Move along - nothing to see here

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by drstress, May 27, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. May 31, 2019 #21

    proppastie

    proppastie

    proppastie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    Location:
    NJ
    More than likely all these web posts would need to be accomplished to design his plane.....posting with explanation does not really take much time......and there is probably so much more that has been done but is not posted. There has to be many thousands of decisions and compromises that need to be decided and you certainly will not see a discussion of all those decisions.
     
    drstress likes this.
  2. May 31, 2019 #22

    AdvenJack

    AdvenJack

    AdvenJack

    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2019
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Florida - Between St. Pete & Weeki Wachee
    From Post #2:
    Payload:
    • Pilot - 190 lbs
    • Passenger - 190 lbs
    • Baggage - 80 lbs
    • -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • Photo below borrowed from Post # 30
    • That Ain't No 190 Pound Lady! And you'll have a bloody nose if you suggest otherwise to her!!!
    Not A 190 Lb Lady !!!.png
     
    cherk, Derswede and drstress like this.
  3. May 31, 2019 #23

    AdvenJack

    AdvenJack

    AdvenJack

    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2019
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Florida - Between St. Pete & Weeki Wachee
    I hope you all got my attempt at humor in post 38.
    Apologies if it missed the mark...
     
    cherk, Derswede and drstress like this.
  4. May 31, 2019 #24

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    8,887
    Likes Received:
    5,737
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Got it, Jack.


    BJC
     
  5. Jun 1, 2019 #25

    Mad MAC

    Mad MAC

    Mad MAC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    151
    Location:
    Hamilton New Zealand
    I would suggest considering the following points at concept level:
    • Separate high-lift devices from drag creation devices. We have all seen the reports of pilots stalling due to pulling the flaps up to shed drag with an engine failure, being able to shed drag without changing the stall speed reduces the pilot work load (noting that a centre line twin doesn't have half the control issues of a normal twin but it will still suffered the degraded climb rate issue). Also given the high climbs rates of a twin, speed brakes would allow a similar descent capacity.
    • Having some of the vertical fin area below the tail boom is like to increase the tail volume in clear air in a spin. Not withstanding the issues relating to control jamming due to a tail strike.
     
    drstress likes this.
  6. Jun 3, 2019 #26

    Mad MAC

    Mad MAC

    Mad MAC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    151
    Location:
    Hamilton New Zealand
    "Separate high-lift devices from drag creation devices."

    The practical version of this would look something like a single flap setting (probably what would otherwise be takeoff setting, i.e best lift) and drag being controlled by a speedbrake or spoiler of some form.

    Nothing original required just pick and mix of existing design elements, cockpit integration maybe be a little bit harder.
     
  7. Jun 4, 2019 #27

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,567
    Likes Received:
    402
    Location:
    Flint, Mi, USA
    Minor oops there withe main gear being too far forward.
     
  8. Jun 4, 2019 #28

    ScaleBirdsPaul

    ScaleBirdsPaul

    ScaleBirdsPaul

    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Connecticut
    How did you like working with VSPAero? I've dabbled in it a bit, and it seems pretty powerful for free software. I found the modeling interface frustrating though, particularly with fuselages. Thanks for the detailed writeup, very interesting read.
     
  9. Jun 5, 2019 #29

    ScaleBirdsPaul

    ScaleBirdsPaul

    ScaleBirdsPaul

    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I typically do initial calcs by hand/spreadsheet and then supplement surface data from XLFR5 runs. Although XFLR5 is easy to use, you're limited in the geometry you can build, and I sometimes (often) get squirrely results. I was hoping VSPAero would be a more WYSIWYG software, but it sounds like that's not the case.
     
  10. Jun 10, 2019 #30

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,555
    Likes Received:
    1,530
    Location:
    US
    While we wait for someone to walk in with their VSPAERO drag results, I must admit up front I have nothing to offer in that regard. This info is a space filler until then. Honestly, since I last rode the OpenVSP horse, I’m waiting to see through your work if it is likely worth spending a lot of time for the results VSPAero will produce.

    What follows may be of interest because:
    a) It deals with aircraft drag
    b) It contains actual values (well--estimates)
    c) The project aircraft general configuration (the Beetlemaster) is similar to Airplane 5.

    Background: The Beetlemaster idea is the product of a long running thread here on HBA. In general, it envisions a small, centerline twin aircaft powered by modified VW Type 1 engines of approx 80HP each driving fixed pitch props. Four different concepts emerged from four members who each had slightly different goals:
    - Pops: (post 310) Strut-braced, 2 place tandem seat of primarily metal construction. 1500lb MTOW, 140 sq ft wing area, 34’ span (AR= 8.24)
    -Autoreply: (post 309) Cantilever wing, 4 place, aerodynamically clean composite construction, ?1600 ? lb MTOW, 126 sq ft wing area, 46’ span (AR = 16.07)
    - Vigilant1: Cantilever wing, 2 place, composite wing, 1600 lb MTOW, 126 sq ft wing, 35’ span (AR = 9.7)
    - Jan Carlsson: Most similar to Pops’s design.

    Drag Estimate:
    Parasite drag: This estimate of my version of the Beetlemaster was performed via the method described by Raymer and Roncz for conceptual design purposes. Fuselage, tail, and wing drag is calculated by applying a skin friction factor (based on aircraft and construction type) to the wetted areas of the various structures above. After this, drag from particular additional items (landing gear, struts, a stopped prop, etc) are calculated based primarily on frontal area, and added to the previously computed skin friction drag. For my design:
    - Wetted wing area (disregarding fuselage carry-through): 238.38 sq ft
    - Wetted tail area: 62.57 sq ft
    - Fuselage (incl tail booms): 158.7 sq ft
    Total wetted area: 459.65 sq ft.
    Skin Friction Coefficient Selected: .0058 Resultant equivalent flat plate drag area of above: 2.67 sq ft
    For reference: Skin friction coefficient values for typical composite design: .0050 (Roncz, Raymer)
    For typical metal design: Roncz: .0060 - .0065 Raymer: .0058
    For typical rag and tube: .014 (Hiscocks)
    Additional non-lift drag (equiv flat plate area):
    -- Landing gear (Raymer, tricycle, leg and wheel fairings): .41 sqft
    -- Stopped propeller (Raymer, fixed pitch, 2 blade, 54” dia, AR 8): 0.9 sq ft.

    - Total non-lift effective flat-plate drag area
    -- 2 engines running: 3.08 sq ft
    -- 1 stopped propeller: 3.98 sq ft

    Anticipated parasite drag values:
    -- 70kts (climb), SL, two engines running: 51 lbs
    -- 70 kts (climb), SL, 1 stopped prop: 66 lbs
    -- 120 Kt cruise, 6000’ MSL, two engine running: 126 lbs

    Induced drag
    --– 1600 lbs, wing as above, SL 70 kt climb: 53 lbs
    --– 1600 lbs, wing as above, 6000’ MSL, 120 kt cruise: 21 lbs

    Thrust required for level flight, 1600 lbs:
    SL, 70 kts, 2 engines: 104 lbs
    SL, 70 kts, 1 stopped propeller: 119 lbs
    120 kt cruise at 6000' MSL: 147 lbs

    Anyway, for what it is worth. Comparing to VSPAERO values for a similar aircraft design would be interesting.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
    spaschke, mcrae0104 and Pops like this.
  11. Jun 16, 2019 #31

    rhbelter

    rhbelter

    rhbelter

    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Carmel CA
    6-16-19

    Ahoy, Airplane 05,

    To introduce myself, I’m a (seriously old) TailHook Naval Aviator, and Aero engineer:

    The suggested tandem engine configuration discussed is a very good idea. Asymmetric thrust is ALWAYS a nasty thing in any airplane, and you really ought to try it in a swept wing airplane with LOTTSSAA thrust!!!

    I had suggested a tandem engine configuration years ago in an article in the EAA Experimenter, as a sensible way to pursue the development of ‘alternate’ engines. Failure of ONE developmental engine in a hot airplane (with two) is less likely to be a serious ‘event’ than an occurrence with only ONE aboard. (virtually NO response or interest). ::: ‘MY developmental engine will never fail!!!’

    I offer this consideration for the configuration of an airplane: A tandem engine airplane -w- an extension shaft and a tilt-wing, to make the landing gear reasonable. A tilt-wing is a ‘piece-of-cake’, but the shaft is quite willing to ‘shaft-you’.

    The tilt-wing has been done before. The F8 Crusader was such, worked great. First ‘burner I’d flown, and my immediate thought was that I’m finally in an airplane which is NOT seriously underpowered. BTW, ‘FAST’ is not difficult, (but you do hit harder). And: 1000 MPH is fine sport.

    The extension shaft is no casual thing. A comprehensive dynamic analysis is in order, along with appropriately measured results. The development of such is likely to be made much easier by using a clutch to de-couple the shaft during start.

    For you Reno Go-Fast Sports Racer guys: Rules: … ‘Aircraft are to be powered by an internal combustion engine or engines totaling no more than 1000 cu in.’

    I’ve not seen any talk of a tandem pair of 495 cu/in seriously hot engines installed in an appropriate (tilt-wing/extension shaft) airplane. The wetted surface of such would be very little greater than a single engine critter.

    Enjoy /s/ Bob

    I suggest that a well-done airplane like that would absolutely rule the Sport Racers, and scare the crap out of the unlimited guys.

    Enjoy /s/ Bob
     
  12. Jun 16, 2019 #32

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    8,887
    Likes Received:
    5,737
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Unlimited is protected by their rules. The winning Sport category airplanes in recent years would finish eighth or ninth in the Unlimited Gold.

    BJC
     
    BoKu likes this.
  13. Jun 16, 2019 #33

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,555
    Likes Received:
    1,530
    Location:
    US
    drstress,
    Regarding Post 61: It looks like you've done the calculations by hand and included some values provided through the VSP Drag Buldup Workbook. Is that right?
    100KT climb speed: Was this chosen as an estimated/anticipated cruise-climb airspeed for Airplane 05? It does seem faster than we'd expect for either Vx or Vy for a plane of this type.
    I'd imagine that the most challenging performance case, and the one that might be expected to bound other other choices fro Airplane 05, will be single engine climb at MTOW and high density altitude. If so, modeling that situation at an early point may force useful adjustments to span, power, MTOW, etc. That is, assuming safe SE climb is a rigid requirement, it may be necessary to adjust the design to achieve that in some cases and accept compromises in other areas where it can be accommodated.
     
  14. Jun 17, 2019 #34

    flyboy2160

    flyboy2160

    flyboy2160

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2014
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    california, USA
    This is an IT Peter SOLIDWORKS palantir error. They get people killed and lose spacecraft. You should never just push the CFD/FEA button and trust the answer. You always should have at least a partial closed form/hand calc. There are other methods besides Raymer's for guesstimating the stability.
     
  15. Jun 17, 2019 #35

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,555
    Likes Received:
    1,530
    Location:
    US
    I suppose I was mistaken to assume that safe single engine performance is a firm requirement for the design.
    FWIW, lack of adequate single engine performance is, reportedly, why the Gemini project was abandoned by Zenith.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  16. Jun 17, 2019 #36

    Marc Zeitlin

    Marc Zeitlin

    Marc Zeitlin

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2015
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    571
    Location:
    Tehachapi, CA
    A 14 second search on google for "calculate airplane neutral point" turns up a stack of articles on doing exactly that - closed form neutral point location calculations - some of them from classes at small, unknown schools such as MIT or the University of Delft.

    No need to wait. If you've got some airfoil and geometry data, you can determine the theoretical neutral point.
     
  17. Jun 17, 2019 #37

    Marc Zeitlin

    Marc Zeitlin

    Marc Zeitlin

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2015
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    571
    Location:
    Tehachapi, CA
    You're right - it is. But the statement I was responding to was the one where you said this:

    "...We aren't going to solve the equation for the airplane neutral point. I even doubt there exists a closed-form solution...."​

    and then, in response to flyboy2160, you said:

    "We are waiting for that closed-form solution you say we should try."​

    So I pointed you to a closed form solution. Just talking about neutral points, as you were.
     
  18. Jun 17, 2019 #38

    PiperCruisin

    PiperCruisin

    PiperCruisin

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2017
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Idaho
    I've done a fair bit of worrying about the neutral point and static margin. There is a lot of information in the equations. I've looked at dozens of sources for a good explanation. John Roncz's spreadsheets seems to provide a good calculation if you can find them. VSPaero seems to provide a reasonable estimate if you include the fuselage (included in Roncz's spreadsheet) which can have a significant impact.

    Airplane Performance Stability and Control by Perkins and Hage seems to be where a lot of it originates. An oldy, but a goody.

    As far as a closed form goes, it seems it would be a complicated equation. Usually, you probably solve for a couple cg locations or iterated to a location for neutral stability. Eventually you take your best "estimate" and move on. I've asked a lot of aero engineers about it and rarely got a good explanation. This probably explains why they spend years doing envelop expansion testing.
     
    mcrae0104 and drstress like this.
  19. Jun 20, 2019 #39

    drstress

    drstress

    drstress

    Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2018
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    15
    There is an important omission in the calculations for the "Constraint Analysis". Put there on purpose to see what would happen. All of the calculations are simple "hand, closed-form" calculations any high school algebra student should easily follow. Since no one commented on any of them, I think either no one bothered to look through them or no one has the expertise to understand them.

    Either way this is my last post. I'm sure the "good ole' boy" club will pointlessly blabber on and on about any and all of my attempts to bring a small amount of order to what has to be the most random assortment of opinions I have ever experienced.

    Since I don't fit in to this culture, I will welcome it as a badge of honor to be exorcised from HBA.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2019
  20. Jun 20, 2019 #40

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    Armchair Mafia Conspirator HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Location:
    BDU, BJC
    If you change your mind, may I suggest you continue this as a member project log thread, in which only the author may post?
     
    proppastie likes this.

Share This Page

arrow_white