Bucket List - the aircraft designs that I'd like to be a part of Building!

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by Rienk, May 9, 2014.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. May 9, 2014 #1

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Santa Maria, CA (SMX)
    Ever since I was part of building an airplane (Cuby) as a part of a highschool class, I dreamed of building affordable aircraft.
    My ultimate goal is a modern Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (air, land and sea).
    But here is a list of the planes I want to build, or help build. The ones highlighted are already under way.

    I list this simply to see if any of them resonate with some of you, and see if there is any possibility for collaboration.
    (I am not an aero or structural engineer, so barring pure trial and error, we would need knowledgeable assistance).
    .
    • Simple and safe to fly '103 Ultralight' (maybe Controlwing)
    • Sexy Ultralight, using mass production techniques - to make relatively low cost.
    • Corresponding two-seat trainer, to give safe dual for the above Sexy Ultralight.
    .
    • Quick-Build Low-Cost wood and fabric Kit - primarily for youth and students (in design phase - 'TS-3)
    .
    • Low Cost single place LSA (in development now - 'Solo')
    • Low Cost two-place LSA (to be developed upon completion of Solo)
    • Heavy Hauler LSA, hopefully useful for mission/humanitarian flight (stretchers, bulky but light cargo, etc)
    .
    • Two-seat speedster (something for my bride and me to cheaply travel to the kids; 250mph burning less than 5gph).
    • Four-seat speedster (waiting for new engine development)
    .
    • Four Seat executive Turboprop (in development now - 'Envoy 4')
    • Six Seat executive Turboprop (in development now - 'Envoy 6L')
    • High-wing Utility Turboprop (in development now - 'Envoy 6H')
    .
    • Roadable Aircraft (single seat, two-seat, and eventually four-seat).
    .
    I probably won't be able to get involved in all of these, but I sure would like to try.
    Most will be dependent on building or joining the right team.
    Carpe Diem!
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2014
  2. May 9, 2014 #2

    Tiger Tim

    Tiger Tim

    Tiger Tim

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    2,771
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Thunder Bay
    I share your desire to design a simple and fun ultralight, as well as an interest in a roadable at some point but both of those projects are a long way off for me. I also want to design and build an internally better J-3 clone but research is ongoing on that one...

    -Tim
     
  3. May 9, 2014 #3

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,436
    Likes Received:
    5,132
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Moderator Note: This is hangar-flying discussion, rather than related to a specific technology- or design-related topic, so I've moved it to the appropriate sub-forum. A one-week expiring redirect was left in the original location so anyone who saw it there can still find it and contribute.
     
  4. May 9, 2014 #4

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,738
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Ah, dreamers ;-)

    My own:

    • A balls-to-the-wall single. Pushers with boomed tail like Sam Walker's Aria, or Jay's design, but a much higher AR (20) and a cockpit no bigger than those in most sailplanes. Should perform fine on a 55 hp VW, but also accommodate an O200. Think 300 mph on 100 hp. Removable outer panels (from 36 to 20 ft), removable tail booms (unconnected).
    • Another pusher, 2+2. Also a boomed inverted V- tail and pusher, removable wings. Goal is to have the performance of an RV6/7/8/9 on a Sonex budget. Should fly with 912S and ULpower, or a high-power VW with reduced MTOW.
    • A push-pull design, reminiscent of the C337, but composite and two Rotax.
    • An open class sailplane design. Wing on a small pylon, the wing area and weight of a light 15M but twice the aspect ratio.
    Mostly focussing on the 2+2 pusher, though it's wing structure and structural calculations mostly stem from the sailplane design.
     
    Grelly and Topaz like this.
  5. May 9, 2014 #5

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Santa Maria, CA (SMX)
    Do you know what is happening with the Aria?
    When I spoke with him years ago, he wasn't able to continue the program, but didn't want to give it up either (I offered to buy it).
    Is anything else like it being developed?
    That is a project that I would be willing to help with.

    Intriguing, but a straying a bit from my personal choice.
    Some friends of mine have developed a plane that might be of interest. I believe it's called the Flight Sciences "Phoenix." This is one of those planes that falls in Topaz's third of five categories (designed and perfected, and never released into production). They've done honest to goodness wind tunnel testing and everything. Original plane is a two-seater, but a four-seat option is there as well.
    Their testing shows that it can achieve a 250mph cruise on 170hp.

    Something like that used to be on my list, but then I dreamed about doing a scaled version of a jumbo-jet (two-seat tandem) with a pair of the larger drone jet engines in back. Maybe I should add that to my list... along with new versions of scaled warbirds? (I want one of each).

    Is this a project through your work, or a personal side project?
     
  6. May 9, 2014 #6

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Santa Maria, CA (SMX)
    Hey, does Bob Keykendall still have a few surplus HP-24 fuselage pods for sale?
    I'd be willing to buy and modify them, if you want to design such a plane around it.
    (of course, I could also start from scratch and build the molds too).
     
  7. May 9, 2014 #7

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,738
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Little to the best of my knowledge.
    Jay's design, Topaz design, the Strojnik S5 (I think). At least the first two are - to the best of my knowledge - nowhere near engineering completion, neither is mine. (Mine should be a valid MLA, IF1 racer and motorglider at the same time)
    Still some show-stoppers in that design in both configurations, lethal ones. Maybe that's one of the big issues; wind tunnel testing, or advanced CAD/CFD programs still don't tell you what experience will tell in a 5-second look.
    All personal. Planning to start a business manufacturing kits one day, but that's far future (not before first flight)


    As for Bob's fuselages; that's only a tiny part of the work and you'd also need a different shape (both structural and aerodynamic) to have it low-drag. A pity you're so far away, in my experience coöperation on these kind of topics only works if you can have regular fysical contact (no pun intended ;))
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2014
  8. May 9, 2014 #8

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,550
    Likes Received:
    1,527
    Location:
    US
    The two I've given the most thought:
    1) A two-place push/pull using VW power. With enough wing I think single-engine flight could be done safely. If inexpensive controllable pitch props could be made available, it might be quite the speedster at altitude.
    2) A Sonex+ with slightly longer wings that are quickly foldable.

    I'm always a sucker for the "cheap airplane in a month" ideas featuring a novel construction method (CNC'ed foam/FG panels with tab-in-slot construction with customer adding gussets, etc). Weldless tube-and-rag using light, high-strength fittings, etc.
     
    Topaz and Pops like this.
  9. May 9, 2014 #9

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,405
    Likes Received:
    2,092
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Good one! :roll:
     
  10. May 9, 2014 #10

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    1,552
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    Don't sell yourself short. Many historically significant airplanes and many current day, popular homebuilts were designed/built by folks that had little or no formal aero engineering training.
     
  11. May 9, 2014 #11

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Santa Maria, CA (SMX)
    Thanks. I do know that, otherwise, I wouldn't try to build even one. There are some incredible resources available these days. But I'm older and somewhat wiser, and really don't enjoy doing anything by myself anymore. I want to be a part of team; if any significant number of these planes are to see fruition, I'll need contributed help, I can't afford to bring all the necessary talent on staff. But I am willing to share in any commercial reward (something's better than nothing).

    Again, if anyone is serious about a project on the list, I'm game to discuss.
    rienk@ayerscraft.com
     
  12. May 9, 2014 #12

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,436
    Likes Received:
    5,132
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    I'm working on a "minimum" two-seat touring motorglider. Really minimum. The numbers are still out on whether or not that will work, but I'm getting much closer to a decision point. Climb rate will be the determining factor, and there are complications due to the fact that my two engine choices have a takeoff ratings and a sustained power ratings. If the latter isn't enough for a safe angle of climb, or the rate of climb at the sustained rating is such that the aircraft actually sizes larger because of the increase in fuel necessary to sustain climb power for a longer time, I'll have to jump up in engine size and that will size the entire airplane up significantly as well.

    I'm a long way from even starting construction. Not much time available when one owns and operates their own business in a non-aviation field.


    Unless someone has picked up the baton on this one, I think it's safe to say that it's not going to be completed. Alex Strojnik passed away nearly twenty years ago.
     
  13. May 9, 2014 #13

    nosrednaekim

    nosrednaekim

    nosrednaekim

    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tehachapi, CA
    These are both very interesting to me.

    "Heavy Hauler LSA" is a difficult design challenge, since you have that not-to-distant gross limit to always be thinking about. Perhaps an aircraft CAPABLE of heavy lifting outside of the US for humanitarian missions, but with just great performance when gross weight limited here in the US?
     
  14. May 9, 2014 #14

    Pops

    Pops

    Pops

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    6,663
    Likes Received:
    5,545
    Location:
    USA.
    Several years ago I did some drawings about a small version of the Cessna Skymaster using 2- 2180 cc VW engines. All wood, with LG. I still think about it, but at my age, I hope I can finished the projects that I have started now. Dan
     
  15. May 9, 2014 #15

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Santa Maria, CA (SMX)
    Bingo! You win the prize!

    The concept of the 'Trio' (high wing, heavy hauler LSA), is to meet the ASTM certification requirements for a two-seat LSA, but accommodate users in other countries who don't have to be limited to the US-LSA gross weight or seating limitations.
    The concept would be similar to the former Eco-Flyer... two seats with a fairly large interior, that can accommodate a stretcher for ambulance use, or some minimal cargo.
    Frankly, it would have a fairly limited useful weight as an LSA (though it would meet the minimum requirements of the ASTM standards)

    Assuming success with the Solo, and then The Duet, the Trio won't be far behind in our current time line.
    It is possible to advance it ahead if there was development help on it.
     
  16. May 11, 2014 #16

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,738
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Composite long wings? That'd spectacularly increase performance without wrecking the rest of the concept.


    You can add a 2-seat tandem pusher to my bucket list, removable wings, taildragger, boomed inverted V-tail. After some in-depth discussion about the EB29D the last few weeks I'm more and more convinced about the potential for very low drag and weight for a two-seater. (Goal; EFPA<<1 sqft, 500-ish lbs empty, 14-ish meters of span)
     
    Topaz likes this.
  17. May 11, 2014 #17

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,550
    Likes Received:
    1,527
    Location:
    US
    Probably not what you'd build, but I was thinking of retaining the present (metal) Sonex wings and adding 18" stub wings on each side of the plane. The stub wings add 3' of span (about 14%) and thereby increase the aspect ratio a bit, but hopefully with minimal impact on the plane's nice roll response and no need for a redesigned tail. The stub wings would hold the wing fold mechanism, a few gallons of fuel, and maybe a wing locker for storing a bit of luggage close to the CG. With the wings folded, the plane would still be narrow enough to fit in a standard shipping container or in a road-legal trailer.

    Composite wings would add a whole new material to master in this AL-fuselage aircraft. If I went that route, solid core appeals to me most (lazy as I am), and I think it might turn out fairly heavy compared to the present AL wing unless a thinner airfoil were used (which would probably be about right for the long-ish wings that you might prefer).
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2014
  18. May 12, 2014 #18

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Rienk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Santa Maria, CA (SMX)
    A two seat pusher would appeal to me as well, though I would limit the span to 11 meters. I know you love the sailpane AR, but my "practical" mindset kicks in, and realize the market size would probably greatly increase if it could fit in a standard 40' hangar.
    Of course, we share a goal of quick connect/fold wings, so that could alleviate the width issue. Still, getting the aircraft to be able to ship/store in a 20' container or garage would be sweet!

    I'm hoping that one of our designs will be a smashing success, so we can use the profits to build all of the others. :)
    (I already have a comfortable lifestyle - I just need money for my building addiction)
     
  19. May 12, 2014 #19

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,738
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Sounds like a good plan. That'd add some real value to a Sonex.
    Combining materials is notoriously hard. Solid foam is certainly the way to go unless you go for larger series (getting into the business of selling those wings). Solid foam can be pretty light; having a smaller chord (and larger span) and root fairings might be the easiest way to go then.
    Practical folding is the raison d'être for all my designs. Getting it to fit in a 20' container is pretty hard, since you end up with a short tail and thus big tail surfaces who then are hard to fit. Ion has a nice write-up about that, since they ran into a similar issue.
    Another issue is trailers; once you get an airframe that's so big and bulky, you need a massive trailer and towing that is slow. A sailplane-like trailer on the other hand can be towed with a normal car at normal (70 mph) speed.
    That was the major obstacle I ran into with the 2+2 design. It not only needs a huge trailer, with a VW you're underpowered, so you get to the point where having a Rotax or ULpower is pretty much mandatory. To have feasible folding, the landing gear needs to be retracteble, which adds even more weight, cost... well, you see the $$$ spiral there. Having heaps of luggage space (or two small seats) was a worthy goal, but it seems more and more that it's too big a compromise. :speechles

    If the folding is quick and practical enough, folding it for every flight is not an obstacle.
    The other issue is that later upgrading to a bigger span is pretty complex. You need a longer tail, need to beef up much of the structure etc. Shortening the wing on the other hand is pretty straightforward as are 2 meter wing tips that can be removed or folded.
    To be legal as a motorglider MTOW needs to be below 3*span^2, which with 14 meters is 588 kg, but only 363 kg for 11 meters.
    So do I, absolutely.
     
    Topaz likes this.
  20. May 12, 2014 #20

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,559
    Likes Received:
    743
    Location:
    Slovenia
    Oh, looking to my past wishes, daydreamings and impasse in which I ran... I can clearly see that mosty I wasted time, but I can not deny that I learned a lot in that proces.
    Thesedays I "shrink" my apetite to level where my dreams get in touch with reality and could be realized.

    My curent and only design I put all effort and available time is ultralight glider, that combine Hang Glider ease of folding and transport with moderate flying performances allowing to soar and do some XC flying at average day.
    Here (click) is a thread of that design I am working now.

    But, before I "shrink" my interes, I lost many hours dreaming and using a lot of paper and computer memory about these:

    mindex1.jpg
    Mindex motorglider. Moldles foam/laminate design.

    hornet7.jpg
    Hornet motorglider. Classic wood design.

    guppy-sm.jpg
    Guppy glider. Moldles composite cockpit, aluminum tube tail boom, foam/plywood sandwich wing and tail.

    guppy2.jpg
    Guppy 2 glider. Composite from molds.

    shark1.jpg
    Shark. Moldles composite. "Semi-flying wing".. tail to enhance trim and stability.

    fls1.jpg
    Fantasy. Footlaunchable glider.

    kanja-sm.jpg
    Kanja. based on Super Floater, yet better aerodynamic.

    but-1s.jpg
    Trainer. Foldable primary glider..for fun flying.

    hopp-sm.jpg
    Hopper. All metal STOL ultralight.

    You will probably think or say (and I totally agree) that "Nice 3D rendering is just some eye apealing stuff and way to the proper design is not just that, but a complete aerodynamic and structural design of the entire thing".

    Well, my designs was not just 3D renderings, but they were acomplyed with preliminary calculations (aerodynamic and structural) and drawings of the structure.

    How deeply I went into the design (calculations and drawings) depends on the strength of my interes to continue. Usually continue until some another idea came trough my mind. So, as you can see from pictures above, I change a lot my dreams..

    So today I just concentrate on one design that I know I am able to finish from start to flying, even with sad reality, that I am older and older each day. Ultralight, footlaunchable, foldable sailplane of moderate performance and affordable price:

    [​IMG]

    More about that glider on the link given above.

    Lesson learned: "plenty of different ideas, less chance for realization!"
    Focus on just one at a time and push it constantly is better way to achieve a goal one day.

    Mitja
     

    Attached Files:

    Himat, Vigilant1, Topaz and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page

arrow_white