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 anvegger, Jan 4, 2018.
And introducing our Quality Control manager Ms.Leila
How wide are those sponsons/seawings?
Water handling characteristics...has this hull been tested? The nose shape seems significantly different than all the other LSA amphibs.
All the dimensions will be released to the public upon testing of our buoyancy. We have ordered a set of DIAB Divinicell/ Divinimat products and expecting the delivery in three four weeks. We spent yesterday a few hours talking to spar manufacturer also in a very close distance from our home airport FORTECARBON.COM Some of their products will be used in our seawings
The original plane looks like that
And as you can see the nose shape is the same. We have to slightly adjust variety of characteristics to make our version an LSA-compliant downgrading the original plane to become lighter a bit slower and more robust in terms of versatility. It must be different form all other LSA counterparts mostly due to many of them are sharing the same design features (such as pusher prop or wing pendant ). Our approach came from a different scale. We're downsizing the 4/6 sitter (L-42M by Annenkov) instead of upscaling the ultralight
I would think the walk through tail feature becomes irrelevant when downsizing. Not much of a hole left to get through.
It is one way to get more tail area which seaplanes need.
For example when putting a 206 on floats you add a ventral fin, when putting a beaver on floats you add vertical fins outboard of the horzontals.
The tail may no longer be a walk-through option and the relatively close twin rudders are going to be less effective for a given area due to biplane interference, but it's still an very elegant structural solution to providing a rigid T-tail without external struts or a lot of extra weight in a single cantilever vertical fin.
That is correct - we won't be using that hole for walking on top of the fuselage. But will keep that V-like tail as a link to our design roots and for our ability to balancing the plane that is becoming much lighter than the original
We are working very close with many SeaPlane Pilot Association members asking for their endorsement and helping us with the requirements. We have borrowed a bit of a slogan from our childhood' TV show:
Mach mit, mach’s nach, mach’s besser
"Do it like me do it with me do it much better" or something of that nature
The process of carbon fiber weaving is quite amazing. We have the spar as a single tube rectangular formation with an ID 200 x 200 mm a side . The length of that tube will be 10 meters or 10000 mm Or 32.8 ft long The thickness of that tube is variable. from 0 to 11 ft (or ~ 3.5 m from the end) point it will be weaved increasing from 3 mm to 10 mm of thickness , then from 11 ft to 21 ft point (or from 3.5 m to 6.5 m = 3 m long) it becomes constant 10 mm thick and the remaining 11 ft (or ~ 3.5 m to another end) it will be decreasing from 10 back to 3 mm thick. If the internal shape remains the same 200 x 200 then the external will be 206 x 206 mm at the end of a spar and 220 x 220 mm in the center approx 3 m in length both sides from the center (1.5 m each side)
we have our quote ready from Carbon Fiber Spar manufacturer - it is amazing !!! the one piece 10 m long spar will be less than 10 000 .. I am supper happy for that to announce. Everyone was under impression that we might save some time building it from raw materials that would require about 3 to 5 grand just in cloth , but the single unit required variable thickness delivered ... super.
I realy like the look of this sea plane, would it not be a good idea to make a very good plug and mold from start if you are planing to sell hulls or kits? uneven wrinkeled hull skin will not tell the potential buyers that this plane is well built, even if strong enough and good aerodynamicly.
Dear Jan, We will be making the molds in the future. That is for sure. But our molds will be a bit different from the traditional "plug" --> "mold" --> "part" workflow. We are building our prototype as a "plug" . The plane is built from an aerodynamically cured model . Then we will be test-flying that prototype as the proof of our technical characteristics required by LSA rules. That might take about 200 total flying hours to prove our design. Then we will take this plane apart and starting cloning it per our coop's request using the hard plug heated stone mold technology. But the mold will be taken not from a foam based plug but from the "real plane" . And it will be vacuum bagged each part made from that stone mold of up to 100 parts can be produced from it. By cloning the "real plane" we will be absolutely sure of any aero- and hydrodynamic improvements that will be found during the test fly phase of our project. That is in regards to our boat-fuselage. The wing will be produced slightly different and it will be shortly when we start doing this type of work. Will demonstrate every step of making our wing from the ground up.
here is the vacuum press that we are planning of using during the wing construction
And here is the wind tunnel modeling of the original frame Our frame a bit different. But also have been studied very closely . Will share with you upon final delivery
Why weave when you need unidirectional fiber orientation in the spar cap and +-45 in the web?
Dear dino many thanks for your question. yes - the official way of classical SPAR construction would be C shaped Unidirectorial carbon sandwich laid in multi-layers mold , cooked and cured as supposed to be treated that staff. In order to reveal the technology - let us wait for a couple of weeks may be a month to share with you our vision of the wing construction. It is a bit of an "out-of-ordinary" technology. Might be looking strange to some who is not experimenting But I promise to share with you all the tests upon our completion to make sure that our method is legit. Will see the success or our failure exactly as it is supposed to be done in EAB construction. We will be following the "probes and failures methodology" as you may be aware of
If we are talking again about our simplified approach of the airframe construction business allow me to share with you my vision of it if I may. We are all today live in XXI century where the High Tech is among us. everywhere. Even in our pockets. My Ukrainian Colleagues from ANG corporation in Kiev Suburb town Brovary have started their project awhile ago. In a simple garage . From Something like that He scrapped (if I am not mistaken) six planes, plugs and molds prior to become a real LA-50M that I have shown before. That was a huge development im my personal opinion.
That is how his plane looked five years ago. Outstanding progress and amazing results . Lots of respect to Alexander and his team. They are truly advanced and very progressive airplane makers. Our approach is a bit more artistic than scientific. We built our airftame from the SolidWorks Model as a vision creation but we do everything by hands. We are "thinking" and curving with our hands the real plug that is meant to fly
Separate names with a comma.