Extreme STOL/VTOL homebuilt

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by BBerson, Jun 18, 2008.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jun 19, 2008 #21

    Larry Lyons

    Larry Lyons

    Larry Lyons

    Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NW Illinois
    Not very quiet, but the Jet Pack that is just now mentioned on the EAA site for this Airventure may be very interesting. Last January I had a conversation with the Curator of the EAA museum, he mentioned that it looked like this guy would be at the show this year. OK no big news but; he said if this guy comes he will fly for 30 minutes not 30 seconds! I have been watching and just this week I see it was added to the show line up, so it will be interesting to see if the flight times are for real. Larry
     
  2. Jun 19, 2008 #22

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,971
    Likes Received:
    4,916
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Holden, you are correct in that people are quick to judge... it can be a natural human failing. I also agree that while incremental will eventually get you there and serve most of us well, there is also a place (and need) for quantum advances. As you said, people CAN detach from the normal progression and make quantum leaps (such as Whittle with the jet turbine), or even LARGE incremental changes (such as Rutan with SpaceShip One). I'm sure that Whittle and Rutan had their naysayers, but their actions put value to their words. That being said, your job is to prove that you can do what you say.

    As an added defense to our naysayers, the people who do take quantum steps usually do so in secrecy, while the less than qualified (dare I say it... LOONIES) turn out in droves to pitch their far-fetched ideas. It is rare to find someone with a qualified background and proper research (as you say you have) who is willing to go out on that limb and voice their radical ideas. I hope for your sake and ours that your efforts to move from paper to a tangible result don't run into the roadblocks that life likes to place. There is a lot of hard truth to the saying that "it worked on paper".

    Now before others jump on me for my LOONIES comment, let me say that I am not referring to someone who throws out their new ideas and designs for our comment. Just because it is different doesn't make you a "loonie". Most of you lay it on the line to get our thoughts and suggestions on how to make it better. I reserve the loonies title for those that come up with an off-the-wall idea with NO knowledge, training or background, yet feel they KNOW all the answers. These people usually have ideas that are so obviously bad, yet they don't hear the pleas of reason by others who are concerned for their safety.

    Bruce :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2008
  3. Jun 19, 2008 #23

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,971
    Likes Received:
    4,916
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Hi BBerson,

    I think I mentioned this somewhere else in the forum, but I had the opportunity to fly one of the few remaining Stinson L-1's. It is a big, gangly Cub-like airplane (50 foot wings?) with self-actuating slats and a P&W R985. The placard on the instrument panel said "Do not fly below 18 MPH". It truly was a slow and STOL aircraft.

    Bruce :)
     
  4. Jun 19, 2008 #24

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,194
    Likes Received:
    2,398
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Bruce,
    How can the Stinson fly that slow? If you do the math, what is the Wing CL?
    Can the Stinson land in 25 feet? I think maybe the airspeed indications are not accurate in lots of claims of slow flight. But you flew it, I have not, so I cannot say what is reality until I see it.

    Holden,
    If you don't like my incremental approach idea, that's OK. I asked for thoughts and I accept that it does not appeal to you. It fits me, perhaps I have more time. I am not interested in starting a business. I have free time and money to chase any project I desire. I think these experiments will be fun.

    I strongly agree with your comments about EAA, that is why I am here. Please remember, sometimes comments sound harsh when typed here and that may not be the intent of the posters comments.

    WileEZ,
    I am not sure if blown wings work at slow speed. I assume direct powered lift with a propeller is still the best way known to produce lift.
    BB
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2008
  5. Jun 19, 2008 #25

    Midniteoyl

    Midniteoyl

    Midniteoyl

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    500
    Location:
    Indiana
    I'm sorry... I have to jump in.

    Holden, having read this thread, and the other, my problem is not with your ideas, but with your attitude. I didnt see anyone 'piss on you' at the start, and the 'Moller' comment didnt come untill the 'you are obsolete and my way's better' type stuff come out.

    You might have a good thing, but with an attitude like yours, it'll never go anywhere.


    sorry this thread got hijacked.
     
  6. Jun 19, 2008 #26

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,971
    Likes Received:
    4,916
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Big wings, big flaps, full span slats, relatively light weight. Haven't done the math, just flown the plane.

    No. I think it was closer to 30. :gig:

    I agree, I rarely rely on airspeed indicators in slow-speed nose-high flight. All I know is what the factory placard said. By the way, I was wrong about the motor. It was a Lyc 680 radial, 295 HP.

    If you are not familiar with the L-1 Vigilant, it is somewhat similar to the Fiesler Storch, but rounder (guppier?).

    Bruce :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2008
  7. Jun 20, 2008 #27

    Holden

    Holden

    Holden

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    USA
    My "attitude" is born out of working on ideas since 1993 when I first went to Oshkosh, trying to start a seaplane kitplane company, earning that million dollars to do it, doing all the wind tunnel, scale models, stress analysis, aero, mechanical design, landing gear design, and spending my OWN money and do so since 1995 full time.

    I am one of the "born-again" EAA'er believers with a Masters degree who thought I could meet like minded open minded guys and become a Rutan of sorts, but with my own design goals that others would get inspired in. I did the composite stuff, invented a new method how to turn the hull into a plug with sandwich construction...and on and on. It all takes time.

    I pulled the plug when I sobered up from the dreams and asked some hard questions. I am 100 times harder on myself, and have gone through hundreds of studies in part and full learning something new each time I push the vision envelop.

    My first job offer was a stress analyist on the F-18.f I did not take the job because of the government corporate junk I detest, and was also a few years back offered a job on the Dreamliner...

    Of course when I figure it all out, fly the machine, people will all want to be part of it. The journey that I find interesting, is where nobody wants to be, and that is the innovation stage, design, scale modeling, where all the fun is, at least for me. They all want big fat pay checks and retirement packages, not an opportunity to go for it...

    The key mistake I made 11 years ago when I dove into a kit attempt (notice I had no adds in kitplane, nor have you heard of me, and Holden is not my real name, by the way...I work in secret like you say) was a clear vision and understanding of what was needed and what could realistically be achieved. For example, Rutan has made many great world record attempts, but has never made a production worthy airplane for the average guy that makes airplanes daily useful, like a car is useful. His vision is different than mine, which I respect. I want that flying seaplane car in every garage, Rutan does not care nor believe it is possible.

    I have a friend who is making a jet powered airplane that is basically a 2 x 2 x 7 long tapered box with a rounded nose, high wing, tail in back. You lay down on your stomach and this thing goes (CFD predictions of 0.5 s ft flat plate drag) around 260 mph. It is like wearing an airplane. You put it in the back of a car or pick up and drive home. Weight is around 150 lbs empty. Kind of cool. He did a 1/2 scale model and crashed it. I saw it crash. I tried to explain why it crashed and all about doing scale modeling, why he should be the RC guy flying the model and the value of doing the testing yourself and what to look for. (I worked with a guy who has done models for 30 years and he taught me so much). I suggested some changes critical to low end safety and he just ignores me. The airplane crashed for exactly the reason I stated, yet he blows off the hazard and moves on to full scale. He is a "good" engineer, perhaps one of the best I know. There is something about people that limits us. When I did our models for the seaplane we did several models and crashed them and learned each time. I suggested we do the same way until it is right. This guy, however, was too proud to stick with it, even though his own life is on the line... How can one work with someone like that...

    I have come to the conclusion that determination is THE most important trait, along with a willingness to put forth idea after idea, then test them, and stick to it. That is what gives me the sensitive attitude. I take 100 ideas, go through them, and then reformulate and combine, and it may take a year before I come full circle. The vision tells me when to stop. Making something simple is much harder than complex, but some functions require a certain level of complexity to perform a task. Look at any PC and you get the idea.

    I put out an add to the four local Universities for a job to find someone to help me accelerate my goals. My wife is NOT an engineer, just a good listener, but that goes only so far... I interviewed 4 guys with 3.5+ GPAs, and not one could think out of the box, nor turn his brain on and go to the core of the physics and ask the quality questions. I would have lived on rice and beans just out of college to meet a guy like myself with the goals I have willing to pay me to work with him. I would have worked for free part time at any rate. But, all were worried about retirement, health care, and 401ks...for the love of pete... screw retirement and sitting on the butt...

    So, my attitude sucks. I agree. My question is basic. Is my way better, if not, tell me why and lets discuss it. To make an omelet it takes some heat, and mixing things up. I think most people get offended way to easily and want to "have there beliefs" or some PC crap. I feel like I like in a communist PC world, and a stranger in my own country...

    <Paragraph deleted by the Administrator due to violation of HBA Code of Conduct #2>

    I went to Miramar in San Diego (Navy) and asked 10 questions about all the instruments on all the Air Force's jet and showed that these PC bull crappers have been out of compliance for 50 years. I get written up for stating the obvious. I walk into a bay with the F-15 Altimeter and solve a problem in one day that they have spent several million tax dollars on and I get written up. All the workers are high fiving me. "Dude, we did it!" The shop (fat slob) foreman knew he was screwing us all...he does the attitude thing...tells my boss, I don't want this guy in my shop ever again. Why? Because I like to screw up for years and get away with it. I am told that to save 1 million per year on a small 38 million program would not make a congressman happy...bull crap... We need more guys like me WITH an attitude and willingness to ask the real questions. PC will be the death of us all...

    WileEZ, thanks for the brain on session! I like it! I started thinking along the same lines and have the compressed air as part of the engine cycle. The wing is an inter-cooler of sorts to get isothermal-isobaric compression that injects in at 2000 psi, and to give ice protection. It is a pneumatic-hydraulic hybrid of sorts. I started along the same line you just mentioned and it leads to some breakthroughs that I think will get me the 60%++, blown air, boundary layer aid in the cruise (forget laminar, just make it become laminar with blown air off the waste air pressure), and some solar input into the cycle.

    Well, thanks for the chat. See ya at Oshkosh some day...in the seaplane section...
     
  8. Jun 20, 2008 #28

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,194
    Likes Received:
    2,398
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Bruce,
    From wikapedia, I found the Stinson L-1 has a wing loading of about 8 lbs/ft empty and 10.3 lbs. at gross. I figure the 18mph is at full power at altitude. With 295hp it can hang on the prop.... some airplanes can even hover briefly. But try landing with full power on, that's the problem.
    I saw an experimenter fly his "channel wing" powered lift design. He had to cycle the power on and off to land. So the powered lift did not work very well for him. It could not come down with the power on.
    BB
     
  9. Jun 20, 2008 #29

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,481
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Location:
    Corona CA
    A flying seaplane car that everyone can afford to buy and afford to fly is great. Sure. Usefulness like an average automobile is, well, useful. But the majority of us don't build and fly our aircraft because of their "usefulness". They are toys to most of us. Cherished and often expensive toys. We do it for the non-quantifiable pleasure of owning and operating a machine that appeals to us, for whatever reason. Logic and usefulness have very little to do with it. A Ford Windstar is useful. Would I drive one for fun or build one from a kit? Hell no. Would a fleet manger for some large corporation like it? Sure. My boss has 1959 Ford truck with a blown 454 with 800 hp in it. Useful? Well, it can haul stuff, but its purpose is the pure pleasure of having built it and driving it around.

    Usefulness is commercial pre-requisite. A vital asset if you want to succeed in selling your product to a market that demands it. I just don't think the average EAA member is all that concerned with it.

    I choose what to build and fly because it has some kind of visceral appeal to me. There is nothing in my biplane project for example, that couldn't have been done in 1928, and for a lot of us, that is the whole point.

    Your criticisms of the lack of progress should not be directed at the average homebuilder and EAA member. We do this stuff for fun, not to satisfy some logically arrived at bottom line. For some of us the fun is in innovation and pushing the technical boundary, for others it's open cockpit vintage aviation. I would certainly like one of your roadable amphibians. But it would be my second airplane.

    Having said all that, I can totally understand some of your attitudes. Working in a vacuum is discouraging, but as soon as you put your ideas out there, you open yourself up to ridicule by the armchair experts, who may or may not have the slightest qualifications to pass judgment on your ideas.
    At least you have the advantage of being a 'real' engineer and thus some innate respect from others when you talk about a subject in your field. I am strictly an amateur whose engineering knowledge is self-acquired and gleaned from those older 'real' engineers who were happy to share their knowledge with someone who showed an interest. To give an example; I am working on an engine design that is probably neolithic compared to your ideas. I feel it will possess certain advantages, especially as costs and ease of manufacturing are concerned, but it is not going to surpass 40% efficiency. Not by much anyway. But what bothers me is having to work on this thing "in secret", like you mention above. 20 years of people poking largely uniformed fun at one's ideas can be enough to undermine anyone's determination. Which is why it has taken me this long to actually convince myself that my ideas are valid and to take myself seriously. I rarely mention it to anyone these days and not because I feel somebody will steal my ideas. When I have a running prototype mounted on the back of my truck and it has delivered what I intend it to deliver, I will talk about it. I simply had enough of listening to uniformed, unhelpful comments.

    As far as PC and attitudes in this forum go: I think politeness goes a long way. I had the pleasure of being called various names in here (quite a while ago) for pointing out some facts of physics regarding a certain airplane design that ran against somebody's opinion. It happens. Ignoring them usually works best.
     
  10. Jun 20, 2008 #30

    Midniteoyl

    Midniteoyl

    Midniteoyl

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    500
    Location:
    Indiana
    hrmm..
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2008
  11. Jun 20, 2008 #31

    rtfm

    rtfm

    rtfm

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,192
    Likes Received:
    572
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hi,
    One of the most elegant VTOL/STOL aircraft designs I have come across is the tilt-body design by Freewing Unmanned Systems LLC (http://www.freewing.com/)

    The transition from near vertical lift to full forward flight is gradual, manageable and seems to work like a charm. I can't see any obvious reason why this can't be adapted to a full-sized aircraft...

    Perhaps there are ideas you can borrow from this design.

    Regards,
    Duncan
     

    Attached Files:

    SkyClimber likes this.
  12. Jun 20, 2008 #32

    divad_strebor

    divad_strebor

    divad_strebor

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    That UAV is cool!

    I guess this thread is pretty well hijacked...

    As has already been said, I didn't knock your idea Holden, I honestly want you to get out there and do it. The industry really does need innovators. What I have a problem with is your attitude that EVERYBODY should be an innovator.

    As PTAirco said, the majority of individuals building aircraft are doing it for pleasure, not to make a squillion dollars. For me, flying is a hobby, always has been, and probably always will be. My day-to-day is as a Fitter and Turner in a textile mill. If I, and everyone like me, dropped everything to invent new types of airplanes, you probably wouldn't have clothes to wear. We all play a part in the real world, and I will say that I've never truly enjoyed anything I've done for a living. Not because the jobs have been bad, but because I've always worked for bosses. I COULD go work in the aviation industry if I wanted to, but I would still be working for a boss. That for me would take the fun out of it. I could also try starting my own business and being my own boss. I'd still think the boss was a prick :lick:. As a result of all this I've chosen to keep doing what I do for a living, and never let stress get to me (I've got two hands and eight hours, I'll do what I can do), and keep aviation as a relaxing passtime.

    On another note, about the idea of "Incremental Development" versus "Instant Future"...

    How do you eat an Elephant?




    One bite at a time.




    If you try to swallow it whole, you are probably going to choke.


    Thats the way I approach projects/challenges/jobs. Not saying you have to do it the same way, but it works really well for me. I don't look at a project as a project on its own, I look at it as lots of little projects that come together to produce the end result.
     
  13. Jun 20, 2008 #33

    rtfm

    rtfm

    rtfm

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,192
    Likes Received:
    572
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Holden,
    Hi. I have met excessively bright people in my lifetime - and you MAY be one of them. I have also met angry people. You seem definitely to be one of THEM. But bright and angry is disturbing.

    The guys on this forum have been nothing but gracious. Even in the face of your strident accusations. They have largely ignored your rantings, and tried to focus on the positives. If you find us so useless, so dull - then go away. Just leave. I, for one, don't find your rantings helpful. I'd prefer it if you found another soap-box.

    Having said that - I have to reiterate my best wishes on your design adventure. Build it, and they will come. With the emphasis on the building part...

    Duncan
     
  14. Jun 20, 2008 #34

    Jman

    Jman

    Jman

    Site Developer

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    Pacific NW, USA!
    Well folks, I love spirited discussion as much as the next guy BUT, as you may have noticed, I had to use my administrative powers to trim out a few statements and posts that were not in keeping with the HBA Code of Conduct. It's a rare thing, but it does happen from time to time. Taking a softer tone can go a long way toward strengthening a persons arguments.

    Another thing I'd like to highlight is that this site was created to help spur innovation as much as it was to help the average homebuilder. I would just ask that we look at the merit of ideas based on what is written and not try to project the failure of others onto them. Because someone has ideas similar to a failed idea or scam does not mean that person is automatically lumped into that category.

    We now return to your regular programing.....
     
  15. Jun 20, 2008 #35

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,971
    Likes Received:
    4,916
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Doesn't that describe most of the arch-villains in superhero movies??? :gig:
     
  16. Jun 20, 2008 #36

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,971
    Likes Received:
    4,916
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    I would tend to agree with you on this point as it relates to the 18 MPH placard.

    Sorry all for taking us off-topic here.

    Bruce :)
     
  17. Jun 20, 2008 #37

    Rom

    Rom

    Rom

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Medina, Ohio
    Thomas Edison was once asked about the 200 failed attempts he had made in producing one of his inventions. Edison told that person that "those weren't failures but successes, in that I succeeded in discovering 200 ways that it didn't work."
    I have come up with some hair brained schemes in my time, but that is the road in producing innovations that a lot of us are working on in designing our own aircraft.
    We are a minority in the general population. Most people probably think we are all nuts for wanting to build our own airplanes. That is not something most folks would consider doable.
    Personally I don't consider any idea implausible. I say go for it. It might work after 200 attempts.
     
  18. Jun 20, 2008 #38

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,971
    Likes Received:
    4,916
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    So Holden, how do we recognize you at the seaplane base?
     
  19. Jun 20, 2008 #39

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,194
    Likes Received:
    2,398
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Here is a video of a C-130 converted to extreme STOL with JATO for lift on takeoff and reverse JATO for landing. Sometimes it works and sometimes....



    This is my idea, but with safer thrust units.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
  20. Apr 2, 2012 #40

    billyvray

    billyvray

    billyvray

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    226
    Location:
    Newnan, GA
    Dredging up an old thread to save starting a new one.
    Here's a video of a ultralight with a bunch of engines. No pilot yet, but cool.





    ~Bill
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019

Share This Page



arrow_white