# Jet Black BP100

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### jetblackaircraft

##### Well-Known Member
What does everyone think of the new Jet Black design? I am currently in production on the prototype, but at the same time I am putting all of my part designs into Pro Engineer to do CG calculations and fitment. Here is a screen shot of my pro E assembly of the entire aircraft (it's missing engine, landing gear, wing tips, some structure, but the CAD models of those are all coming soon. Tell me what you think! Oh, and if you want to buy one, go check out www.jetblackaircraft.com in the coming soon section for updates on projected completion dates, etc.

Single seat

Single engine (Cont O-200, Lyc O-235, Lyc O-320)

Aerobatic aircraft

#### HeliDev

##### Well-Known Member
Hey Guys,
Thanx for the replies.
Over the past couple of years Ive used a few programs, Rhino, autocad (yuck!!!), solid works, and I have a seat on alibre.
I have mainly started using proe because thats what they use at work and Im trainig my self in mechanica, so Ive been doing some extra modeling in that. Its only a trial version, I cant afford a seat.
On the whole I like ProE, but I find that some things are very easy, others are rediculously hard.
JB, thanx for those picks, Ive managesd to get the variable sweep going, but hte blends are a bit of a dog.
In my limited experience, I would have to say though that there are bits of each program that if combined would make a perfect progam.

#### orion

##### R.I.P.
The goal of any tool is to increase productivity and CAD is probably the best example of the potential to improve a product as well as the productivity it takes to create it. Many industries have dramatically improved their product development processes using the computer based tools. It is therefore of paramount importance that the tool they select does the job that they need. Not every industry needs the capabilities that we need in the design of airplanes. But many need specific capabilities to optimize their own processes.

But productivity is the function of the tool. I remember one company I worked for where the very expensive CAD system they incorporated was so counterintuitive and incapable that the engineers refused to work on it and went back to their drafting boards. By the same token, if you have to sit around, sometimes for days, scratching your head before you figure out workarounds to a particular problem, then it's very possible that you have the wrong tool. Part of this is of course the time you've just wasted on the problem.

But the second part is that in the workaround one often has to comporomise the design in some way that makes the mathematical model less than what it should be. Yes, the pictures you get may represent what you're after, but the model is not much good beyond the pretty pictures due to the lack of accuracy you had to work with in forcing the geometry to do what you were envisioning in your head. At that point yes, you'll get at least a representation of the shape but it will most likely not be accurate enough for you to build from. And it is at that point that the tool becomes less than beneficial to what you're trying to achieve.

The interesting part of all this is that some of the good tools are actually not all that expensive. Today we're getting more an more capabilities from design tools that cost a tiny fraction of what it used to cost for each seat of a CAD system. That enables even the smaller companies to get into the mix. I'll love to see what the tools will do ten years from now.

#### wally

##### Well-Known Member
Not much to add other than at my previous employment I used CADAM for several years to design simple bracket and part drawings as well as wiring diagrams.
Then I got a chance to take a 2 week course in CATIA. Wow, what a drawing system! Full-up 3D solid modeling. The instructor said it usually takes 6 months full time to get used to all the features, whistles and bells it has. The Gulfstream V was mostly designed using it.

Wally

#### jetblackaircraft

##### Well-Known Member
CATIA

Yeah, CATIA is definately the premier modelling software currently in use. Several big time aerospace companies use it. I know people who got jobs based solely on their CATIA version 5 skills. If you have that on your resume, you're guaranteed a job no questions asked almost. I'd love to get a chance to mess with it. Don't have the money though, that's why I'm so into using Pro E and nothing else. I've tried autocad, solidworks, bobcad, and Pro E. Granted, that's not a very wide variety, but I can't imagine anything being much better than pro E. You can get a watered down version that you're not supposed to use for commercial applications for like \$300. And I've never found a shape I couldn't make. It just takes a little getting used to the tricks, they may be counter intuitive, but they're only counter intuitive until you learn how to do them, then you see how they're not counter intuitive, it was just that you weren't allowing your mind to stretch the right way. Lol. lets see if I can sound even more like a hippy pothead. The software is always intuitive to the people who write it. Just because it's not to you doesn't mean it's bad software.

K

#### Kestas

Hi, folks,
Its my first post there, so let me introduce myself:
I am aeronautical designer from Lithuania now working as the CAA Inspector but still interested in development of ligh airplanes. My special field of interest is a 3D airplane geometry parameterization using CATIA V5 software. Before I was worked with Mechanical Desktop. I have short courses in local Aviation Institute (as my second/part time job) concerning airplane geometry modeling methods.
So, the basic operation commonly used is lofting of surface on the prepared 3D wireframe model. Blend and sweep operations are optional and used for joinings (fairings, cowlings). Basic lofting methods (named under a type of cross section curves used) are: radiusography, conic and spline methods. The last method (using spline curves for contour and cross-sections) is my favourite because it is comparatively simple and very flexible. Every method has its own smoothing technique of the 3D wireframe model followed with a final editing of the lofted surface. CATIA has very wide and powerful surface analysis/editing instruments in the Free Form block. Special task is development of seamless joining between a fuselage and vertical fin typical for composite structures.
I have uploaded some pictures in my gallery but failed to locate them there, sorry
I will be glad to be useful if somebody have any questions or suggestions.
Respect to Orion - I'v learned a lot of useful things from you :smile:

#### George Sychrovsky

##### Banned
if you click the "photos" link on top the pictures are right there

#### HeliDev

##### Well-Known Member
CATIA is certainly one program I would like to have a go on. Unfortunately they dont offer a demo version, and the student version is only open to those who use CATIA at their university.

#### wsimpso1

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
OK, I have looked, and maybe I missed it, but materials are used in its construction?

Being as I see a constant chord wing, and stringers and ribs in the fuselage, I am thinking aluminum. It looks like it will fit into the niche that used to be occupied by the RV3.

Billski

#### jetblackaircraft

##### Well-Known Member
Materials

You are correct. It is an all aluminum structure with some fiberglass fairings. And yes, the target market is similar to the RV3. However, unlike the RV3, the BP100 will be all prepunched and precut. Should go together just about as easy as the RV6-10. If you have any other questions, or if I have left out anything important about the airplane which I may have forgetten to include,let me know. Thanks!