Australian Opal and others

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by Aircar, Jul 1, 2011.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jul 1, 2011 #1

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    367
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    Opal amphib 1976.jpg Rick McWilliams asked about posting a photo of the Opal so, with a lot of help from a friend here is a scan of a couple of photos from the deep archives .
    It was illegal to build both aircraft in Australia -- without fully complying with FAR 23 and additional fatigue tests full flutter survey etc BEFORE any test flight being allowed --there was no experimental category until 1999 --only imported kits and designs (plans) were totally exempt from certification --the story would require a book but not here.

    The Opal was intended to be amphibious and rough dirt field capable hence the "platypus tail" shielding the prop (and fold down rear fuselage panels ) --the hull was not yet built in in this photo nor the mid wing floats --similar to Molt Taylor's Coot in floatwing with outriggers folding into the float blisters . Stiletto was flown in 1983 and resulted in me being prosecuted (again) --wings destroyed but I still have the fuselage and canard in the trailer --built a sidecar from the molds also and I will see if I can send some more photos . these are relatively conventional aerodynamics but this thread might be easiest to direct them to . Hope this sends OK.
    Opal artwork.jpg Stiletto.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Jul 1, 2011 #2

    Tom Nalevanko

    Tom Nalevanko

    Tom Nalevanko

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    122
    Location:
    Camarillo, CA
    Re: Revolutionary or counter conventional aerodynamic principles

    Interesting design; thanks for posting the pix...
     
  3. Jul 1, 2011 #3

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,621
    Likes Received:
    437
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    Re: Revolutionary or counter conventional aerodynamic principles

    Obraz=SONY=VOYAGER 001.jpg
    =auer amphibien,

    IMG6884.jpg IMG6840.jpg IMG6852.jpg
    and russian=with HOVERctaft-type undercarrige.
     
  4. Jul 1, 2011 #4

    Tom Nalevanko

    Tom Nalevanko

    Tom Nalevanko

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    122
    Location:
    Camarillo, CA
    Re: Revolutionary or counter conventional aerodynamic principles

    Very interesting; we like pictures! What does the first picture (the sketch) show?

    Blue skies,

    Tom
     
  5. Jul 1, 2011 #5

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,621
    Likes Received:
    437
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    Re: Revolutionary or counter conventional aerodynamic principles

    Obraz 0309+ 395.jpg Obraz=SONY,rysiek,bekas,pobiednik 046.jpg ,bogdan.laminat 006.jpg ,bogdan.laminat 005.jpg
    =flat G16+starter-generator+KASPERwings+3-place fuselage with pressurised/vacuumrised floats+3-wheel with hubmotors...
     
  6. Jul 1, 2011 #6

    fly2kads

    fly2kads

    fly2kads

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    526
    Location:
    Justin, TX
    Very interesting aircraft!

    I think we in the U.S. tend to forget sometimes what a unique environment we operate in. It is hard for us to imagine being prosecuted for designing and building something as benign as a small airplane.
     
  7. Jul 1, 2011 #7

    DaveK

    DaveK

    DaveK

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Northern California

    Especially those that say "I'll just pay someone to build my airplane for me". We all need to protect this special category we have in the US.
     
  8. Jul 1, 2011 #8

    WonderousMountain

    WonderousMountain

    WonderousMountain

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    192
    Location:
    Clatsop, Or
    Huh, I've often considered being prosecuted for flying my aircraft (no license), but only rarely has it crossed my mind that it might be ill-eagle to build my aircraft. The government doesn't mess with business interests here very often. We'd be more likely to ask for a bribe than destruction. Although, much of that stopped with the invention of micro-recorders.
     
  9. Jul 1, 2011 #9

    WonderousMountain

    WonderousMountain

    WonderousMountain

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    192
    Location:
    Clatsop, Or
    Oh beautiful aircraft, whomsoever destroyed the wings ought to be flogged with a wet towel and left in a pasture to ripen for a day or so.
     
  10. Jul 1, 2011 #10

    orion

    orion

    orion

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    5,800
    Likes Received:
    135
    Location:
    Western Washington
    That's a very nice G16 engine/redrive pictured. You have any more details you might share?
     
  11. Jul 1, 2011 #11

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,621
    Likes Received:
    437
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    G10,13,16=62,5-65 kg!
    -in my opinion=much better,then R912... Obraz 0309+ 397.jpg Obraz 0309+ 393.jpg turbia 16 014.jpg PICT4966.jpg turbia 16 011.jpg
     
  12. Jul 2, 2011 #12

    orion

    orion

    orion

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    5,800
    Likes Received:
    135
    Location:
    Western Washington
    Whose redrive is that? Also, would you have any data on power and torque?
     
  13. Jul 2, 2011 #13

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,621
    Likes Received:
    437
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    Obraz=SONY,rysiek,bekas,pobiednik 131.jpg Bogdan Wozowicz \nahe Rzeszow\ Obraz=SONY-bogdan,ciag 026.jpg Obraz=SONY-bogdan,ciag 020.jpg optimised for propeller characteristic. Obraz=SONY-bogdan,ciag 002.jpg thrust force=200-270 kG...
     
  14. Jul 3, 2011 #14

    billyvray

    billyvray

    billyvray

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    217
    Location:
    Newnan, GA
    Henry,

    I searched for more info on this G10 conversion and found posts by you and a link to your projects on the REaa site. I ask of you two things:

    1) Please start your very own thread detailing your projects. You have some wonderful projects (especially with engines!).
    2) Please provide more info on the G10 conversion. Is is manufactured? Is it someones experiment? I could not really determine.

    Thanks, keep up the good work.

    Bill
     
  15. Jul 3, 2011 #15

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,621
    Likes Received:
    437
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    Bill,I am only very bad writing english conductor between Bogdan and Forum...

    Kasperwing.com international content
    =Bogdan=black head,in shirt...

    reduktor,bogdan 015.jpg =Bogdans new reductor for G-motors\10 kg,with spring dempfer\

    =reductor is made from orginal SUZUKI details=no mantains problems.

    =no serien production.

    -motor G10 with turbo is comparable with G13=not turbo\power,weight\.

    but G13,16 is moore comfortable\no vibrations\.

    =summ.weigt of motor+reductor+frame+propeller=cirka 90-100kg.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2011
  16. Jul 4, 2011 #16

    flyoz

    flyoz

    flyoz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Near Sydney
    "Stiletto was flown in 1983..."
    Any other information? Looks like a Varieze scaled down ?
    Cheers
    Flyoz
     
  17. Jul 5, 2011 #17

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    367
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    Back again-- The Stiletto was started as a pod and boom ultralight intended to comply with the then new category ANO 95 10 (Air Navigation Order -- similar to FAR ) which specified an AUW of 400lbs and wing load of 4 lbs/ft sq and which restricted the operation to BELOW 400 ft above ground and prohibited flying across asphalted roads (!) -- almost none of the aircraft built to this category conformed or obeyed the restrictions both of which were ridiculous and unsafe . (and unenforcable in several respects ) Then the rules were further restricted after one particular aircraft was found to be almost the full AUW when empty and horribly unairworthy by design so in order to protect the culpable officials involved everything was grounded by strict application of the wing load limit in particular .

    The Stiletto was an attempt to meet the weight limit ( under 50Kg empty - Solo 210cc engine) AND to meet the wing loading by having a high Cl canard which unloaded the wing sufficiently to comply (also with a third forward swept wing mounted behind the pilot's head which straddled the Cg and was 'optional' but got the design under the net wing loading limit -- in order to get some useful cross country speed in a category which otherwise amounted to a powered umbrella .
    Yes it is almost exactly a scaled down Vari Eze just to minimize the unknowns.
    It could be also seen as a scaled up 'Super Snooper' which was the progenator of the Vari Eze built by Fred Jiran in hot wired glass composite (a UAV carrying a nose camera -- I went through Edwards AFB with Fred in 1975 to 'help' repair the F15 free flight drop test model and the Super Snooper and came across the prototype Vari Eze next door to Fred's workshop then --Fred was making cowlings and bits for Burt Rutan (Vari Viggen ) and some for the Eze to which I leant a hand.

    Despite the clear wording of the airworthiness standards that "balancing tail loads must be taken into account in calculating wing forces" they rejected the proper definition of wing loading and made the Stiletto illegal -- I had flown it from an airfield where I used to test fly gliders after major repairs (meaning they had no certificate of airworthiness in force when I flew them --all on a permit to fly issued under my authority and only after satisfactory test flight was the CofA restored -- I did the same thing with the Stiletto and flew it at 6.00 am first with no other traffic etc but the Department of Aviation even went to the extent of demanding a witness report from the airfield groundsman to try to get a prosecution for flying an uncertified aircraft etc etc .

    Google 'Dick Smith / CASA reform' or something like'incompetence and corruption in Australian aviation regulation' for more insight into the mis management of aviation here if interested --Dick Smith was first to fly a helicopter solo around the world and wrote a book called "Two years in the aviation hall of doom' detailing the unbelievable bloody mindedness and incompetence in our "FAA" --he called for a Royal commission to investigate the whole mess. Another book could be written ...


    The Opal was the first fully molded kit aircraft in the world as far as I know -- it was only possible to do the tooling and design without being prosecuted and anyway I doubted that homebuilders could do quality control well enough for primary structure or would put up with the messiness and finishing time for external lay up . (Vari Ezes were limited to 2.5G by Rutan after a wing failure disclosed material properties way below design spec -- I had concluded while building glass gliders in Germany that there were too many ways to end up below par without extensive tooling and process control )

    It seemed to me that there was a place for a high performance amphibian since there was nothing much at the average airfield, especially inn the heat of summer , for any recreational activity --everyone heads for the sea or a river lake etc to get some holiday pleasure --not to an airport, so a recreational aircraft should be able to get away from an airport (also land in paddocks hence have full propeller protection and not be susceptible to flipping over itself like aircraft jacked up on undercarriage legs ) --the end was to be a roadable version which again favours a low cockpit and undercarriage etc ).
     
  18. Jul 5, 2011 #18

    flyoz

    flyoz

    flyoz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Near Sydney
    Interesting stuff !

    Did the canard have the normal elevators and what were the canard tip extentions ?
    Do you have any photos of the "Super Snooper " or any other history ?
    The standard Varieze canard chord is already fairly small - it looks like the Stiletto canard chord relationship is slightly bigger than if it was scaled - in other words closer to Varieze chord ?
    How did it fly?

    Thanks
    Flyoz
     
  19. Jul 5, 2011 #19

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    367
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    The canard was the GU 25% T/C section --designed for a man powered aircraft at Glasgow university -- same slotted flap geometry as the Vari Eze and about the same chord (expanding slot with full back stick intended to limit control authority and give nil stall --the flap flow separates but the canard itself cannot be let stall -- I never stalled it and in fact only flew a number of straight runs down the runway at up to 100ft . Initially there was a real rotation problem due to thrust moment and I built a "trim" surface that came out on a single arm behind the prop and which was slaved to the throttle (looking a little like a formula one rear airfoil and lifting down also --I have a couple of old photos of it emailed to me by a friend that I will try to send .

    This seemed to work as desired and no longer needed full back stick and a high rotation speed (in fact the very first high speed taxi tests turned into an inadvertent 'hop' after rapidly reducing throttle removed the thrust moment and still had back stick...... at the time the cockpit was filling with acrid smoke from the baffle material 'cooking' by contact with the tuned exhaust pipe (it then loses volatiles and settles down but I didn't know that at the time ) the extensions on the canard are like Spillman tipsails and also add stick forces (like the antibalance tabs on the Monerai V tails --they operate in the upwash outside of the tip so see a higher change of local alpha versus aircraft 'deck angle' .

    The Super Snooper might be on Google --it had a hydrazine engine and was intended to fly over 'hostile' borders undetected (composite airframe) and then descend to take photos and return --it became unstable at great height apparently and got relegated to atmospheric sampling as the Mini Sniffer and even contemplated for the Marsplane -- Einar Enevoldson (NASA)was involved somehow and was also a partner in a Phoebus with Fred Jiran and they extended the wingspan using hot wire core glassed over in model aircraft fashion and built the Super Snooper the same way. (Fred had learned European glass glider techniques with Diamant in Switzerland and then went around the world doing factory repairs and modifications that had to be done as a result of hidden construction defects --I met Fred at Waikerie in 1967 and looked him up again in the states (1974 ) he helped with materials to build the prototype HP 18 . NASA had a information sheet on the Super Snooper at one time but not sure if it is still available.

    I 'retired' the Stiletto after deciding to modify it to become a sort of poor man's Starship --with two Solo 210s mounted on the centre section (I'll send a few photos when I can find them ) --I couldn't afford a second engine at the time and other events intervened (another story...) -- A friend wants to revive it now and we opened up the trailer a year or so back and had a look at the state of the aircraft -- making new outer wings would not be too difficult and there are better engines available now (the noise was horrendous with direct drive,no firewall or noise barrier and 7000 RPM I ft behind your head -- due to circumstances at the time the planetary gearbox reduction was not ready and other shortcuts were required) I think the Starship configuration would be quite good --the much bigger curved strakes increase the fuel volume and give heaps of elbow room as well and a much deeper root spar )the wing is a sort of' Eiffel tower' planform for minimum weight and there is no longer any ridiculous weight limit or operational stupidity (now based on pilot qualifications ) twin engines with low assymetry would give reliability and low noise in the cockpit (unlike the otherwise excellent Cri Cri twin where the exhausts are next to your ears )

    One of the best features of the Stiletto was the ground handling --"bicycle" layout but tricycle weight distribution --with tip wheels on sprung arms --the nose wheel retracted and the main gear was sprung by the glass shell and worked well
     
  20. Jul 6, 2011 #20

    flyoz

    flyoz

    flyoz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Near Sydney
    Thanks Aircar
    Congratulations on building and flying it !
    Good history - when somebody writes a definative Varieze story your project and the "super Snooper " will have to be in it !
    I tried searching for the super snooper but could not find much
    The Stiletto wing area looks quite small - 4 lbs wing loading @ 400 lbs max is still 100sq ft ( as you say you tried to include the canard )
    The standard Varieze only has about 54 Sq ft ? any idea what the Stiletto scale was ?

    Flyoz
     

Share This Page

arrow_white