New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Grelly, Apr 15, 2011.
The 70 kg US$39,000 FlyNano Electric Microlight
Despite their marketing as "ultralight", it seems unlikely to me that they'll make the UL stall limit...
Looks like a WIG to me... Maybe they mean ultralight by weight limit alone? Kind of a neat little platform though IF it is controllable. Short coupled and sea plane used in the same sentence is a bit scary to me.
Yes, I agree it's just clever marketing. Tell it's an "ultralight" and quote a price in dollars, but don't claim it's a Far 103 compliant one. Make sure you have a lot of coverage and be cool and deposits are guaranteed because you don't need a license for "ultralights".
Not that there's something (clearly) wrong with the design and I really like the design, though one could wonder how realistic water operations are with that hull and a Vs of 44 mph.
But their marketing tactics... well :ermm:
There was an australian open cockpit, canard, ultralight, pusher on a pylon flying boat in Homebuilt Aircraft magazine years ago. I can't find any reference to it on the web anymore.
That one was pretty sane. It was basically a large amphib float with a hole for a seat about midships, and 2 cycle engine on a pylon aft of the pilot on top of the rear wing, a canard mounted on a pylon/bracket at the very nose, and I think I rememeber two rudders that the lower projection of which were where the main wheels were. There was a picture of it with the builder with WW1 goggles and hair blowing in the wind with some mutt dog with his tongue hanging out flying in and among the mangroves off the east coast somewhere I think.
Anyone have a link to that craft? That would be a fun machine especially with a bubble canopy sealing it up ala Cri Cri.
One of the 'renderings' is shows one aircraft in the background 'playfully' dipping its starboard wingtip ( wingloop ?? winghoop ?? ) into the water as it flies by !!
You just KNOW someone is going to try that and turn into a very shortlived, expensive pinwheel !!!!
Agree with others - 103 compliant ?? I doubt it.
SunRay? I think it was called the SunRay. Back in the '80s. Getting harder to find references now. There was a lot of media buzz prior to first flight. Then near-silence afterwards, with slowly diminishing talk of "further development". I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.
Back OT, 70kg (the claimed empty weight for this "new aircraft") works out to just over 154 lbs. Color me skeptical.
Nope, that wasn't what I was looking at. This thing was just two wings strapped to a fiberglass float. Maybe the thing that I was looking at was the first prototype before they lost their minds trying to make it into a star fighter during the scaleup to the kit world that a lot of nice simple designs suffer. Sun Ray sounds about right, and the early 80's sounds about right.
Maybe a Diehl XTC?
Dingdingdingdingding.... That's the one. XTC... Nice subtle reference to Andy Partridge.
That is pretty simple and useful little play machine. Did it every get to plans or kits?
KLF 107 engine produces 22 - 25 hp on Diehl XTC and 155 sqft wing. 85 lbs heavier than Nano Nano empty.
Why would that FLYNANO not be Part 103 eligible ?
Looks like vaporware to me... an exciting rendering does not an aircraft make.
Cause of crash: Inadvertent contact with the ground.
Prolly would be if it actually is what they're claiming. But a 154lb/70kg empty weight on an Part 103-compliant, powered amphib? The odds are "slim" and "snowball", even with extensive use of carbon fiber.
Vapor design or not - anyone care to enlighten me on HOW the thing flies? I mean, what are the basic aerodynamics of that wing arrangement? Does the front part of the box act as a lifting surface, and the rear as a h-stab? Are they both lifting surfaces? Are the sides acting as vertical stabs with rudders built in? And are there other examples of this arrangement actually flying?
Lots of questions, I know, but I find the wing concept intriguing.
What would be the actual NAME of this wing arrangement?
I don't think it has flown.
Marketing comes first, then flight testing.
And that's too true. It could swallow a lot of deposits. I don't see a single actual photo of the thing in flight, never mind operating off the water. Water has terrific drag and those tiny engines are going to have a tough time of it, especially since this thing doesn't appear to have particularly light wing loading.
This is the same sort of thing we used to see on the covers of Popular Mechanics and Mechanix Illustrated decades ago. Of all the airplanes that appeared on those pages, I can't remember many actually flying, affordably or not, other than the Teenie and Volksplane. Vaporware is right.
It's called a boxwing or sometimes joined wing. Other boxwing aircraft have flown. The aerodynamics depend on the specific configuration.
I don't like the idea of term limits for politicians. I think they should get the same sentence as all other criminals.
Box-wing is the closest naming convention, I would believe. Basically it's a tandem-wing airplane with the tips joined by verticals. The lower, forward, wing is essentially a canard, the rear, upper, wing is... well, a wing. What probably inspired this thing was the Ligeti Stratos from the late '80s, which most certainly did fly. More info on the link. The bunch who owns the rights now have been promising an "Open Source" version of the aircraft for some time now. Nothing concrete has come of it, however, at least so far.
While checking out the XTC through the link that BillyV was kind enough to provide, I saw this. This little seaplane moves on the water and in the air like a sports car. Didn't know there was anything out there capable of this dexterity. The first minute or so is brutal. Like the photographer has the camera in one hand, and a jackhammer in the other, but it quickly improves. Note, there's two aboard throughout the show. Quite a show it is!:shock:
YouTube - super petrel 100 na lagoa
I don't think so. They never will see anything close to the required stall speed (24 kts) for a Far 103. Theirs is claimed to be just under 40 and judging by their wing size, that seems about right.
Separate names with a comma.