Photos from Flynano unveiling event (Helsinki / Verkkokauppa.com)

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Aircar

Banned
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
3,567
Location
Melbourne Australia
It has a very 'flat' hull shape and what looks like two steps but not that clear , the colour scheme is very off putting to me (and having BLACK exterior surfaces would cook it in Australia ) -- as long as the control surface gearing and airfoils,CG etc are appropriate there is a fair chance that it will fly reasonably but the cost of things made from carbon is seldom reasonable and the wisdom of no cockpit flying with any sort of speeds and especially on water is questionable (try riding a bicycle in driving rain for an idea ) At least it explores a different configuration for an amphibian ( or is it just water landable?) -and being water landable in Finland is probably a good safety benefit as well -skis for winter flying ? plus Eskimo clothing.
 

karoliina.t.salminen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
407
Location
Finland
The weight class pretty much dictates why Flynano is like it is. And there is a special reason why this weight class has any demand here (that it might not receive on the other side of the Pond).

The black exterior surface is there just because it is not painted. And it is also made from expensive carbon fiber to make it to fit in the weight limit of 70 kg
(including batteries). That's the limit for a plane that can be flown without medicals, and I think that is the key point in Flynano, it might be hard to see for
someone from country where this kind of class does not exist or the country is more allowing for either medical certification or for higher weight for ultralight plane (like USA has allowance for about twice heavier plane that is still considered ultralight).

The main reason is that anything above 70 kg will require quite strict medicals (and Finland interprets them the most severe way in the whole EU, and Flynano originates from this country). I think the point is that older pilots with any medical conditions can continue flying with sub-70 kg planes like Flynano. In Finland LSA or microlight do require similar requirements than the full airline pilot medicals but with
exception that the visits to AME are less frequent, but requirements are the same. There are no special issuance medicals unlike in FAA in here, and people with
any condition (even if you had a condition that got fixed/cured, shelving can be permanent in many cases, such as you have once a cancer, even if you are ruled cured after 5 years, you will not get medicals ever back most likely) will be failed permanently and this leads to a market for a plane which can be flown without medicals as some people are too addicted to flying to give up. Not sure how large market that
would be, but at least those older pilots typically have bunch of money too to pay for their toy, and because denied flying anything else, they may be desperate and
wealthy enough, so they might pay for a very lightweight airplane (sub 70 kg). It is interesting to follow how many customers this kind of niche will generate.
The question is that is the Flynano exactly what these older pilots wants as an airplane design/concept, but whatever the case, there most likely would be some demand for sub-70 kg planes. And to my knowledge, the limit is 80 kg if you make it a glider (that shows it can glide) that can be towed (even if it would be normally flown as powered plane, what you basically need is to add a hook).
CriCri almost fits into this category, so technically it is possible to make this lightweight plane.

There is also easier regulation for sub 70-kg plane. If you want to make anything heavier than that, you need to have certified design organization and certified production organization and certified quality organization and you may need to employ a lots of people and have an organization that is a thousand years behind Toyota's lean manufacturing ideology. And the applications for the said organizations are generally denied on basis of "too inexperienced people" if the people in the startup are young. For example instrument training in Finland is about non-existent, and a group of young guys with CFI certificates and former pilot training experience etc. on everybody formed a small pilot training company, and they applied for ability for train for instrument rating. They have had difficulties to get them approved on the basis that these guys are "too young" (less than 40 years old!) and haven't been established player on the field for years already. The regulation has never heard of kanban and heijunka and does not consider startups but rather protect the business model of existing players that are already on the field. If you want to make planes with shoestring budget (with employing just few employees and not a large corporation with HR department and all) instead of hundreds of millions, it will be much easier in the EASA world with sub 70 or sub 80 kg planes. Even Cessna gave up with their LSA intentions to bring it on EU market as it would have been expensive and risky from economical standpoint. So this all leads to things like Flynano even if it leads to ridiculously expensive carbon fiber structures and unpainted surfaces (because the paint is heavy) and quite useless concepts as general aviation airplane, but possibly acceptable if they are considered toys rather than planes used to get to somewhere.

In fact, even I have been sometimes toying around an idea of a sort of electric powered motorglider sub-80 kg plane, a bit like Sunseeker.

Potential customers for a Flynano-like concept could be like these:
- People that have moved from other EU country or USA to Finland but are not able to obtain medical certificate in Finland because the regulation is stricter here or they have
some medical condition that does not allow them to get medicals from anywhere.
- People that want to have a cheap to next to their summer cottage. Summer cottages next to lake are very popular in Finland.
- People that like waterjets but are not into full airplanes. With microlight training they will have skill to drive a small plane like Flynano.

Certainly a niche, but a targeted niche. Not general aviation, but very special case aviation.
 

deskpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
1,131
Location
Morphett Vale, South Australia. Just south of Adel
Certainly is a 'niche' design but if it could be made cheap enough, I think a lot of people would like one. I fail to see why it was hung upside down though. Yes, one could see inside the cockpit but I bet it confused hell of a lot on non aviation folk.
 

karoliina.t.salminen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
407
Location
Finland
Certainly this concept would be great if it costed no more than up to 15000 dollars. More than that, too picey for a toy. Except for the mentioned older rich guys that have no problem putting price of airplane to a toy.
 

karoliina.t.salminen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
407
Location
Finland
Good news about expensive carbon that it is less expensive where there is less of it.
For my layout (different from Nano) CrICri size wings would not be that expensive, not not very heavy either. Fuselage would need carbon only in tail boom. Other than that cheaper materials (glass, kevlar) could be good enough. Thrust would be produced with two or more RC electric motors (Turnigy, each costing only 300 dollars) and props, a bit like CrCri. Except I might put them behind the pilot.

Of course it has to be noted that a single seater without capability for training, rules out other than already experienced pilots.

Case example of potential user: Our neighbor at summer cottage has a short airfield cut on his field, basic requirement for this kind of concept would be ability to take off and land using that field. This farmer is using Ikarus C42 microlight from that field, and I have watched that he spends so short periods in the air (just flies for fun and comes back shortly thereafter) that it would be possible with fully electric plane as well. It would be a lot less expensive and easier to operate as it would only need to be recharged instead of bringing gasoline from gas station in canisters. Where worst case would be a plane using classic airplane engine requiring AVGAS 100LL, fuel could be found only 130 kilometers away and because one would not get permit to drive on the airport with car, fueling into canisters would mean walking 300-400 meters on the airport to get to the car while carrying 5 gallon canister on each hand. I have tried it, so I know how it feels like, it is an operation that my strength is not enough to do without several breaks. Electric plane would much more easily have charging arranged at the famer's field.
 
Last edited:

oriol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
773
Location
Barcelona, Spain.
The theory of evolution applies to aviation too. The market demands cheaper flying machines, easy to fold, requiring the minimal infrastructure to operate.

Although most PPL pilots accustomed to fly with traditional certified airplanes (Cessna, Piper, Mooney) are reluctant to fly lighter aircraft. Little by litlle the economy is changing their habits. For example Tecnam has sold more than 450 (!) airplanes in Spain including both certified and non certiifed.


There´s a flourishing market of light and microlight aviation: hangliders, paragliders, parafans, paratrikes, minitrikes, trikes, footlaunchable airplanes and the modern third generation of very performing ultralights.


So maybe Flynano it´s not the answer to all, but it´s a good example of compromise between regulations and what the recreational aviation market demands now.


Oriol
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,308
Location
Orange County, California
Any more video of the aircraft in flight? I haven't seen anything posted since the "first flight" video, over four months ago. How is flight testing progressing?
 

erkki67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
2,436
Location
Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
Hi there

What's going on with the flynano, it look's dead and rotten.

Why did it came so far, it was a promising looking little joy-flyer?

The website do still exist, but no news since more then a year!!!

At the Friedrichshafen Airfair, it was the new plane and today????


Bst rgds Erkki
 

Aircar

Banned
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
3,567
Location
Melbourne Australia
I hope it gets up --the basic concept is not so far from the Ligeti Stratos but amphibianized and should be viable (better if it was made kitable and even built from less pricey materials such as good old Finnish multiply ..... The double step on the hull seems a bit strange (and very far forward for the first one ) surely just wrapping a bit of lexan around the engine support pylon and giving the pilot some protection from the elements would not crucify the concept -not to mention opening up a little bit more of the Finnish 'summer' to actually being flyable. I think the price needs to be way below $15,000 to get any of the 'toy' market actually -trade in some of that carbon fibre for a couple of struts and some fabric for example.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,308
Location
Orange County, California
Hi there

What's going on with the flynano, it look's dead and rotten.

Why did it came so far, it was a promising looking little joy-flyer?...
Impossible to say until they say something themselves. Could be that they ran out of money. Could be that the airplane had some deficiency that only appeared once they started flight test. Maybe the principal(s) suffered some life-event that has kept them away from the project. In their video they say that they're now moving on to "further development", so maybe this is part of their plan. We may never know. These types of things tend to fade away without any kind of explanation.

All of their updates seemed to stop shortly after the first flight.
 

topspeed100

Banned
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
4,063
Location
Oulu/Finland
I am not sure if the official homebuilt/aviation mafia is going to hang me for informing you that FN flew 7 seconds using 40 kW of power ( 54.4 hp ) and suffered from overheating power regulator. Any flight longer would have needed to rise the weight over 70 kg...and the aim would have been lost..and price etc.
 
Top