dsigned
Well-Known Member
Since the OST thread is gigantic, I thought I would start a derivative thread to discuss some of the sub-topics that had been brought up along the way:
First, we are talking about the AMERICAN market (which is not a knock against the Europeans, or anyone else, you are our model, and I think part of my goal is to try and replicate the success of European gliding stateside).
With that in mind, I'm going to do a (hopefully) brief summary of the desires of the American consumer that may differ from our European brethren:
1) Americans want to go places. Flying for an American is as much a way to get from point a to point b as it is to just "fly". Ergo, flying around in a circle is less appealing than flying as far as possible. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the US has (especially once you're outside of city limits), much more "space" than Europe.
2) Americans want to do it all by themselves. I'm not sure the "why" here is necessarily worth exploring fully, but suffice to say that autonomy is a plus for the American consumer
3) Americans value their time. I don't think it's necessarily that Americans don't have free time (although I think that is true for a lot of us as well). But in working a salaried job in the US, you're quite often working significantly over 40 hours a week, and get maybe 2 weeks vacation. Spending a lot of time setting up or volunteering makes the sport less attractive.
4) Storage. I think this relates to #2, but the smaller the space the aircraft occupies when not in use, the better. And, yes, this pretty much conflicts directly with number 3.
With this in mind, I'd like to return to the overall goals of the "trainer":
I think storage, autonomy and setup time are all addressed by paramotors. I'm not sure if this is a sport that's growing in the US, but I would not be shocked to learn that it was. It doesn't require a trailer (storage), it's relatively quick to set up (time) and build (zero), and it can all be done solo (autonomy). The issues with them are scaling (controls don't translate to other aircraft, speed and range aren't likely to improve significantly without switching to another type).
I think the next simplest is a weight shift trike, with a semi-rigid wing that can be assembled and disassembled relatively quickly. In theory, this too can be transported in a small van or large SUV (no trailer needed).
The next step up is right about where I think one of our sweet spots is. Same as the weight shift trike, but with a rigid wing and traditional controls. This is similar to where the GOAT, the EMG-6 and some of the other suggestions that were mentioned fell. I would note that Peter Sripol's mk II Pupper is also roughly in this category.
Sketch of two possibilities:
Trike with a conventional tail
Trike with Swift-style wing
The general inspiration.
Here's a few areas where I would differ from current efforts:
1) "Rutan" molded wing with foam CNC/hotwired. Make it easy to build.
2) Motorcycle fuel injected, electric start engine (250cc four stroke). Something similar to this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-Yamah...473124?hash=item1a355d8d24:g:TJUAAOSwKytZKy9r
3) Here's the "crazy" one: Electric controls. This is likely also negotiable, but for me (I'm nearly 33), I trust good quality electric servos much more than I trust wires. I've worked with enterprise class servers, cars and motorcycles, and no one in their right mind uses cables to actuate anything they care about. Lots of people use servos. Reliability is a function of build quality and engineering to the environment. That is to say, I'm not suggesting using R/C servos. One of the major upsides to this is that it makes it possible to test the plane remotely, as if it were a giant R/C plane. This one probably ought to have an asterisk for *Optional as I expect the old guard and the FAA make take issue with this approach. That said, I hate the idea of cables for flight control. Too many points of failure, too many modes of failure.
4) As many "off the shelf" non-aviation parts as possible.
5) Iterate and build. The idea with building cheaply and quickly isn't only to lower the barriers to entry, but also to allow a relatively rapid iteration and to try out as many different designs as is practical.
First, we are talking about the AMERICAN market (which is not a knock against the Europeans, or anyone else, you are our model, and I think part of my goal is to try and replicate the success of European gliding stateside).
With that in mind, I'm going to do a (hopefully) brief summary of the desires of the American consumer that may differ from our European brethren:
1) Americans want to go places. Flying for an American is as much a way to get from point a to point b as it is to just "fly". Ergo, flying around in a circle is less appealing than flying as far as possible. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the US has (especially once you're outside of city limits), much more "space" than Europe.
2) Americans want to do it all by themselves. I'm not sure the "why" here is necessarily worth exploring fully, but suffice to say that autonomy is a plus for the American consumer
3) Americans value their time. I don't think it's necessarily that Americans don't have free time (although I think that is true for a lot of us as well). But in working a salaried job in the US, you're quite often working significantly over 40 hours a week, and get maybe 2 weeks vacation. Spending a lot of time setting up or volunteering makes the sport less attractive.
4) Storage. I think this relates to #2, but the smaller the space the aircraft occupies when not in use, the better. And, yes, this pretty much conflicts directly with number 3.
With this in mind, I'd like to return to the overall goals of the "trainer":
I think storage, autonomy and setup time are all addressed by paramotors. I'm not sure if this is a sport that's growing in the US, but I would not be shocked to learn that it was. It doesn't require a trailer (storage), it's relatively quick to set up (time) and build (zero), and it can all be done solo (autonomy). The issues with them are scaling (controls don't translate to other aircraft, speed and range aren't likely to improve significantly without switching to another type).
I think the next simplest is a weight shift trike, with a semi-rigid wing that can be assembled and disassembled relatively quickly. In theory, this too can be transported in a small van or large SUV (no trailer needed).
The next step up is right about where I think one of our sweet spots is. Same as the weight shift trike, but with a rigid wing and traditional controls. This is similar to where the GOAT, the EMG-6 and some of the other suggestions that were mentioned fell. I would note that Peter Sripol's mk II Pupper is also roughly in this category.
Sketch of two possibilities:
Trike with a conventional tail
Trike with Swift-style wing
The general inspiration.
Here's a few areas where I would differ from current efforts:
1) "Rutan" molded wing with foam CNC/hotwired. Make it easy to build.
2) Motorcycle fuel injected, electric start engine (250cc four stroke). Something similar to this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-Yamah...473124?hash=item1a355d8d24:g:TJUAAOSwKytZKy9r
3) Here's the "crazy" one: Electric controls. This is likely also negotiable, but for me (I'm nearly 33), I trust good quality electric servos much more than I trust wires. I've worked with enterprise class servers, cars and motorcycles, and no one in their right mind uses cables to actuate anything they care about. Lots of people use servos. Reliability is a function of build quality and engineering to the environment. That is to say, I'm not suggesting using R/C servos. One of the major upsides to this is that it makes it possible to test the plane remotely, as if it were a giant R/C plane. This one probably ought to have an asterisk for *Optional as I expect the old guard and the FAA make take issue with this approach. That said, I hate the idea of cables for flight control. Too many points of failure, too many modes of failure.
4) As many "off the shelf" non-aviation parts as possible.
5) Iterate and build. The idea with building cheaply and quickly isn't only to lower the barriers to entry, but also to allow a relatively rapid iteration and to try out as many different designs as is practical.
