Extreme STOL/VTOL homebuilt

Holden sounds almost as starry eyed as Moller... and 30 years and millions of investor dollars later, Moller still hasn't changed the world with his "everyman's" flying cars.

It's possible to design a good STOL plane. It's possible to design a fast plane. But try to combine the two and you have a compromise that does neither well. The design requirements are contradictory. Ditto for roadable planes.

As for micro / neighborhood airparks, never happen. People will be screaming about the noise even before it's built, or they'll build a new house right off the departure end of the existing runway and then get the airport shut down because of the noise. It's hard enough way outside of town.

Now, I'm all for progress, and there certainly is room for improvment in current aviation technology, but when you put too many revolutionary ideas into a project, and the project dies because one critical compenent doesn't pan out, the other good ideas get lost.

-Dana

"Makers of oils will assure you their lubricants will last the life of the transmission. This may be true, but that life can be longer if you change the oil."

Lots of interest, that great.

Any discussion about VTOL is likely to include the crackpots and investment fraud schemes such as Moller. I feared that.

That is why I proposed what I think may be a more practical goal, a gradual improvement in increments.

There are plenty of aircraft in the speed range of 28mph and faster. But nothing practical in the speed range of 15 to 28mph. A true hover is not really needed, so why start with a VTOL and fail?

Dave,
I meant, start with an existing light design that is optimised for the purpose of adding lift fans in increments for experimenting. Not an off the shelf ultralight. I agree with you, there would be much use for a super STOL bushplane.
There is plenty of room for innovation, the field is wide open for ideas. Nobody has anything in the speed range of 15 to 28mph.

I need a practical powered lift device. I think the small electric motors might be the best because they are instant on or off. Like the RC giant scale planes are using. But I only need a short burst of power and batteries are not good for that. Maybe ultracapacitors?

This is a project for the future, I need to build the optimised airframe first.
BB

I just love the comments I get from these "homebuilt sights. If a guy states his vision, you piss on him and then pull out the incremental bull crap thing. No development of a discussion. Then they call me some Moller guy even though I fund it all myself and have never asked for ANY funding at all, nor would I accept any if offered. I am one of maybe two (me and who I don't know) on this group who have actually gone through wind tunnels and scale modeling, composite prototype build of an actual new concept that got a patent (rare in Aero), and know very well what it takes, but no, you are all experts. Why state it? I state my vision to gage whether I am on the right track...full steam ahead! Thanks guys.

Hmm.. To get to where I want to go, I can do it in one shot by turning my brain on and using engineering, or I can take 100-200 years to do it in increments, which would require me finding the fountain of perpetual youth first (I have 20-30 years if I am lucky left). This is why people go to engineering school, and those who have not, or don't have a clue how to engineer after getting a degree, turn to increments, taking one step (guess) at a time, which usually leads back to old designs, which is what 99% of EAA types do. Progress is near zero.

Hmmm Jet engine...how long would it have taken to evolve from a piston to a turbo engine? Seeing that one is a batch processor and the other a continuous process...different cycles...flows... Gee...2 maybe three lifetimes? If that bridge could ever be found...Can one of you, just one, map out an incremental path to a turbo jet from a piston crank step by step and estimate the decades it would take if you built each step, tested it, flew it, and "proved" it out, just like you all suggest? Oh, you cannot know a jet engine exists...ah...well, since you know the answer after the fact, and the guy with his brain on who invented the jet engine did not know, you have the answer in front of you. Explain how the jet engine inventor got there with guys like ya all pissing on him, and did it during a war? Oh great men of increments...Please inform me. )))

As for actually answering the BBerson poster's question, it looks like I was the only one who actually did. You want a stol machine...Do what I said. I can build it in one year or less...using a lycoming, Rotax, Hirth (got one of those in my shop just waiting...)...but why waiste my time?

Think of it this way. You want to design a human being. You need a lung, liver, heart, *****, brain, glands, eyes, finger, ****, butt, and on and on. Lets say you want to build it in increments and leave out the heart...what happens? Dead on arrival. To make it live you need the whole package. The same, to a much lesser extent, applies to airplanes. Try to build a car today and leave out airbags...good luck on getting on the road in production.

So, put another way, the mission requirements entails certain things, and without them you will not get to high volume profitable production. According to Wall Street no aero company since the Wright brother has made a profit, except Southwest Airlines. Hmmm. Lots of smart guys, and not one made a real world, non governmental supported profit long term when you figure in real world liabilities (massive). Not Piper, Cessna, Douglas, Boeing, Burtan, Airbus, Vans, Lancair, and on and on. You have your savings and you want to get it right the first time because starting over from bankruptcy (the rule in this industry) makes life less than ideal.

What are those requirements? All I get from you guys is bull and zero adding to the picture, which is in my book about as negative as it gets... But, hey, I am the negative guy for dealing with reality of an industry that is the worst place to put money (zero profit) and only alive because of massive government handouts.

No, I am not looking for a dictatorship, just a clear vision of what needs to happen. By asking, I show respect for your opinions. If you have a better vision, then, please explain it. If your vision is the same as what has happened since 1903, no thanks. It will bankrupt me...and men with 100 times the money I have.

I guess hope runs eternal. After not visiting this group for 4-5 years, I thought there might be someone out there who actually wants to innovate and discuss. My finding is that 99% of EAA guys have zero, in fact, massive dislike for innovations. Nobody in my EAA chapter could care less, except one guy, who crashed his scale model (which I told him would crash), but he still refuses to see a better vision and work with me....

If you happen to know of anybody, let me know. It is like finding a needle in a hay stack...

A thought:

I read years ago, on some experimental high speed research planes, they had a series of holes just aft of the leading edge of the wings to blow compressed air rearward over the wing, thus improving lift for STOL capability. IIRC, they were using the exhaust from the engine (turbine?) as the source.

So what about burying a pipe forward of the main spar, installing small jets in the pipe to direct the compressed air rearward over the wing. The pipe will have to be sized large enough to handle the volume of air needed. The pipe can be stepped, i.e.: large pipe near the root, then progressively smaller toward the wingtip to save weight.

The compressed air can come from a tank sized to provide enough air to accomplish the mission in very short take off and landing. The tank can be recharged either on the ground or while cruising by a compressor driven by the engine via an electric clutch (like the AC in automobiles.)

I see that some light airplanes use tube spars fore and aft with the ribs in between. The forward spar can do double duty as the compressed air pipe to save weight. Or one can use a pipe in place of the strip I see connecting the forward ribs at the leading edge of the wing.

The tank can be aluminum or even fiberglass. One will have to be careful not to exceed the nominal PSI rating of the tank and make sure the tank is large enough to supply the compressed air requirement before falling below a certain pressure point.

The tank could be incorporated as part of the rear fuselage thus saving weight.

Alternatively, use both the exhaust from the engine along with the compressed air to extend the time available for STOL.

Another alternative. Use wastegate equipmented turbochargers driven off the engine exhaust, only instead of turbocharging the engine, use the compressed air over the wings instead. Wastegate is used to turn on/off the effect. I suggest using one turbocharger, or combining the outputs in a dual turbo setup into one common point to insure both wings get the same amount of compressed air.

Or any combination of the above, along with other unspecified ideas.

I can think of many different ways to do this. I expect you guys can come up with the same thinking or more.

Originally Posted by Holden

I just love the comments I get from these "homebuilt sights. If a guy states his vision, you piss on him and then pull out the incremental bull crap thing. No development of a discussion. Then they call me some Moller guy even though I fund it all myself and have never asked for ANY funding at all, nor would I accept any if offered. I am one of maybe two (me and who I don't know) on this group who have actually gone through wind tunnels and scale modeling, composite prototype build of an actual new concept that got a patent (rare in Aero), and know very well what it takes, but no, you are all experts. Why state it? I state my vision to gage whether I am on the right track...full steam ahead! Thanks guys.

<snip>

If you happen to know of anybody, let me know. It is like finding a needle in a hay stack...

Holden, don't give up hope! I saw your post above right after my recent post. I agree, it's easier to criticize than to contribute. I like to think of myself as a maverick thinker too, but I don't say much due to the "naysayers".

I have a few thoughts and ideas also, and I will post them after I work through them a bit.

Keep on posting here Holden.

Not very quiet, but the Jet Pack that is just now mentioned on the EAA site for this Airventure may be very interesting. Last January I had a conversation with the Curator of the EAA museum, he mentioned that it looked like this guy would be at the show this year. OK no big news but; he said if this guy comes he will fly for 30 minutes not 30 seconds! I have been watching and just this week I see it was added to the show line up, so it will be interesting to see if the flight times are for real. Larry

Holden, you are correct in that people are quick to judge... it can be a natural human failing. I also agree that while incremental will eventually get you there and serve most of us well, there is also a place (and need) for quantum advances. As you said, people CAN detach from the normal progression and make quantum leaps (such as Whittle with the jet turbine), or even LARGE incremental changes (such as Rutan with SpaceShip One). I'm sure that Whittle and Rutan had their naysayers, but their actions put value to their words. That being said, your job is to prove that you can do what you say.

As an added defense to our naysayers, the people who do take quantum steps usually do so in secrecy, while the less than qualified (dare I say it... LOONIES) turn out in droves to pitch their far-fetched ideas. It is rare to find someone with a qualified background and proper research (as you say you have) who is willing to go out on that limb and voice their radical ideas. I hope for your sake and ours that your efforts to move from paper to a tangible result don't run into the roadblocks that life likes to place. There is a lot of hard truth to the saying that "it worked on paper".

Now before others jump on me for my LOONIES comment, let me say that I am not referring to someone who throws out their new ideas and designs for our comment. Just because it is different doesn't make you a "loonie". Most of you lay it on the line to get our thoughts and suggestions on how to make it better. I reserve the loonies title for those that come up with an off-the-wall idea with NO knowledge, training or background, yet feel they KNOW all the answers. These people usually have ideas that are so obviously bad, yet they don't hear the pleas of reason by others who are concerned for their safety.

Bruce

Originally Posted by BBerson

There are plenty of aircraft in the speed range of 28mph and faster. But nothing practical in the speed range of 15 to 28 mph.

Hi BBerson,

I think I mentioned this somewhere else in the forum, but I had the opportunity to fly one of the few remaining Stinson L-1's. It is a big, gangly Cub-like airplane (50 foot wings?) with self-actuating slats and a P&W R985. The placard on the instrument panel said "Do not fly below 18 MPH". It truly was a slow and STOL aircraft.

Bruce

Bruce,
How can the Stinson fly that slow? If you do the math, what is the Wing CL?
Can the Stinson land in 25 feet? I think maybe the airspeed indications are not accurate in lots of claims of slow flight. But you flew it, I have not, so I cannot say what is reality until I see it.

Holden,
If you don't like my incremental approach idea, that's OK. I asked for thoughts and I accept that it does not appeal to you. It fits me, perhaps I have more time. I am not interested in starting a business. I have free time and money to chase any project I desire. I think these experiments will be fun.

I strongly agree with your comments about EAA, that is why I am here. Please remember, sometimes comments sound harsh when typed here and that may not be the intent of the posters comments.

WileEZ,
I am not sure if blown wings work at slow speed. I assume direct powered lift with a propeller is still the best way known to produce lift.
BB

I'm sorry... I have to jump in.

Holden, having read this thread, and the other, my problem is not with your ideas, but with your attitude. I didnt see anyone 'piss on you' at the start, and the 'Moller' comment didnt come untill the 'you are obsolete and my way's better' type stuff come out.

You might have a good thing, but with an attitude like yours, it'll never go anywhere.


sorry this thread got hijacked.

Originally Posted by BBerson

How can the Stinson fly that slow? If you do the math, what is the Wing CL?

Big wings, big flaps, full span slats, relatively light weight. Haven't done the math, just flown the plane.

Originally Posted by BBerson

Can the Stinson land in 25 feet?

No. I think it was closer to 30.

Originally Posted by BBerson

I think maybe the airspeed indications are not accurate in lots of claims of slow flight.

I agree, I rarely rely on airspeed indicators in slow-speed nose-high flight. All I know is what the factory placard said. By the way, I was wrong about the motor. It was a Lyc 680 radial, 295 HP.

If you are not familiar with the L-1 Vigilant, it is somewhat similar to the Fiesler Storch, but rounder (guppier?).

Bruce

My "attitude" is born out of working on ideas since 1993 when I first went to Oshkosh, trying to start a seaplane kitplane company, earning that million dollars to do it, doing all the wind tunnel, scale models, stress analysis, aero, mechanical design, landing gear design, and spending my OWN money and do so since 1995 full time.

I am one of the "born-again" EAA'er believers with a Masters degree who thought I could meet like minded open minded guys and become a Rutan of sorts, but with my own design goals that others would get inspired in. I did the composite stuff, invented a new method how to turn the hull into a plug with sandwich construction...and on and on. It all takes time.

I pulled the plug when I sobered up from the dreams and asked some hard questions. I am 100 times harder on myself, and have gone through hundreds of studies in part and full learning something new each time I push the vision envelop.

My first job offer was a stress analyist on the F-18.f I did not take the job because of the government corporate junk I detest, and was also a few years back offered a job on the Dreamliner...

Of course when I figure it all out, fly the machine, people will all want to be part of it. The journey that I find interesting, is where nobody wants to be, and that is the innovation stage, design, scale modeling, where all the fun is, at least for me. They all want big fat pay checks and retirement packages, not an opportunity to go for it...

The key mistake I made 11 years ago when I dove into a kit attempt (notice I had no adds in kitplane, nor have you heard of me, and Holden is not my real name, by the way...I work in secret like you say) was a clear vision and understanding of what was needed and what could realistically be achieved. For example, Rutan has made many great world record attempts, but has never made a production worthy airplane for the average guy that makes airplanes daily useful, like a car is useful. His vision is different than mine, which I respect. I want that flying seaplane car in every garage, Rutan does not care nor believe it is possible.

I have a friend who is making a jet powered airplane that is basically a 2 x 2 x 7 long tapered box with a rounded nose, high wing, tail in back. You lay down on your stomach and this thing goes (CFD predictions of 0.5 s ft flat plate drag) around 260 mph. It is like wearing an airplane. You put it in the back of a car or pick up and drive home. Weight is around 150 lbs empty. Kind of cool. He did a 1/2 scale model and crashed it. I saw it crash. I tried to explain why it crashed and all about doing scale modeling, why he should be the RC guy flying the model and the value of doing the testing yourself and what to look for. (I worked with a guy who has done models for 30 years and he taught me so much). I suggested some changes critical to low end safety and he just ignores me. The airplane crashed for exactly the reason I stated, yet he blows off the hazard and moves on to full scale. He is a "good" engineer, perhaps one of the best I know. There is something about people that limits us. When I did our models for the seaplane we did several models and crashed them and learned each time. I suggested we do the same way until it is right. This guy, however, was too proud to stick with it, even though his own life is on the line... How can one work with someone like that...

I have come to the conclusion that determination is THE most important trait, along with a willingness to put forth idea after idea, then test them, and stick to it. That is what gives me the sensitive attitude. I take 100 ideas, go through them, and then reformulate and combine, and it may take a year before I come full circle. The vision tells me when to stop. Making something simple is much harder than complex, but some functions require a certain level of complexity to perform a task. Look at any PC and you get the idea.

I put out an add to the four local Universities for a job to find someone to help me accelerate my goals. My wife is NOT an engineer, just a good listener, but that goes only so far... I interviewed 4 guys with 3.5+ GPAs, and not one could think out of the box, nor turn his brain on and go to the core of the physics and ask the quality questions. I would have lived on rice and beans just out of college to meet a guy like myself with the goals I have willing to pay me to work with him. I would have worked for free part time at any rate. But, all were worried about retirement, health care, and 401ks...for the love of pete... screw retirement and sitting on the butt...

So, my attitude sucks. I agree. My question is basic. Is my way better, if not, tell me why and lets discuss it. To make an omelet it takes some heat, and mixing things up. I think most people get offended way to easily and want to "have there beliefs" or some PC crap. I feel like I like in a communist PC world, and a stranger in my own country...

<Paragraph deleted by the Administrator due to violation of HBA Code of Conduct #2>

I went to Miramar in San Diego (Navy) and asked 10 questions about all the instruments on all the Air Force's jet and showed that these PC bull crappers have been out of compliance for 50 years. I get written up for stating the obvious. I walk into a bay with the F-15 Altimeter and solve a problem in one day that they have spent several million tax dollars on and I get written up. All the workers are high fiving me. "Dude, we did it!" The shop (fat slob) foreman knew he was screwing us all...he does the attitude thing...tells my boss, I don't want this guy in my shop ever again. Why? Because I like to screw up for years and get away with it. I am told that to save 1 million per year on a small 38 million program would not make a congressman happy...bull crap... We need more guys like me WITH an attitude and willingness to ask the real questions. PC will be the death of us all...

WileEZ, thanks for the brain on session! I like it! I started thinking along the same lines and have the compressed air as part of the engine cycle. The wing is an inter-cooler of sorts to get isothermal-isobaric compression that injects in at 2000 psi, and to give ice protection. It is a pneumatic-hydraulic hybrid of sorts. I started along the same line you just mentioned and it leads to some breakthroughs that I think will get me the 60%++, blown air, boundary layer aid in the cruise (forget laminar, just make it become laminar with blown air off the waste air pressure), and some solar input into the cycle.

Well, thanks for the chat. See ya at Oshkosh some day...in the seaplane section...

Bruce,
From wikapedia, I found the Stinson L-1 has a wing loading of about 8 lbs/ft empty and 10.3 lbs. at gross. I figure the 18mph is at full power at altitude. With 295hp it can hang on the prop.... some airplanes can even hover briefly. But try landing with full power on, that's the problem.
I saw an experimenter fly his "channel wing" powered lift design. He had to cycle the power on and off to land. So the powered lift did not work very well for him. It could not come down with the power on.
BB

Originally Posted by Holden

The key mistake I made 11 years ago when I dove into a kit attempt (notice I had no adds in kitplane, nor have you heard of me, and Holden is not my real name, by the way...I work in secret like you say) was a clear vision and understanding of what was needed and what could realistically be achieved. For example, Rutan has made many great world record attempts, but has never made a production worthy airplane for the average guy that makes airplanes daily useful, like a car is useful. His vision is different than mine, which I respect. I want that flying seaplane car in every garage, Rutan does not care nor believe it is possible.

A flying seaplane car that everyone can afford to buy and afford to fly is great. Sure. Usefulness like an average automobile is, well, useful. But the majority of us don't build and fly our aircraft because of their "usefulness". They are toys to most of us. Cherished and often expensive toys. We do it for the non-quantifiable pleasure of owning and operating a machine that appeals to us, for whatever reason. Logic and usefulness have very little to do with it. A Ford Windstar is useful. Would I drive one for fun or build one from a kit? Hell no. Would a fleet manger for some large corporation like it? Sure. My boss has 1959 Ford truck with a blown 454 with 800 hp in it. Useful? Well, it can haul stuff, but its purpose is the pure pleasure of having built it and driving it around.

Usefulness is commercial pre-requisite. A vital asset if you want to succeed in selling your product to a market that demands it. I just don't think the average EAA member is all that concerned with it.

I choose what to build and fly because it has some kind of visceral appeal to me. There is nothing in my biplane project for example, that couldn't have been done in 1928, and for a lot of us, that is the whole point.

Your criticisms of the lack of progress should not be directed at the average homebuilder and EAA member. We do this stuff for fun, not to satisfy some logically arrived at bottom line. For some of us the fun is in innovation and pushing the technical boundary, for others it's open cockpit vintage aviation. I would certainly like one of your roadable amphibians. But it would be my second airplane.

Having said all that, I can totally understand some of your attitudes. Working in a vacuum is discouraging, but as soon as you put your ideas out there, you open yourself up to ridicule by the armchair experts, who may or may not have the slightest qualifications to pass judgment on your ideas.
At least you have the advantage of being a 'real' engineer and thus some innate respect from others when you talk about a subject in your field. I am strictly an amateur whose engineering knowledge is self-acquired and gleaned from those older 'real' engineers who were happy to share their knowledge with someone who showed an interest. To give an example; I am working on an engine design that is probably neolithic compared to your ideas. I feel it will possess certain advantages, especially as costs and ease of manufacturing are concerned, but it is not going to surpass 40% efficiency. Not by much anyway. But what bothers me is having to work on this thing "in secret", like you mention above. 20 years of people poking largely uniformed fun at one's ideas can be enough to undermine anyone's determination. Which is why it has taken me this long to actually convince myself that my ideas are valid and to take myself seriously. I rarely mention it to anyone these days and not because I feel somebody will steal my ideas. When I have a running prototype mounted on the back of my truck and it has delivered what I intend it to deliver, I will talk about it. I simply had enough of listening to uniformed, unhelpful comments.

As far as PC and attitudes in this forum go: I think politeness goes a long way. I had the pleasure of being called various names in here (quite a while ago) for pointing out some facts of physics regarding a certain airplane design that ran against somebody's opinion. It happens. Ignoring them usually works best.

hrmm..