"Beast One" - the next generation Microjet

[Voidhawk9]

MSFS 2020 has a new system similar to X-Plane.

Nah, it's not even close, despite what the hype and marketing proclaims. I have both. FS2020 is pretty, X-plane is a capable engineering tool.

 

[Scheny]

I ignored the marketing and am referring to the page in the SDK where they describe the new model. Maybe I will add X-Plane in the future, but I have to concentrate my resources now.

The simulator is not used as an engineering tool for me. I will only use it to get to accustom myself to the aircraft, like low sitting position and approach profile (drag=min_thrust) where you have to decelerate from cruise to pattern speed before you are able to use any drag device. For this reason I bought a VR headset yesterday (I have good experience from a VR Eurofighter on a full motion platform --> comes very close to being in the real thing).

Engineering was done with Excel sheets, XFLR5 and now since I got the new Ryzen 9 5900X CPU, hundreds of CFD computing hours.

 

[Map]

I have a different kind of observation on airplane this size. While I was flying, I had two close encounters with little Sonex Jets lately. Both were near airports (different ones and different planes). The small size makes them hard to see and they come up so fast. One was a controlled airport and I knew about the traffic, but still only managed to see it after it was very close. Not good.

 

[Scheny]

I am implementing the Beast One for MSFS and there has been quite some progress. By now, also the nosewheel is in, but the rest of the gear mechanism is still missing. Elevator fairing is almost completed and the Garmin G3X Touch in the cockpit already works.

Next task: get the switches working and then model the electrical system correctly.

I would be glad if you follow either on Twitter or Facebook (see below for links)!

 

[jandetlefsen]

Just downloaded and tried it out in FS2020, really fun little plane. Can't wait to see more progress!

Also It has full gear now.

 

[Yellowhammer]

Just downloaded and tried it out in FS2020, really fun little plane. Can't wait to see more progress!

Also It has full gear now.

Looks like a carton to me.

 

[Urquiola]

Two ideas already consulted elsewhere: a MiG-17 with an Area Ruled fuselage?, an F-104 with an straight leading edge wing? Would this improve somehow these aircraft? Blessings +

 

[Scheny]

Just downloaded and tried it out in FS2020, really fun little plane. Can't wait to see more progress!

And it will get better . Aerodynamics (in MSFS) are not fine-tuned yet.

Looks like a carton to me.

Yeah, the texture is still missing, as I am not used to creating UV-maps yet. They will be added soon, but first I am evaluating switching to a T-tail.

 

[Scheny]

Two ideas already consulted elsewhere: a MiG-17 with an Area Ruled fuselage?, an F-104 with an straight leading edge wing? Would this improve somehow these aircraft? Blessings +

Unfortunately not. At Mach 0.5 to 0.6 cruise the area rule has no impact, but pressure gradients (Arnolds "poor mans area rule") are used. This is why I calculate a T-tail right now, as the elevator is creating a lot of low pressure areas which create too much drag.

 

[jandetlefsen]

Will i get an email notification of updates from that download website?

 

[Scheny]

I was quite for some time, as I had serious doubt about the interference drag of the tail. Around christmas, I spent a few thousand on a high end PC which is crunching numbers on CFD for a few days to evaluate the differences between standard and T-tail. The AMD 5900X is really amazing, running 24 threads at an average of 4.45GHz and 80°C.

Unlike another better funded and more discussed project in this forum, the CFD is calculated with a representative mesh of 8.4 million cells just for the first approximation (and the 6 million are advanced meshing, where 90% is in the boundary layer).

I will post the outcome by end of this weekend. This is also the reason why the work on the MSFS model was halted after 0.3.1 as I was not sure if the tail will change.

 

[jandetlefsen]

Would be cool to see your CFD process, something i have very little idea about.

 

[Pops]

Unfortunately not. At Mach 0.5 to 0.6 cruise the area rule has no impact, but pressure gradients (Arnolds "poor mans area rule") are used. This is why I calculate a T-tail right now, as the elevator is creating a lot of low pressure areas which create too much drag.

Never flew a T-tail that I liked.

 

[Dun]

Hi,
recently joined on HBA and now found this thread;
Excellent idea and commendable effort for this airplane, Scheny
I wish you the best with the project.

As mentioned by others here, if your target speeds are achieved with the structure able to withstand aerobatic loads, your airplane will surely be a lucrative project.
Have you pondered on whether it would be supplied in kit form or fully manufacturing it?

Also, I immediately wondered if this could have a later variant version:
An option for a less aerobatically capable version, with extended wingtip tanks for some very desirable range, up to the 600kg EASA limit.

Your thoughts on this possibility, with regards to lift and wing area, structural load bearing, and drag?

Thank you

 

[Scheny]

It is a real pity that the test pilot is against the T-tail version, as the airflow is just as good as it can be:

Laminar flow over most of the surface and the boundary layer is very thin, even at the tail. There is some weird flow at the nose, which I am investigating right now. It has no impact, but if I can get rid of it, I do. Also the mid fuselage will get slightly wider at the fuel tank, as aerodynamics showed decreased drag for increased width there (sounds strange, but minimizes interference).

My aerodynamicist voted against showing any pictures of the wing, but this is a good sign. I happened to design the airfoils and layout so perfectly aligned, that it looks like an elliptic wing and there was nothing which could be improved. testing was for cruise config, so lets see if this is also true for landing config.

 

[Scheny]

As mentioned by others here, if your target speeds are achieved with the structure able to withstand aerobatic loads, your airplane will surely be a lucrative project.
Have you pondered on whether it would be supplied in kit form or fully manufacturing it?

At the moment (after loosing funding due to Corona) I am happy if I manage to build at least one. But as soon as one is flying and tested thoroughly, there is nothing against selling it in kit form. Price would be 300k$ if built in single orders or 200k$ for one per month. This sounds high as the JSX-2 is ~150k$, but instead of getting only a few aluminum sheets, it comes already painted and sanded, so that you only have to glue left and right half together (saving at least a 1000h of work).

Also, I immediately wondered if this could have a later variant version:
An option for a less aerobatically capable version, with extended wingtip tanks for some very desirable range, up to the 600kg EASA limit.
Your thoughts on this possibility, with regards to lift and wing area, structural load bearing, and drag?

Unlike the first draft, it has a center tank, so the wings are free for wing tanks. No problem doing that, except that you need some connectors and extra pumps. As the weight is inside the wing, it does not add up to the spar (so no change required here). The aircraft is using 450kg class parts, so it has capability to "grow" by 70kg, which means that the fuel can be +50% (or another 20gal) --> cruise up to 3h possible at slightly lower speed.
As it is my first design, I use 6G with FOS 2.25 or equally 9G with FOS 1.5 to be on the safe side using it up to 6G in real life (the maximum rating for most components). The gear is calculated for 3G impact at 450kg, so also no problem here.

Drag should be almost linear and the wing area is rather large for a jet. When taking off and rotating at 70kt, you will already have 90kt by the time the wheels lift off. So there is not much change here (except for a higher take-off roll) and at landing you should be down to the same weight as normal. Otherwise it will touch down at a 90kt instead of 80kt.

 

[rv6ejguy]

View attachment 109266
Laminar flow over most of the surface and the boundary layer is very thin, even at the tail.

Laminar flow over most of the surface? That would be quite an accomplishment. Even if you did, a few bugs in the summer would trash all that.

 

[rv6ejguy]

Drag should be almost linear and the wing area is rather large for a jet.

Pretty sure drag will vary as the square of the velocity rather than in a linear fashion... No?

 

[Dun]

Pretty sure drag will vary as the square of the velocity rather than in a linear fashion... No?

The response was to my query whether Scheny has considered increasing the fuel capacity and if the wing area should be increased in this case, but as he replied the current parameters are sufficient to bear the added weight with no major difference to the speeds.

@Scheny , that all sounds quite good and the pricing as well is quite reasonable. In case the 3-hour cruise would give equal or better range, that would be great.
In a dream scenario, massive production could reduce the price a bit lower and edge towards something achievable for the average pilot in US & EU instead of buying a house.
The only difference would be the operating cost per hour, do you have an estimate for that?

As you say, building one and finishing it will be the deal, unlike all the vaporware i.e. in the eVTOL market. Once a video would hit youtube of this small fighter-like jet with better speeds and as good a range compared with others in the weight-class....

 

[jedi]

Never flew a T-tail that I liked.

You should have bought a (first class) ticket on a B-727.