Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by cluttonfred, Oct 3, 2015.
Ya, I had a thread on that a while back. The general consensus was that he was out of his mind.
Darn you. I snerked my coffee up my nose!
But yeah, every time they come up with a small "everyman's" vehicle they throw in so much fancy design and materials that it winds up costing more than a regular car. If someone actually wants to make some small vehicle successful they either need to use their design expertise to make it cheaply, or they have to be willing to sell the first few hundred at a loss until they can make it up in volume.
True, but something he built himself worked as intended rather than gathering dust after dumping buckets of cash on it so he's already one up on most. He's the awesome kind of crazy.
Well it is always easy to be a proponent of armchair safety and condemn those
who have guts to do new stuff.
My opinion is that quadcopters will be deliver the promise of flying car that otherwise would not happen, but might this way.
Hahaha, I didnt mean it in a bad way. And yes, a working prototype IS the awesome kind of crazy.
And man oh man, you guys keep giving me the best ideas but I have to get working in CG again after a 7 year hiatus. I am certain that at least a handful of the ideas on this forum could produce something VERY tangible if people could only see their ideas in other forms.
I mean, I could show you a completely feasible alternative using some of the other ideas presented on the forum, combined with a few little ideas taken from other industries. These things are a lot closer than people think.
I havent had this kind of feeling since I was sitting in a dorm room at a small engineering school about a decade ago, and had a design nearly identical to the Tesla model S sitting on a desk in front of me. Years before it was even considered by Tesla. If something is going to happen in aviation, its going to happen within a decade. Perhaps by the end of the current one.
I entertained a few ideas in my mind for a motorcycle-like aircraft a while back, but none of them were winged. I liked the idea of at least partial weight shifting from a fun factor and "one with the machine" standpoint, yet something that doesn't immediately appear intimidating to fly like typical aircraft just seems like numerous accidents waiting to happen.
I have developed an allergy against statements like that (not your fault, nor your doing).
"guts to do new stuff" is usually just people who keep throwing out ideas, but lack the skill and experience to both design and build a design, not to mention the drive.
Even those with the skill to build and the drive to finish end up in tears (the Valkyrie is a great example).
The one lesson I've learned is that if you can't reason against anything anyone can bring against your design, you shouldn't even start building it.
Boy Matthew, you are definitely the official rabble-rouser and pot-stirrer of the group! THANK YOU
I too have pondered similar concepts and configurations.
A modern version of the Whing Ding has certainly been prominent in my head and the headsof others here on HBA. Fritz was kind enough to provide me with useful information on the monoplane follow-on to the WD, called the Beta Bird. I am really scheming and dreaming HARD about an updated version of this aircraft.
The DePischof is really interesting, but not without its flaws. The Air-Bike comes really close.
But.... if you are designing an airplane for that open-air 'nothing blocking your view' experience, like a Bensen Gyro... then the pusher configuration is the way to go.
autoreply, this is why I am doing experimental dtuff in software, much
cheaper to redo two times and not so much tears vs when there is
money involved. I have also doing small scale flying stuff as there is
a lot less tears in case of failure. There are two kinds of progress:
- experienced designers do stuff inside their comfort zone and invent nothing
new, end result: works most of the time. Many engineers do careers inside
this kind of box and many think it is wise and safe
- designers step out of their comfort zone. If safety precautions are in
place, the first design is only monetary loss when it has to be scrapped
Good things sometimes emerge from 2, replications of C172 arise from 1. I have recklessly chosen number 2 but I have already accounted failures
ahead of reaching target and this is why I do not concentrate model 1
the ultimate my airplane anymore because model 1 is going to fail anyway.
Model 1 is going to have much smaller size so the materials and time
needed will need to be much less and there is going to be less tears
when it is in pieces in a tree. Model three could perhaps be the ultimate
personal air vehicle after experimentation on less expensive space.
Good thing about this route is that I can probably afford it and I might
be able to sell the model 2 already as UAV if model 1 is a sure loss.
In software space, my AI code has reached the start of 5th implementation
round. In fact I have not yet figured out all aspects of it how it can be
implemented but the goal is unlike done previously. In the mean time
I may integrate some aspects of it to a more known system (such as
LTP, LTD (STDP)) and there
is use for it before the ultimate goal works. And in circles of classical AI
I can tell you that is totally nuts. But this is enabler for the aircraft projects
also, manual controls is so 1900s.
In GA, anything you are likely to get into the air has long since been "invented". Combine different concepts, sure and there are plenty of concepts that haven't been fully explored or have recently (say FBW for example) turned feasible.
But usually when people claim to "invent" things or have "new concepts" they don't notice it's been tried before and failed. Usually, but not always for reasons intrinsically part of that very concept...
Show me a new "invention" in GA and I show you where it's been done before
Bringing up back on topic.... Maybe eliminating the motorcycle seating but keeping the size and weight limits would be more interesting and acceptable to a wider group? How about this, maybe call it the "Flivver Class?"
Single seat, open cockpit
Helmet, harness and rollover protection mandatory
*Max gross weight 300 kg/661 lb
*Max stall speed 65 kph/40 mph/35 knots
*60 kW/80 hp max
Easy wing folding or removal for trailering and storage
**Maximum span 5.5m/18'
**Maximum length (at rest on the ground) 5.5m/18'
*European single-seat microlight limits
**For sporty, racy look and feel and easy building and storage in a small workshop no bigger than a 20' ISO container
Any configuration would be allowed: low-, mid- or high-wing monoplane, biplane, triplan, canard, tandem, you name it. There could be low key, fun competitions with a variety of factors involved, not just speed, to favor all-around balanced designs rather the freaks which focus one one aspect of performance.
Just get a Drifter 277 single.
or a Drifter 582 twin if you want a passenger.
I cant imagine myself in case thinking of new concept, just throwing some numbers around and do basic initial math without having a rough outline of the design already in my mind!?
So, in this case of an flying machine where a pilot will be boarded similar way as on a motorbike, I see the craft as I draw on my sketch bellow. Pilot must wear harness to prevent him any movements off the seat (specially at negative loads and deccelerations..or steep dive situations). Pilot must lay his chest on the padding over the engine compartment not to get tired after long flight.
Regarding small size, I would opted a biplane, staggered forward, to get proper space for the pilot. Wings equipped with flaps and ailerons to get desired low speed. Engine is mounted under the pilot chest and power is delivered to the pusher propeller via two shafts connected by belt reducer. Boxer BMW? Two cooling air intakes in lower sides of forward beak. Two inline wheels, forward stearable, rear firm. Tiny skids&wheels on the lower wing tips for taxiing.
Twin tail boom.. "H" type tail feathers. This craft should fly fast!!!
All composite from molds. Wings and tailbooms removable for storage.
So much about from me.... of course I dont like the idea (riding an aeroplane) , but I like to make sketches.....
Well, how about:
Because for me, and for many others, a trike is not the kind of aircraft I'm interested in.
(that should have been we're instead of I'm) So does that mean trikes aren't allowed in your thread? Should someone start another thread "Trikes of the Air"?
The neat thing about an 18' span is you can fold the wing in three six foot sections so with wings folded it forms an equilateral triangle narrower than legal trailering width.
To me, the idea of 'motorcycle' of the air means something that is kind of open and allows the pilot easy entry and exit, without a lot of tubes and wires all over the place, so that eliminates the pilot hanging in a cage of tubes and wires.
OK !! I got it !! wait for it !! ... the cartoon !!
How about this design? Just add dual VTOL propfans from a known producer and you got a real hoverbike...
Stick a motorcycle seat on the old Hiller flying platform. IIRC those things flew just fine and with a modern engine you could probably get reasonable endurance.
OK, folks, my intention here was not a thread about flex-wing trikes, or powered parachutes, or gyroplanes or VTOL aircraft real or fictional, just fixed wing light aircraft.
Yes, Starjumper7, an 5.5m/18' span does make for a relatively easy folding wing, or removable outer sections. It should not be too hard to manage a design that can from the trailer or 20' shipping container hangar to flight in 10 minutes.
Well, nothing can beat that thing Danger Zone posted for styling, notice it conveniently doesn't have a propeller or fan.
The problem with not allowing trike gear is that then if you want a pusher it will end up looking like it was from 1910.
So this is what I'm thinking, nothing earth shattering. Just a twin boom pusher with an open seating arrangement, and a roll bar, all arranged to look sexy and motorcyclish. You could put an exotic looking tapered wing on it to give it more sex appeal.
... needs a bigger spinner to give it better lines
Separate names with a comma.