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 Dexacare, Mar 28, 2016.
One thing that gets me is where are all these guys when it comes to defending their products. This is a pretty large and inclusive group board. They know we are here. Alberto defends his company's product in Italy and the production delays. There are others here that produce aviation products and some trying to get setup for a production operation. There is back and forth between members and these guys. It's always upbeat. Where are Kerlo and Hawkins. Taking a moment or two a week to address questions or misconceptions is part of the business.
That is absolutely correct many thanks Mike for your great point!
Wait, you wanted to hear all objections against it right? If it's too many, simply stop reading after you've found enough.
Any single one of those is between bloody optimistic to downright ridiculous (grass strip, 15C, sea level, no wind). I would be surprised if any of those meet them, even on a perfect level flat, concrete strip.
The Velocity figure, according to their web site, is takeoff distance, not distance to clear 50'. Even then, I suspect that it is optimistic.
Sorry...but were we in court I think that it has been entered into evidence and therefore is a fit topic here. I really only wanted the short version, and so far all I have seen is they are not making deliveries.
just looked.... "big brother is watching" I now understand ....we do not need another BD5 debacle....it hurt all of us in aviation.
I really don't care - I operate with the data - and the source of that data is authorized - if you want me to share my research with you feel free to ask. Definitely all numbers could be wrong - but we relay on the source of the data.
If you apply that attitude to aviation you will be dead within a few years.
Canards per se do not have anything to do with not being able to start or stop within 500 m. I've personally seen a JA37 Viggen, 21000 lbs empty, land within 400 meters of the start of the runway, with each 100 meters marked. But there again it's canards look and move more like the tail fins on a F14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IaWn7kX4Es It was designed in the 60's with STOL capability, 400 - 500 meter, and still capable of mach 2.1.
I work across town now, but for a while my workplace was under the low flight demo path of it's "big" brother, the J39 Grippen. It's also a 5th generation, unstable, fly by wire with canards, though smaller than the F35 and not designed for STOL. Last stage of the demo is to fly at 65-70 knots at a 45-50 degree angle for 30 seconds before landing.
Using a canard is no technical limitation if designed right.
There is only one authorisation to that data, your own verification, eg; Get yourself down to an airstrip on windy days and compare for yourself.
Above I mentioned the "little tell tales" that just aren't quite right, the ones you read, see or hear in projects that cause you to suck a little air in and grimace, you have just displayed one to perfection, i.e. You may well be technically or theoretically correct, but you are treading recklessly at the same time.
The answer is to ask rather than to state - which would include listening as well.
Relative to the task there is the difficulty of utilising flaps on a canard based craft which offer greater advantages to 'normal' wing set up.
As for the SAAB fighter jet landing distances, the Raptor comes with everything including a kitchen sink apparently, but I don't believe large airbrakes and jet reverse thrusters are optional at this stage.
I think he's also ignoring a lot of changes in the financial landscape for people in the demographic that could produce private aurcraft owners. One is that the new middle managers come to their jobs with student loan payments that are the size of NYC rents; if you're coughing up $1500/month to the student loan sharks, on $5000/month before-tax dollars, when unemployment is a fickle CEO's bonus downsizing away, and you need a car and a rent without hot-and-cold running rats, pilot license is really low on the priorities.
Thirty and forty years ago, the financial conditions were better for many people. So was the fact that before cell phones and email companies did not expect 24/7 availability from white collar staff.
As another software person, I think the software industry has a truly awful record when it comes to delivering on time, on spec and in budget
From bitter experience, doing an "all new" design massively increases the risk of failure : new hardware doesn't meet the engineers' optimistic predictions, new electronics suffers from unexpected noise glitches, new software has missing features because the specs weren't nailed down - combine all three and you can be in deep trouble.
If they started with an unpressurised prototype, powered by a tried and tested engine, and worked up from there, I would give them a better chance of success.
In my work, we build machines that can kill people, or at least cause very expensive damage. Aircraft are an even more extreme version of that.
Most software these days is rushed to market, and the bugs worked out later. That approach doesn't work with safety-critical systems.
I hope they succeed, but cannot see how they will meet all their planned objectives in therir planned timeframe.
The only possible chance in my honest opinion would be given if many and more followers would be able to work on that target. I agree the data is very very limited. But was that available at all for the frontrunners like Otto Lilienthal or Write Brothers? The aviation is all about pioneering. Someone is creating a ludicrous flying car, another one is using his musculus to fly from the skyscraper , the third one is adding a propeller to a parachute ... many many examples of foolish ideas at the time became the reality today. Where is the end of this story? There is non. We all doing the same foolish (at a glance) things. Even a "proven design" if presented to a public domain most likely would be rejected : "we have seen that one already, go do your research and bring something better new and unknown"
That is another good point. And most likely you are correct. The key combination here is: I WILL BE DEAD. And the only uncertain is the time for that to happen Many people in Aviation are killed "in line of duties" Experienced and newbies, Engineers and Pilots, Researches and Testers... many many just passengers around the globe. That is the nature of that lifestyle. Is anyone from those who just walks on the street or drives their car secured from the death? Nope... I am sure you know that.
At the golden age of Aviation we all know how many companies went out of business using a "proven" design. And as of today - same thing: many homebuilders who tried to succeed in a specific market niche : would it be warbirds, nostalgic planes (like sportster for example), Light Sport etc ... have failed. Look at the SAM Aircraft as a perfect example. Thierry Zibi has created an airplane that:
1. looks very much like many War-Birds ;
2. All Metal Kit Traditional Design;
3. Inexpensive and easy to construct.
4. LSA compatible;
5. Roomy and stylish (to the extend)
6. All documented with prototype tested.
7. Well established in terms of a marketing support AND....
Sold everything after a year of unsuccessful attempt of penetrating the market. I am glad that he sold it to Zenith Aero - Zodiac people might be able to contribute something into their success of CH planes. Have you heard about them at all? Just an example. And "unsuccessful" as of today (or this far) Terrafugia , iCon among with Cobalt' Valkyrie and Raptor are constantly shaking the ground trying and trying and trying again to penetrate that shell ... New customers are coming and they do expect something different.
Peter has responded to my note about participating - and I understand his point too - they are busy working on proving the Raptor's success:
I have been thru that a lot myself. Sometimes it is frustrating. Sometimes it is just silly. I would be here not advocating him but simply paying respect for his hard work. And do my best to contribute everything in my power to see the success, the failure people see better. That is normal reaction of the fear. Viam supervadet vadens = with its feet cuts through the path it follows. Something like that.
Are we there yet?
I think we should respect the hard work and hours that have gone into this design. They are actually making molds and parts which is a lot more than many folks are doing here.
The hurdles are many. I wish them luck and wait for them to complete the prototype, fly it and post actual performance numbers.
This ^^^... While I certainly have been here long enough to know better about getting overly enthusiastic about any new plane announced, constant armchair engineering and bickering does nothing. As for "..taking a moment or two a week to address questions or misconceptions is part of the business..", I disagree.. Nobody is required to answer or refute anything. They are not beholden to anyone but themselves and any investors. If it fly's, that's proof enough. If it doesn't, so what? You get to say 'I told you so', sip your coffee and act smug, but that doesn't actually accomplish anything so in the end was worthless.
Its the journey that's important.
Separate names with a comma.