I'm not 100% sure, but that looks like Elliot's plane... If it is, they have moved the engines a bit. He had it a the Mojave Experimental Fly In a few weeks ago.Nothing like hot turbine gas lined up with the rear wing, heating the root of your composite spar.
I'm not technically qualified, but I'd guess torsional loads and flutter on the wings, spanwise weight distribution (roll rate), and the cost and time saving of sidestepping all the aero engineering and flow-vis and old-school testing necessary to achieve the theoretical cruise drag reduction of a true "Whitcomb" winglet????
That's a goofy airplane. Looks like it has almost every aerodynamic bandaid known to engineering. Cockpit looks interesting though, except for the mismatched stick grips.Don't know if this would be interesting to you, but saw this today for sale in the Charlotte area (no deer strikes either). An Eagle X-TS, Aussie built, with a Conti 240 for power.
Interesting little canard bird, and space for two.
Nothing made in Australia has ever been cheap.That's because it is a certified, factory built production aircraft.
Likely one well known Australian aero guy had a hand on it, well known for using every trick.Looks like it has almost every aerodynamic bandaid known to engineering..
The Eagle X-TS was yet another attempt at reducing the cost of airplanes. The original concept was a molded fuselage, with pultruded wings and canard of a common chord: You just sliced off one length to the span of the canard, and another length to the span of the wing.... My question to anyone who might have a clue, why would it have no wing dihedral at all?
Have a look at the Monnett Moni from 1986. It was a brilliant little airplane which was held back by a poor engine choice and a poor decision early on to have people build it with bonded wing skins. Both of those issues are known, understood, and are easily avoided problems now.
IMHO, It represents a perfect candidate for this intended class of aircraft. Room for tall pilots apparently. Aerodynamically efficient (compared to other small powerplanes). It used an exotic little German-designed 2 stroke screamer engine built in Italy, with an incredible power to weight ratio. But they found that they needed to add 40+ pounds of weight to the engine mount in order to balance it safely, making the actual "installed weight" of the engine about 75-85 pounds. This immediately opens up the possibility of using a small block (23-28HP) industrial generator engine (similar to the Onan used on the Q1).
The newer versions of the Kohler and Honda generator engines have fuel injection available, and are designed for extreme long-term reliability. Removing or lightening the flywheel and other easy weight-reduction steps would bring these engines into the weight parameters for the Moni very easily. They are capable of achieving 1 to 1.3 gallons an hour fuel burn at cruise settings.
Now after the Moni came out and was selling well, Monnett built an airplane called the "Mini-Moni", which was a 16 foot clip wing version. This likely happened after he realized that the stock 27 foot span Moni was a very poor "soaring" motorglider but it was an efficient little sportplane. The 16 foot Moni did 140 MPH on the 25HP KFM engine, but it was a little touchy for heavy pilots on a hot day. So Monnett built (or planned to build) a "Midi-Moni" with about a 22 foot span. This would surely have been a sweet spot. Monnett apparently saw this too, but he chose to pursue the (better business decision) to add another seat to the Moni. John Monnett's 22 foot span Midi-Moni now has two very small seats instead of one good size seat. He then added his very successful VW conversion engine to it. Brilliant, because he can sell a profitable kit airplane, which is designed to be a perfect fit for his profitable engine. Winner!
But because of legal issues he can't or doesn't use the name Midi-Moni. The 22 foot span Midi-Moni is called the 22 foot span Sonex these days
So with the knowledge of this intricate back-story, I have always imagined a 22 foot span single seat Moni, using the fuel injected Honda industrial engine, with several MILD tuning upgrades (ignition, porting, exhaust). No high power/high risk racing mods. I feel it is reasonable to assume that I can get about 30-33HP with pretty good reliability, because the Para-Zoom guys in Germany are selling a 23HP Briggs Vanguard derivative that claims 30-33 HP with a carburetor on it.
With the addition of aerodynamically better swept wingtips (see Dan Moser's "MOSI" in his avatar), retaining the original Moni single wheel, and simple, low-tech gap seals, I would very much expect to have an airplane that achieved the same 140 MPH cruise as the short wing clipped Moni, using just over a gallon an hour of car gas. The hangar storage "footprint" would be a little less than the tandem wing Quickie 1.
At these fuel burn numbers, the stock, unmodified 4 gallon tank in the Moni would yield 3 hours of flying time with a small reserve. Cross country flights of 400 miles between fuel stops are easily possible. Increasing the fuel capacity from 4 to 6 gallons would add 50% to these numbers. There is a drawing available for building 3 or 4 gallon wing tanks into the Moni, which are similar to the RV style structural aluminum tank. Having ten gallons total on board would yield a real cross country airplane.
The original Moni was designed as a 6G mild aerobatic aircraft. Clipping the wings to 22 feet would provide additional reserve strength.
The interesting part is that the Moni did what it did using flat-wrapped sheet metal and blind rivets. It used a Wortmann airfoil, and you would definitely want to flush rivet it today, but everything else on the airplane except the canopy was straight lines and domed head blind rivets.
I'd have to say no to the Lambie book. It is VERY basic - especially since the Rutan book is available as chapter 3 of the Quickie construction manual via the Internet. There just isn't much out there, that I have found, for self study that falls between the Rutan book and real engineering grade where you need to know matrix/tensor math.Kit Airplane Construction (chapters on composites)
by Ron Wanttaja
Moldless Composite Sandwich Aircraft Construction
by Burt Rutan
Composite Construction for Homebuilt Aircraft
by Jack Lambie
There are a few good guides for construction (not design) available on line. Look for the techniques section in the Glasair and Lancair builder’s manuals. There are some good on-line videos of composite construction and finishing that are good.Hello Listers
I know zip about fibreglass and foam construction, and would like to study the subject. Can anyone help with the titles of some books that I can get hold of, to find out more?
Erik in Oz.