Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by cluttonfred, May 8, 2011.
Takeoff might be a bit problematic
When I think of a 21st Volksplane, I envision something like the M19 Flying Squirrel, except in CNC cut wood. It's a good looking plane with nice, simple lines. It uses a VW engine, although another engine could be used instead. Just my $0.02.
Maybe we should all hide in the closet with a blanket over our heads?
Oh, wait. Maybe there is a meteor about to crash through the roof.
Speaking only for myself, I was responding to postings by Fritz and others where they were apparently under the impression that my previous point was based on the pilot being squished between the spar and the engine... as the fuselage collapsed in a vertical crash or a horizontal impact into a wall, car, etc.
My previous point was NOT about that scenario.
My point was about (what I believe is a more common) scenario in which the pilot is injured by a a fencepost, rock, tree stump, berm, rut, etc. that the aircraft is sliding into during a (controlled) emergency off-field landing.
I realize full well that not every crash scenario is survivable, and this is greatly affected by aircraft mass, velocity, etc. HOWEVER, I believe the record shows that a lot of fatal or serious injury occurs in crashes that are far less than a "vertical plunge into the ground".
With sincere respects to everyone, having a big heavy part of the airplane (like the wing center section) between the pilot and whatever the aircraft is going to hit, slide over, etc. provides more protection to the pilot than having that heavy/strong structure behind or above the pilot.
Yes I agree that the relationship between crash safety and aircraft configuration deserves a separate thread.
I think that the 21st Volkspane should be like the SSSC in surface areas, weight and power, but if you don't like the Piper J-3 Cub looks, it would be easy to change the looks to something more modern, but for me, I love the looks of the airplanes in the 1930's and 1940's. Cheap 1835 cc, 60 hp engine and the construction changed to Fritz's CNC cut, tongue and slot construction . Easy all wood except for the 4130 steel fittings, landing gear, engine mount and streamline alum wing struts.
wing span -- 30'
wing area-- 120 sq'
EW --- 485 lbs
GW--- 810 lbs
Fuselage width -- 24" (could easy be 25/26" wide )
...quick, ....before Matthew shows up and runs us off
Nobody, ever, said anything about a "vertical plunge into the ground". The discussion is weather or not a shoulder wing, pilot in front of the spar, airplane is any more dangerous than any other airplane. Show me one example in the last 100 years where this wing configuration contributed to a pilot/pax injury. I luvya brother but the windmill your tilting at isn't in the NTSB record. I think your trying to make a tempest out of a bunny fart
...gotta run, I think I hear Matthew coming
EDIT: P.S. I think this post is on topic. The 'Lark' is a solid candidate for a VP-21 but the "chicken little" gang is trying to paint it as a dangerous configuration.
I really like the Lark. Good enough for me for a VP-21. I wasn't planing on building another homebuilt after finishing the JMR but since I have an engine for the Lark and lots of other material to build one, how could I resist. Its one airplane that would even look good with a nose gear if someone wanted to go in that direction.
Make it soon, I don't have forever you know
We just have to live to be 157 so we can build all the airplanes we want to build :gig:
Well, if I'm going to live that long, think after the VP-21 I'll build another Falconar F-12 then the Bettlemaster, then a Hatz bi-plane, then a ? By that time I'll have a longer list.
It was this post above that I was referring to, when I mentioned that it was not the idea of the pilot being crushed bwteeen spar and engine that I was thinking about.
I have never said that shoulder wing airplanes were evil incarnate, or deathtraps, etc. I may actually have more flight time in true shoulder wing airplanes than most of the folks here (see photo below, a head-on view of the type of sailplane I flew in 1984-85). I also have experience hitting stuff on the ground in forced landings in shoulder wing aircraft (see old grainy black and white photo of me below, after ripping the gear out of a Mini-Nimbus glider in a competition in 1983).
I also disagree that I was pulling horse-s**t out of thin air when I said that having the spar between the pilot and whatever the airplane could hit was a good idea. Respectfully, I have to dig my heels in on this issue: Having the main spar carry-through structure between the pilot's internal organs, spine, etc. and any hard objects on the ground where the airplane may be landing is absolutely safer than not having it there.
As long as you don't flip over, of course.
A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to be on which engine to use. Why not make different variants for different engines? That's what the Mini-Max guys do. They have versions for 2-strokes and versions for VW engines.
Why not make a version of the 21st Century Volksplane for the VW, one for the O-100, one for the Suzuki, one for the V-Twin, and so forth?
Is there a reason why there has to be only one engine option?
No reason it can't use various engines, within common sense limits of weight, HP, required prop diameter, etc. But different variants? After 3,000+ posts, we can't pick *one* 'variant'. The Pietenpol flies with everything from Model A Fords to small Continentals to various auto conversions. But the variations are motor mount length and the fact that with it having a parasol wing, the builder can move the wing fore/aft to help get the cg correct for widely varying engine weights. Any low wing or true enclosed cockpit high wing will be trickier.
Well, that sounds like it would work too. I guess my thinking is: after 3,000+ posts, it's time to pic an engine and go with it. Additional engine options can be added later.
Well, if it is going to be a VP ......
Virtual Power? :whistle:
I put my vote in for the 1835 cc, 60 hp VW engine. Most bang for the buck and the most reliable for the HP.
I don't think it's about picking any particular engine, but rather listing all the current engines and new airframe methods that are available either now or near future that offer the same VP-1 mission of simple and low cost.
Nobody knows what design or designs will be the "Volksplane" of the future till about 10 years afterward.
The ease of digging up alternate designs on the internet may preclude a successor to the Volksplane.
Separate names with a comma.