Hard to R&D a new IC engine for small planes when so much noise is being made about electric, you could be R&D-ing a Dodo bird.
"Actually "mission" drives aircraft design. The airframe and powerplant are typically flexible until just before PDR, then locked in. Its true that homebuilders will sometimes select an airframe or (design one) based upon an engine laying around the shop, but thats not "design" in the pure sense. ...
It seems like when I read the history of a lot of World War II aircraft that they will not the airplane that we think of until some particular higher horsepower engine or modification came along.""
Shoving any old engine into a frame is merely "hot-rodding."
Not quite. Wing thickness (in %) may be driven by mission but not by speed part of mission. For instance, Boomerang does not look particularly thick, but it’s wing is 17% thick. Burt kept making it thicker until range (fuel capacity) was met. I think we can agree that the Boomerang qualifies as long range and fast…I agree with others, mission drives the design. All design projects are to meet the mission. You wouldn't build a carbon fiber sweep wing retractable low wing for STOL, nor would you build a thick, wide, long aluminum high wing for XC flying. Any powerplant can fit any mission, if the airframe accommodates. The reverse is not true.
It seems like when I read the history of a lot of World War II aircraft that they will not the airplane that we think of until some particular higher horsepower engine or modification came along.
Not quite. Wing thickness (in %) may be driven by mission but not by speed part of mission.
Billski
But what good is it to design anything without a engine capable of driving it ?
Someone say "Hot Rod"?""
Shoving any old engine into a frame is merely "hot-rodding."
But what good is it to design anything without a engine capable of driving it ?
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: