Pusher prop - mini f-22?

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by WBNH, Jan 30, 2011.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jan 30, 2011 #1

    WBNH

    WBNH

    WBNH

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    Odd Plane for all those would-be fighter jocks that thought the BD-10 was just too fast...

    gallery

    At first I thought it was one of the water powered kids ride on toys...then I found it on YouTube.

    SF-1 Archon.

    Odd.
     
  2. Jan 30, 2011 #2

    Monty

    Monty

    Monty

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    478
    Location:
    Fayetteville, AR / USA
    looks slow but fun...Like a Loehle Mustang. Purely for the fun of it.
     
  3. Jan 30, 2011 #3

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    5,577
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Huh. That's pretty wild. I'll have to take a look when I have a bigger screen available.
     
  4. Jan 30, 2011 #4

    Dana

    Dana

    Dana

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,777
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Location:
    CT, USA
    Wow, two interesting new airplanes in one day (the other is in the "flying skiff" thread). I wonder if it's aerobatic? The website doesn't seem to say.

    Hey Starman, isn't that what you were aiming at at the beginning?

    -Dana

    Why is it called tourist season if we can't shoot at them?
     
  5. Jan 31, 2011 #5

    MicRuler

    MicRuler

    MicRuler

    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Nassau, Bahamas
    It's cool but the aesthetics is hurting my eyes.:ermm: I'd really love it they would refine the design, make it a near perfect scaled replica [like how the Sal p-51, FEW 51, or Steward 51 is to the original P-51D] but with a pusher prop configuration.
    A 2 seater version would be nice with a stronger engine, with good fuel range and an structural upgraded airframe to handle extra HP and speed.:)
    10-15 years from now when I have the finances to buy or build an airplane I might take up the challenge if no one else had already done it and made my job easy :roll:
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2011
  6. Jan 31, 2011 #6

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,513
    Likes Received:
    799
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    It looks well triangulated! :D:D:D:D:D:D But what would you expect from the land of Pythagoras. I think it's cool as all git-out :D. And Greece is beautiful.
     
  7. Jan 31, 2011 #7

    craig saxon

    craig saxon

    craig saxon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Canberra, ACT, Australia
    Quite opposite ends of the spectrum but like you say...WOW!
     
  8. Jan 31, 2011 #8

    jhausch

    jhausch

    jhausch

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    WI
    Had to look at a few vids to see where they were hiding the prop. Very interesting.
     
  9. Jan 31, 2011 #9

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
    I was looking for the props too...two fans buried after cockpit ?


    Their Mustang replica is absolutely a killer.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
  10. Jan 31, 2011 #10

    jhausch

    jhausch

    jhausch

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    WI
    I think it is hidden between twin booms between back of fuse and front of some sort of horizontal stab. One of the vids captures a prop-disk. He is also making some claims of what he's calling "Flying Fuselage". The tunnels on either side seem to be part of that.
     
  11. Jan 31, 2011 #11

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    5,577
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Yes, the prop is clearly visible at about 1:22 in the "Test Flights" video. The "intakes" appear to be part of the twin-boom structure, and are 'pass-through' to allow air into the prop disk that they would otherwise block. There appears to be a panel that 'closes out' the bottom of the two intakes, bridging between the booms and probably providing some FOD protection to the prop.

    The tail looks to be of generous area, but since so much of it is in the propwash, I have to wonder how effective it is, especially since the airplane is so short-coupled.

    Chops to the guy for building and flying this. But the design really looks to be very primitive when you get a close look at it, at least to my eyes.
     
  12. Jan 31, 2011 #12

    craig saxon

    craig saxon

    craig saxon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Canberra, ACT, Australia
     
  13. Feb 1, 2011 #13

    deskpilot

    deskpilot

    deskpilot

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,103
    Likes Received:
    188
    Location:
    Morphett Vale, South Australia. Just south of Adel
    My interpretation of the 'flying fuselage' was that the cooling ducts for the motor had an air foil section on the lower internal face and the airflow exits under the mid section tailplane. Could be totally wrong but perhaps that would add lift? I agree with prop position, in a slot that passes through the fuselage and in front of the flight control surfaces. I was a bit disappointed that it was so slow. Seemed to handle well though and the landing was a greaser.

    BTW I think the Mustang (very wrong name) is crap.
     
  14. Feb 1, 2011 #14

    Dana

    Dana

    Dana

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,777
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Location:
    CT, USA
    Yes... some of the lines are just plain wrong. It's all planar surfaces instead of compound curves, which is easy to do with aluminum, but the proportions especially of the forward fuselage just isn't pleasing.

    Hmmm... could it be considered an extreme sesquiplane with very wide interplane struts?

    -Dana

    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
     
  15. Feb 1, 2011 #15

    Monty

    Monty

    Monty

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    478
    Location:
    Fayetteville, AR / USA
    Just guessing, but the "intakes" seem to act kind of like a channel wing. The prop seems to pass through a slot in front of the H-stab. Probably fairly noisy and hard on the prop. This is a fun airplane....not going to set any efficiency records but I think it embodies the spirit of experimental aviation. We tend to get caught up in trying to make the "perfect" airplane. What other hobby tries to make the most efficient most perfect "X"???? Mostly people try to make a personal expression of whatever they like...Hot rods for instance. They tend to be a personalized example of a car. Not the fastest, not the most efficient, but a personalized expression of what they want in a car. Airplanes are a fairly mature technology. Why are we so obsessed with trying to make the fastest, lightest, best airplane? Why not just a personalized example of a flying machine? Even an inefficient effort is far more an achievement than a bolt together hot rod made from catalog components.

    Just my .02...

    The "mustang" does not tickle my sense of aesthetics, especially the canopy...but it flies..
     
  16. Feb 1, 2011 #16

    deskpilot

    deskpilot

    deskpilot

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,103
    Likes Received:
    188
    Location:
    Morphett Vale, South Australia. Just south of Adel
    Well said Monty
     
  17. Feb 2, 2011 #17

    JamesAero

    JamesAero

    JamesAero

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Salem, OR
    I'd like to agree with what Monty has said as well. Too many times people's ideas are being shoved into the "not optimal" pile and it can be rather disheartening.
     
  18. Feb 2, 2011 #18

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
  19. Feb 3, 2011 #19

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    5,577
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Oh, I agree, and have said as much here on the forum more than once. By the same token, it's possible to go too far the other way, and build something that, while it does get into the air, has such low performance that it's of no more "practical" use than an ultralight. In between those extremes there's a lot of room for aesthetics and other considerations.
     
  20. Dec 2, 2011 #20

    litemite

    litemite

    litemite

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Beloit, Wisconsin. USA
    I see this thread has died, or it seems so. But I found this interesting aircraft via EAA's E mag. While this example may not be "eye candy" it seems to have met the goal of flight. While it may not be a practical transport, it doesn't claim to be, I can see where it just may be a blast to fly. It will be interesting to see if there is anymore development!
     

Share This Page



arrow_white