- Nov 14, 2009
- Rocky Mountains
Out of curiosity, what engine? Using a prop extension?Does this help?
If thrust line is axis system wing is at 3° and reflex is 6°. Whole thing propped up at 8° in takeoff trim. Tiny fixed wheel gives clearance so the nose gear doors can sequence (butterfly open) first and the geometry of the nose retraction makes the tire contact first. Tricky, huh? I've been obsessing over this a bit for a bit. Happens. Might be the easiest airplane of this type to get in and out of ever. Main gear trailing link would attach to a bracket on the rear spar. There would be some sort of rib there to take all the torsion and to mount the shock to.
View attachment 96935
See how the nose wheel caster centers and the tire touches the pavement first during extension... Plenty of clearance to get the doors out of the way first. Would need a simple arduino/Pi sequencer and some relays, servos for the doors, 12/24v linear actuator for the extension/retraction.
View attachment 96937
Dunno, lots of choices. Anything north of 75 HP would be more than adequate. 120HP turbo would make it a rocket. Prop extension certainly. Aeromomentum? I like twin side by side quad motors from Polaris. Already dry sump, light, lots of grunt down low. Turbo kits available. Rotax B box would work. I'm a fan of inline water cooled.Precisely the reason I found the idea worth stealing!
You might consider a 2 position nose gear? One for take off and a second for landing. Skip to 3:20
The aircraft was called a Facet OPAL, not opel. I was a close aquaintance of the late Scott Winton.Yes indeed, I'm guessing the Facet Opal probably had the landing gear in the fuselage because he wanted a wet wing or enormous fuel tanks for his distance record flying.
But a realistic sport Opal would not need ALL of that fuel, maybe 2/3 or 1/2 of that Winton wanted. So this would allow the gear to fold up into the wing would reduce the complexity and improve the ground handling.
Agreed, I think you will find most of my references to this aircraft use the correct spelling, naming the aircraft after the precious gemstone as opposed to the future automobile manufacturer (and 1929 rocket glider designer).The aircraft was called a Facet OPAL, not opel. I was a close aquaintance of the late Scott Winton.
What kind of mission parameters?Agreed... I have been doing a lot of thinking about a derivative of the Pelican.
One modest level above the original parameters for the Pelican. Not trying to fly on 9-12HP, not trying to make an airplane that weighs 75KG. Part 103 would be nice, but is not a first-level requirement. Cost, simplicity, and able to have the parts made on a CNC machine are higher priorities. If someone won't make the commitment to get a Sport Pilot license and Basic Med, I may not want to take that risk of selling them a kit.What kind of mission parameters?
I think that is going to be one of the bigger challenges with the Pelican.I'm wrestling with the different methods of fitting it into a trailer, or a shipping container