Prize Money

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by jedi, Jan 27, 2018.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Feb 16, 2018 #61

    manolis

    manolis

    manolis

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    17
    Hello Bmcj

    You write:
    “Manolis, you’ve shown that before. I want to hear about it after you’ve built and tested it.”


    Not exactly.

    The worst enemy of a flying device is its own weight, as well as the weight of the fuel required to cover a distance.

    The high voltage system of the spark ignition aero-engines causes problems; two spark plugs per cylinder and two independent ignition systems is the typical solution.


    The PatBam concept (more at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatBam.htm ) is a quite recent project; it enables controllable HCCI combustion (lean air-fuel mixture) and it eliminates the high voltage circuitry and the spark plugs.

    It was presented a few months ago in this forum as a solution for the elimination of spark plugs, for the elimination of the high voltage circuit, and for a significant reduction of the fuel consumption of the aero engines, but it was moderated.

    Here is an explanatory youtube video for the PatBam HCCI principle:



    And here is a link for one more video showing the difference between the progressive combustion and the spontaneous HCCI combustion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_wkoyPRTMY

    In the PatBam HCCI, the combustion chamber is divided. It comprises two cooperating combustion chambers: a small auxiliary and a big main.
    A high compression ratio is used in the auxiliary combustion chamber.
    A moderate compression ratio is used in the main combustion chamber wherein a homogeneous air-fuel mixture is compressed / heated near, yet below, the auto-ignition threshold.
    The high compression ratio in the auxiliary combustion chamber causes the auto-ignition of the homogeneous lean air-fuel mixture therein (no spark plug required); the burnt gas bursts - through some "transfer ports", just before the TDC - into the main combustion chamber triggering its auto-ignition.
    The engine needs not be structurally stronger.

    With significantly lower fuel consumption
    (Mazda claims a 20% lower fuel consumption for their SkyActiv-X HCCI engines as compared to their own high-tech SkyActiv-G engines (which were the only gasoline engines having 14:1 compression ratio),
    the weight of the required fuel for a specific range (and the overall weight of the flying vehicle at take-ff) is significantly reduced.


    The following animations are for a 2-stroke OPRE Tilting PatBam:

    [​IMG].

    [​IMG]


    Here is the first OPRE Tilting Prototype (it is not a PatBam):

    [​IMG]

    333 cc, bore 84mm, stroke 30+30=60mm (same bore to stroke ratio with BMW's boxer R1200GS of 2013)
    weight: 8.5Kp (19lb) without the exhaust pipe and the carburetor
    height: 250mm

    For more: http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonTilting.htm


    With the PatBam engine, the Portable Flyer presented before, gets even better: more reliable, simpler, more lightweight, more fuel efficient, greener etc.

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
  2. Feb 16, 2018 #62

    oriol

    oriol

    oriol

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    136
    Location:
    Barcelona, Spain.
    I understand that Zee aero has the backing of an internet tycoon but the concept they are working on does not seem particularly remarkable. To me the Zee Aero proto reminds a lot to Moller´s multiple concepts with the only difference/improvement being the electric powerplant approach.

    20131121_045102_1122flyingcar5.jpg


    It might be that us, whom are more used to traditional aircraft configurations, may not be aware that the future of personal aviation and VTOL might become a reality soon thanks to the multicopter tech, however none of the designs I have seen so far has amazed me.

    None can beat (yet) a R22 or similar in performances, safety and cost.


    Manolis,

    Congrats for your work so far and Courage for the many work you still have ahead! You perhaps might be eligible for the Boeing contest.


    Oriol
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2018
  3. Feb 16, 2018 #63

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,050
    Likes Received:
    3,475
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Wow R22. Nothing like setting the bar low.
     
  4. Feb 18, 2018 #64

    oriol

    oriol

    oriol

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    136
    Location:
    Barcelona, Spain.
    TFF,

    The R22 is setting the bar very high but the Go Fly contest requirements are equally hard to meet as well.
    We are talking about Airbus, Boeing and internet tycoons who are trying to reinvent VTOL.

    I was refering to the R22 in particular because the EHANG 184 (which was linked on post 62) is about to cost around the same but its performances are not.


    Oriol
     
  5. Feb 19, 2018 #65

    manolis

    manolis

    manolis

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    17
    Hello all.

    Thank you Oriol.


    Here is the link for the Power Point filed in 2008 for Presentation in the International Engine Expo, Stuttgart Germany:

    Power Point format: http://www.pattakon.com/opre1_files/pattakonOPRE.pps

    PDF format: http://www.pattakon.com/opre1_files/pattakonOPRE.pdf

    From the above presentation,

    here is the last page:

    [​IMG]

    and here is the page showing all the moving parts:

    [​IMG]



    In the following video the above moving pars are assembled in an OPRE engine (500cc) running on Diesel fuel "free" on the floor

    [video=youtube_share;Xd0A0yyC7DU]https://youtu.be/Xd0A0yyC7DU[/video]

    In the youtube video https://youtu.be/xoxz1wV6Itg a standing cigarette shows the vibration-free-quality of the OPRE design.

    In the youtube video https://youtu.be/64TY-x2Cj6Y an OPRE Diesel is driving two counter-rotating, 1m diameter each, propellers, standing free on the floor.



    In 2008 it was regarded too aggressive even to talk about a Portable Flyer (now GoFly / Boeing call it "Personal Flyer device").

    What are the specifications of the GoFly / Boeing that the Portable Flyer of 2008 does not fulfill?

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos
     
  6. Feb 19, 2018 #66

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    10,221
    Likes Received:
    6,953
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    It has to fly.


    BJC
     
    pictsidhe likes this.
  7. Feb 19, 2018 #67

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,050
    Likes Received:
    3,475
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    R22 helicopter joke. Even Robinson is weaning themselves of them.
     
  8. Feb 20, 2018 #68

    manolis

    manolis

    manolis

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    17
    Hello BJC


    Manolis wrote: What are the specifications of the GoFly / Boeing that the Portable Flyer of 2008 does not fulfill?

    BJC replied: It has to fly.



    In the Phase I and II of the GoFly / Boeing competition at https://www.herox.com/GoFly/guidelines (i.e. till the end of 2018), proof-of-concept prototypes are neither required nor accepted.

    So the judges, based exclusively on drawings / animations / theory, have to decide for each design whether it can fly or not.


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    Can you, please, help me by your experience or your strictly technical arguments understand why the Portable Flyer cannot fly?

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos
     
    jedi likes this.
  9. Feb 20, 2018 #69

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    10,221
    Likes Received:
    6,953
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    If you think that it can fly, then, by all means, go flying. And post a video here.


    BJC
     
  10. Feb 20, 2018 #70

    jedi

    jedi

    jedi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    452
    Location:
    Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
    Looks promising to me. Progress update?
     
  11. Feb 20, 2018 #71

    flyboy2160

    flyboy2160

    flyboy2160

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2014
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    california, USA
    This is a logical fallacy (discovered by the Greeks, if I'm not mistaken): you cannot prove a negative. "The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive." Since you claim it can fly*, it's up to you to prove it.

    Some one who has reasonable, not arbitrary doubts, is perfectly logical in doubting.

    *Like the Wright brothers, this doesn't mean just lifting off, then crashing back down out of control. It means being airborne, maneuvering under control, and landing.
     
    BoKu likes this.
  12. Feb 20, 2018 #72

    manolis

    manolis

    manolis

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    17
    Hello Jedi.

    Progress update


    Portable Flyer architecture progress:

    Two OPRE Tilting engines are bolted to each other and form a strong “backbone”.

    [​IMG]

    At the ends of the backbone they are secured two pipes:

    [​IMG]

    whereon two pairs of intermeshing propellers are rotatably mounted:

    [​IMG]

    with the one pair of propellers arranged above the backbone, and with the other pair of propellers arranged underside the backbone.

    The (holed) pipes provide passageways through which they pass the fuel and the control.

    At the top of the pipes they are secured two (stationary) spinners wherein parachutes can be stored.

    Each engine has two crankshafts with a pair of gearwheels synchronizing them (at operation the gearwheels run unloaded).

    Each crankshaft is driving, through a toothed belt and a pair of sprockets, its respective propeller. The reduction ratio from the crankshaft to the propellers enables the optimization of the revs of the propellers and the optimization of the revs of the engines.

    In case the one engine fails, or some propellers falls apart, or . . .:

    [​IMG]

    The other engine with its propellers allows a safe langing.

    I.e. there are two independent propulsion units (each comprising an engine and two intermeshed counter-rotating propellers), each of which, alone, being capable for emergency landing.

    This is a great step in safety, making this cheap Portable Flyer safer, in some cases, than the OSPREY wherein a heavily damaged rotor, during a vertical take-off or landing, may prove catastrophic).


    Portable Flyer engine progress:

    An issue of all Opposed Piston engines is the side location of the spark plugs or of the injectors (in case of Diesels).

    With the PatBam system, the combustion starts at the very centre of the cylinder (inside the bowl of the one piston):

    [​IMG]

    and completes instantaneously (HCCI).

    According Mazda, their SkyActiv-X HCCI achieves a 20% fuel consumption reduction as compared to their last high-tech SkyActiv-G models.

    The PatBam does the same (strict control over the HCCI combustion) but in a by far simpler / cheaper way (mechanical / geometrical control).

    With substantially lower fuel consumption (HCCI) and significantly improved reliability (no spark plugs, no high voltage circuit) . . .



    For the rest (hello Flyboy2160) :

    the calculated thrust per propulsion unit is more than the total weight of the Portable Flyer (the pilot and the fuel included),

    the thrust is provided at zero gyroscopic rigidity (which means the pilot can instantly and effortlessly vector the thrust towards the desirable direction) making easy the control of the Portable Flyer either during hovering or during horizontal flight,

    the lightweight engines and casing make the Portable Flyer truly portable (~20Kg total weight; the existing 333cc OPRE Tilting prototype engine is ~8.5Kg),

    the low fuel consumption allows a long range,

    the horizontal fly can be really fast and fuel efficient, etc, etc.

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos
     
  13. Feb 20, 2018 #73

    flyboy2160

    flyboy2160

    flyboy2160

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2014
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    california, USA
    No, no, 1000 times no: this is not proof, these are claims. Let's see the flight videos.
     
    pictsidhe and BJC like this.
  14. Feb 20, 2018 #74

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    10,221
    Likes Received:
    6,953
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Didn’t we go through all this last year? And the year before that?


    BJC
     
    BoKu likes this.
  15. Feb 21, 2018 #75

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    7,344
    Likes Received:
    2,117
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Well, I won't be participating in this discussion as I usually browse HBA on my phone. Phones don't like pages full of animated GIFs...
     
  16. Feb 21, 2018 #76

    manolis

    manolis

    manolis

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    17
    Hello Flyboy2160

    You write:
    “No, no, 1000 times no: this is not proof, these are claims. Let's see the flight videos.”


    We agree: these are claims, not proof.

    Let’s see your own claims.


    As for videos, for the moment enjoy the vibration free quality of this 500cc Diesel Opposed-Piston Pulling-Rod OPRE prototype engine:

    [video=youtube_share;64TY-x2Cj6Y]https://youtu.be/64TY-x2Cj6Y[/video]

    [​IMG]

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos
     
  17. Feb 21, 2018 #77

    flyboy2160

    flyboy2160

    flyboy2160

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2014
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    california, USA
    The burden of proof principle in properly enshrined in U.S. jurisprudence: the defense doesn't have to say anything. The prosecution must present proof of its claim. It, not the defense, must make the case.

    We who doubt that this will fly don't have to make claims. Since you claim it is flight worthy, you have to prove flight.

    BJC is right. It is a waste of timing talking to you because you reject the foundation required for a rational discussion, Aristotelian logic, and seem to have a reading comprehension problem. A video of a bench engine isn't a flight video.

    Enjoy your irrational fantasy world. I'm done with it.
     
    pictsidhe and BJC like this.
  18. Feb 21, 2018 #78

    narfi

    narfi

    narfi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2016
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    397
    Location:
    Alaska
    Why the vitriol?

    He has a project, a passion, something he is interested in.
    I hope he is successful and does not hurt himself or others.

    Why persecute him because he can not communicate within your set of rules?
    At least he tries, at least he is excited, at least he is living.

    You talk about the defense and the offense, but you put him on the defense by your actions.
    It puts him in an impossible situation.
    He can ignore you, and you have won and drown out his ambitions.
    or
    He can defend himself and be accused of aggression.

    Who cares if his ideas are fanciful or not?
    There is a right and a wrong way to respond to things you disagree with.
    IMO this reaction is inappropriate.

    I come here to learn, I come here to dream, I do not come here to witness an 'internet combat of words'
     
    markaeric, Giggi and RonL like this.
  19. Feb 21, 2018 #79

    Giggi

    Giggi

    Giggi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    Judas Priest man, that's a bit much. How many other people come here with far-fetched ideas and then actually build something to try and prove they're not crazy? Excepting the Synergy guy, nobody.

    I know Manolis is very confident that he's going to be successful. Some might say overconfident. But who invents anything new without believing in themselves and their invention? At least we're eventually going to know for certain whether this thing will fly or not, and that's a helluva lot more than can be said for most of the other "revolutionary new aircraft" proposed on this site.

    Cut a brother some slack.
     
    bmcj, markaeric and narfi like this.
  20. Feb 22, 2018 #80

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    13,167
    Likes Received:
    5,080
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Excellent! That is what I was talking about when I said we want to see hardware instead of animated graphics. That at least shows us that you are serious about the project and not just some ‘kid’ with a fancy new graphics program.

    My two cents worth.... get rid of the crossover cog belt you showed in an earlier picture (the one mounted on someone’s back). That belt and the chance of a snag at the crossover scares the hell out of me.

    Now we know that you are working on it in earnest, and we will watch for you to take it to the flight test level. That will be the real proof of your concept.
     

Share This Page

Group Builder
arrow_white