New aircraft - love it

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Grelly, Apr 15, 2011.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Apr 21, 2011 #41

    etterre

    etterre

    etterre

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    I think you're thinking of this site for the "open source" stratos: Ligeti Stratos: World's first open source aircraft
    - but it seems like the person behind that site doesn't actually have the rights to the design. I'm not sure why it's still up. If I pieced the story together right, then Ron Ligeti (son of the designer) is the owner of this site: LGT Aerospace
    and he's intending to make it available somehow/someday, but kinda got burned by the "open source" guy. You can buy a "foamie" R/C model through the LGT Aerospace link if you like. :)
     
  2. Apr 21, 2011 #42

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
    Roy since you know so much about it. What caused the accident where Charles Ligeti was killed ?

    I had sorta related design once open in the net too and we discussed back then that the box in between the fuselage and rudderlike element closing the box is no good especially beyond speed of 350 mph.

    I even made a model of it...and I had never seen this Ligeti design. FW 1030 has some features combined with this Ligeti that adds up to my design back then ( I even had a name for it " ABLE DUCK " ). I also realised later soviets had some similar toughts several decades ago.

    My design was inspired my own worx on kites back then..I made the first rogallo+boxkite design in 1985.

    That Ligeti design does look cool.
     
  3. Apr 21, 2011 #43

    craig saxon

    craig saxon

    craig saxon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Canberra, ACT, Australia
    My understanding is that at the time, the Civil Aviation Authority here in Australia had an altitude limit on ultralights of 500'. Some clown at the authority decided it would be a good idea to require stall/spin testing without a special altitude dispensation. Apparently the design took more than 500' to recover.
     
  4. Apr 21, 2011 #44

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
    Ok I see.

    The canopy is a close match so one cannot much move body forward in a spin...and if it went flat even more problematic.

    I think we can all learn from this...at least 3 km where to start a spin is better.

    My condolences to the Ligeti family.
     
  5. Apr 30, 2011 #45

    Synergy

    Synergy

    Synergy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    73
    Location:
    Kalispell, MT USA
    Duncan, The FlyNano does not appear to be a conventional boxwing aircraft, wherein both surfaces are lifting. Rather, it seems to be the first modern example I've seen of a box tail design other than Synergy, which has a novel double box tail configuration. In a closely coupled box tail, the tails have to be substantially separated from the wing, preferably at least two chords away if placed above and behind the wing. Done correctly a box tail aircraft provides stability and control in the manner of a conventional aircraft, however the tails can be more heavily loaded, particularly at the tips, on purpose. Their doing this acts against the strength of wake vortex, greatly increasing span efficiency while making amazing stability. All without a control or maneuverablility penalty. This gets into some really counterintuitive stuff that flies against the grain (since when is it OK to push DOWN on your airplane, on purpose?!?), and a lot of software applies simplified equations incorrectly in evaluating it. Had things like constructive biplane interference and e>1 been part of our last few decades of design, it may have been discovered much sooner.

    Even with minimal vertical surfaces, box tails get a lot of yaw stability mileage out of the opposing dihedrals, and they tend (in my experiments, anyway) to offer proverse yaw (opposite of the adverse yaw we're used to).

    Now why on earth did they spoil that aerodynamic wonder wing with a boxy, in-your-face motor boom?

    I have built and flown a lot of box tail designs, and they share appealing traits. They fly like an arrow and have great L/D. Unlike box wings, which should always be regarded as dangerous outside of their design envelope, the box tail and double box tail configurations are promising but conventional in character, with a few peculiarities that reward accurate analysis and design experience. Build some models and you'll see what i mean.
     
  6. Apr 30, 2011 #46

    rtfm

    rtfm

    rtfm

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    571
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hi,
    Thanks for the explanation...

    Cheers,
    Duncan
     
  7. Apr 30, 2011 #47

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
    Funny that I have tried to come up with an under 70 kilo plane for 3,5 years now and just day or two before this waterborne Flynano was introduced I sent an email of waterborne version of my Glidermonkey GM-1 to an interested engineer. Never heard of him since.

    Anyway where would you have put that in-your-face boom or engine and fuel tank ? There aren't many places since you have to avoid water hitting the prop.
     
  8. Apr 30, 2011 #48

    Synergy

    Synergy

    Synergy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    73
    Location:
    Kalispell, MT USA
    Hmmm, not sure but it's a very good question. One thing being discussed a lot here at EAS V is the ability with electric motors to distribute the motors in ways that are not possible with IC engines. Setting regulations aside for now, one way to do this in a hybrid design sees an engine turn one larger motor/generator which is electrically connected to two motors, which I'd put on the horizontal tail. It wouldn't weigh too much and the deficit would be offset by drag reductions. The motors would allow a number of prop diameter possibilities as the 'gear ratio' is set electrically. It could be highly efficient.
     
  9. Apr 30, 2011 #49

    pie_row

    pie_row

    pie_row

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    salt lake city Ut
    I have wanted to build a 50% twin mustang in the LSA category. That means one engine to drive the two propellers. Shafts and hydraulics aren’t appealing. That leaves electric drive. It is fun to think about.

    Putting two or more props on the empennage would make things interesting. It would give you the possibility of truly independent backup control systems. Very the power to the two props even with them wind-milling and you can control the airplane with them. That and with trim for pitch and you can fly the airplane without touching the stick.
     
  10. May 4, 2011 #50

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
    Last edited: May 5, 2011
  11. May 4, 2011 #51

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
    How would you estimate the 40 kilos thrust...is it enough ?
     
  12. May 4, 2011 #52

    Dana

    Dana

    Dana

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,621
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Location:
    CT, USA
    40 kilos thrust should be fine for a 1/3 scale model. I still see no evidence that it's actually flown, though... videos of taxi testing don't impress anybody much.

    -Dana

    Drink wet cement, and get completely stoned!
     
  13. May 4, 2011 #53

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
    Right they should get at least 95 lbs.

    THRUST SPECS..HELP

    Remeber these 70% planes fly 3D..that Nano is just a waterborne vehicle.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRdRafu6oqQ&feature=related
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2011
  14. May 5, 2011 #54

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
    I did first time make contact with the test pilot who actually broke a bone already on the prop ( don't ask ). They are in water taxiing phase and he was confident that flight attempt will be conducted soon, but not by him.

    I am looking forward to that first small hop to happen.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2011
  15. May 10, 2011 #55

    MX304

    MX304

    MX304

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Texas
    Fly Nano

    Anyone else seen this thing? Flynano The prototype was shown at Aero this year, and supposedly the first flight is happening soon. Although I have my doubts about several things on the aircraft, it is an interesting design.
     
  16. May 10, 2011 #56

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
  17. May 10, 2011 #57

    MX304

    MX304

    MX304

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Texas
    Re: Fly Nano

    Let's see... No tip floats will make crosswind handling impossible, or very difficult. Underpowered for a float plane. Dragging that through the water fast enough to get airborne will be a trick. The wings are very short span and low aspect ratio which will hamper low speed flight performance. Box wings are hard to get the aerodynamics right on anyway (they will be very strong though which is a plus). It has potential, but not really in it's present form, and especially for the flight performance they are claiming. I think it's just a bit ambitious. It is rather interesting as a design study though and gives me a couple of ideas for something similar but more conventional and more realistic.
     
  18. May 10, 2011 #58

    skeeter_ca

    skeeter_ca

    skeeter_ca

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Yucaipa, Ca
    Re: Fly Nano

    It does have tip floats but they are actually about mid-span and very small. Seeing the video of the model testing i have concerns about the wave of water the flows over the wing during acceleration. I have concerns also about it being able to get on the step with the power being used.
     
  19. May 10, 2011 #59

    Dana

    Dana

    Dana

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,621
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Location:
    CT, USA
    moderator note: posts 55-58 merged from separate thread started by MX304.
     
  20. Aug 9, 2011 #60

    MX304

    MX304

    MX304

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Texas
    So did they ever attempt a flight?
     

Share This Page

arrow_white