG \

    -in fly=problems with motor \MERCEDES\...
    =very high TO speed =120 km/h...\danger\
    =no finansial sources for continuation!

    BTW
    =clean NACA 8-H-12 airfoil was good proved on the BKB and BEKAS tailless gliders!
    \"vortex augmented lift" too\.
    =single surface NACA 8-H-12 and WORTMAN FX 08-H-126 are many times prooved on the KASPERWING \"mush regime"\.

  13. #823
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,604

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    Holden, you have elaborated on the desirability of water operability and in that I concur for any real recreational aircraft (although you CAN drive to the water's edge in a roadable at the least unlike being confined to the hot tarmac of an airport on a summer's day --nobody 'flocks' to the local airstrip on a really hot day (glider pilots excepted ..) but usually thinks about going to the beach or a lake or riverside if at all possible. Carplane's patent claims amphibian ability and has some sort of inflated ,lower hull side, airbags that are supposed to give a hydrodynamic 'float pair' with some sort of arrangement to 'fill in' the huge gaps where the front and rear wheels are -good luck with that . (inflated floats are well known for ultralights and lightplanes but are sophisticated pneumatic structures using tension fields to convey forces and give fair shapes . It is these sort of effectively unworkable 'design details' that make or break many possibly plausible proposals . The cramped cockpits of the Carplane neccesitate bulges for the elbows yet the overall width is that of a motorhome --a sort of 'reverse Tardis' (big on the outside but tiny on the inside ) and lacks ANY utility to carry anything more than a pocket handkerchief --or some weird things like skis or golf clubs that are long thin shapes that can be crammed into the ends of the wings (as Rutan also featured for his BiPod ) --the internal winches and actuating arms that have to emerge from within the wing and then hopefully lie flat after everything is in place are prone to not functioning as hoped and similar things on gliders (eg divebrake caps ) need carefull setting and adjustment in practice --design simplicity is lacking and the elegance of a tolerant and straightforward conversion system is one of the real challenges for automatic (non manual) rigging . John has correctly in my view opted to avoid needing the pilot to get out and manhandle things before and after flight but I would expect a lot of trouble from things as simple as non level ground throwing out alignments and wind and rain,dust etc to foul things up . Time will tell as with everything else but experience with decades of rigging sailplanes does not bode well for the system he proposes . The control actuation both to the ailerons and the tail surfaces cannot but be very complicated given the plunging and translational motions and the difficult possible control paths --the Terrafugia is extremely simple in comparison for example (and the first thin wing was noticeably floppy during extension .

    send

  14. #824
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,604

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    It will be noticed also that there is nothing shown to replace the huge chunk of fuselage that needs to be out of the way to allow the wings to swing through during extension --when I built the models (one fully rigged in 'flight' mode and another in the folded and stowed 'road' mode ) I asked John for some detail as to what to do about this but got no response --I also 'beefed up' the toothpick like tailbooms just to make it look more feasible (with square section brass booms, as per his renderings, INSIDE the oval aluminium over tubes that could be removed if he wanted to really show them so spindly ) His website drawings were contradictory and showed much more space between booms on some variants (the minimum cockpit width is about two feet but some views had four widths between the pods ) his extremely critical comments about Rutan's BiPod (repeated on his website now and in emails posted by EAA and the CAFE group included the 'scam' of Rutan's CAD drawings showing the wing penetrating the carry through when stowed (by millimetres..) which was hypocritical in the extreme. The exchange was, as I said, like two bald men fighting over a comb in that BOTH designs were fatally flawed and shared many of the same basic faults. Rutan was restrained despite John's immodest language but did advise him of how bad his propeller location was for creating excessive noise (see the CAFE and EAA links still up )

    Many other shortcomings are embodied and overall it is an airport to airport conventional flying machine at best so has no hope of any breakthrough use or market but.likeso many others in this field, doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good spiel.

  15. #825
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,604

    Re: Roadable Aircraft DESIGN

    Henryk -just saw your response thanks, I'll find the SAAB and other vortex lift links and post them here (there are many papers on the transient lift of plunging airfoils usually to do with rotor blade flapping and involving vortex formation --and less rigorous examinations of anomalous high lift in unsteady aerodynamics at very low ReNos for insects and birds or the use on overpowered fighters where efficiency is not too important but I haven't seen any actual validation of sustained high lift at reasonable L/D which would be game changing if proven. We live in hope of some really fundamental breakthroughs but so far we seem to be still stuck with the multi slotted flaps and slats as the best option -higher Cls will benefit roadability much more than regular aircraft from the packaging and volumetric Cl term (lift per cubic foot of wing rather than just square foot,metre etc ) Strangely, few roadables have even proposed using the established high Cl devices and most have not even featured plain flaps --much room to improve without miracle technology .

Closed Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Roadable aircraft
    By Topaz in forum Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology
    Replies: 615
    Last Post: November 10th, 2013, 02:45 PM
  2. aircraft design
    By scraw in forum General Experimental Aviation Questions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 27th, 2012, 07:35 PM
  3. Need help with new roadable design.
    By StarJar in forum Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: November 15th, 2011, 03:35 AM
  4. DARPA calling for Roadable Aircraft by 2015
    By Jman in forum Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2010, 08:22 AM
  5. Roadable Aircraft
    By George G in forum New Member Introductions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: December 30th, 2003, 06:01 PM

Posting Permissions

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