The "Beast One": What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Scheny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
203
Location
Vienna, Austria
This is the thread where I present the concept of the "Beast One". Unlike the title, it is the goal to create an economic BD-5 alike single seat jet which on the contrary to the BD-5 won't try to actually kill you.

The plane is not about re-inventing the wheel, nor to follow this stupid higher, faster, stronger philosophy. The only goal we have in mind is to be better! When you are bound to something as unefficient as a turbojet, the rest has to be even better to compensate. With the FLS Microjet (unchanged successor of the BD-5) and the JSX-2 there are already two competitors, but it goes without saying that there is room for improvement against a widowmaker and a flying Hershey-bar derived from a low-tech motorglider.

Passive Safety:
With the knowledge of carbon formula car specialists, the fuselage will be built to endure up to 30G frontal, while incorporating a 80cm composite crumplezone capable of handling impacts at almost landing speed. In addition, the fuselage is built in a way to reduce frontal collision loads by around 30% and incorporate a BRS which can be activated up to cruise speed.
Another relevant safety factor is a static stability unknown for such small aircraft, forgiving stall characteristics and an even lower landing speed than the JSX-2.

Aerodynamics:
Nobody can defy physics, but you can switch to state-of-the-art. We decided against unforgiving laminar profiles in favor for profiles which are an advancement over the proven NACA 64xxx, having 23% more lift at exactly the same drag (and even more forging stall characteristics). The profiles have been developed with help from Dr. Quabeck and the quasi-elliptical wing has outstanding slow-flight qualities while still being efficient for high cruising speeds. The tail is dimensioned bigger than comparable aircraft and meets the recomendations for jet-trainers. The fuselage is built to minimize wetted area and interference drag without risking flow detachment.

Key data:
The plane is built around a PBS TJ-100 engine putting out 1100N of force and pushing the 380kg MTOW to between <60kt (to fulfill CS-23) and an economy cruise speed of 200kt (top speed ~300kt). It will be built aerobatic capable with an ultimate rating of 14G but normal use is restricted to 6G for engine reasons.

More info to follow...
 

Scheny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
203
Location
Vienna, Austria
This is a comparison for required thrust over flight speed calculated using detailled 3-views of the BD-5J, the JSX-2 and the Beast One:
Comparison.png

For landing speed, it even outperforms the JSX-2, while having good economy up to 230kt. The sweet spots have been set to 120kt for best endurance and 200-220kt for maximum range.
 

Andy_RR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
241
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Why do people fall into the trap of making sweeping and outrageous definitive claims about a paper aeroplane? Some of the numbers here are on the border of credibility with no means of independent sniff testing. Is this project Raptor 2.0...?

Aren't things supposed to get better as the version number climbs?
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,110
Location
Orange County, California
Why do people fall into the trap of making sweeping and outrageous definitive claims about a paper aeroplane? Some of the numbers here are on the border of credibility with no means of independent sniff testing. Is this project Raptor 2.0...?

Aren't things supposed to get better as the version number climbs?
I don't mind high goals and claims, but we really do need more information before anyone can judge the credibility of this project. Hopefully that will be forthcoming soon.

Scheny, would you mind sharing more of the project, and how your performance numbers were derived? Are these aspirational, or have they been affirmed by analysis? If so, would you mind showing us some of the basics of that work? I'm sure the members would like to know more.
 

Scheny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
203
Location
Vienna, Austria
Some of the numbers here are on the border of credibility with no means of independent sniff testing.
Actually, if you check the comparison I stated the conservative numbers and not the optimistic values from the comparison. Basically I do not pretend to have much better values than the JSX while our wing was reviewed by two independent aerodynamic specialists and both have been impressed it didn't originate from a big factory (and roughly confirmed the predicted numbers).

Compared to Raptor there is one big difference. I rely on the expertise of my team and I am not ashamed of taking their advice. This is why the tail has already been modified twice and why I asked in this forum for advice on the fuel tank system. While I am the key person driving this project, there is the continuous support of two aerodynamicists, two carbon chassis experts and one testpilot, so I can assure you it is not a castle in the sky.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,460
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
I think it's safe to say we're all waiting for the digital rendering of this machine that provides a visual image of what you are proposing.

One of the OP's posts mentioned detailed 3-views, but I cannot find any of those 3-views in this thread.

Is this aircraft concept being presented here in the "pre-3-view" stage? That is not automatically a negative, many of us have proposed discussions for concepts that have not progressed to the 3-view stage. I have recently psoposed such a concept myself.
 

Andy_RR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
241
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Trust me, I'm all for pushing the limits of what's possible but if you post a bunch of huge claims backed only with a graph that has no visible ordinate axis, I'm calling bullshït until proven otherwise.
 

Scheny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
203
Location
Vienna, Austria
I think it's safe to say we're all waiting for the digital rendering of this machine that provides a visual image of what you are proposing.
You see it in my avatar. I hope you don't mind I don't want to include a full resolution yet.

Scheny, would you mind sharing more of the project, and how your performance numbers were derived?
We started independently in two groups with students doing a concept study and constraint analysis and me, doing concept study for one potential customer. After the student project finished, we joined forces and now it is "my" child, but with support from many capable people.

My approach has been:
.) Configuration Selection
.) detailed requirements study
.) mission definition
.) comparison to competitors
.) Conceptual Design
.) Powerplant --> only PBS was left
.) Initial sizing (came from constraint analysis --> turned out complete bull**** for our mission)
.) First sketches
.) Preliminary Design
.) Profile selection --> we decided against critical ones and for a mixture between low landing speed, efficient cruise and aerobatics possible
.) Aerodynamics (wing) --> VLM2
.) Aerodynamics (non-wing) --> turned out to be similar to Arnolds concept for the AR-6
.) Weight --> detailed list for every single part to be used, fuselage based on input from chassis experts
.) Regulations (CS-23 compatible)
.) Cost estimation for first prototype
.) Comparison to BD-5 and JSX-2 --> VLM2 simulation + CFD for cruise condition to roughly validate VLM2
.) Configuration Development
.) Ergonomics --> mockup tbd next, some tests with coarse foamplates mockup done successfully
.) Avionics chosen
.) Systems --> configuration almost done
.) To continue here...

As you see, there is a lot going on in the background. I would not call the rendering in my avatar a final solution yet ;)
 

Scheny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
203
Location
Vienna, Austria
So, yesterday I have been shopping material for the 1:1 scale mockup of the front fuselage section (not enough space for the empennage at my own workshop). This will be used for checking the ergonomics (up to now done via CAD). I had one car load of XPS foam and we speak of a Mazda 6 station waggon.

The plane is designed "inside out", due to the space restrictions like in a glider. So also for the mockup, I will begin with a center-section of the seat and then optimize while adding the "sides".

As the response for the "Airplane 05" thread was positive ("finally someone building a plane upon engineering"), I decided to make most of our engineering available (with some data being excluded of course) in this thread.

I hope this will diffuse your concerns about my claims a little bit.
 

radfordc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,390
You see it in my avatar. I hope you don't mind I don't want to include a full resolution yet.

I would not call the rendering in my avatar a final solution yet ;)
I would hope not. A jet with no air inlet would be strange indeed.
 

Scheny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
203
Location
Vienna, Austria
Due to non-disclosure and time issues, I can only give you a small peak at the data. The raw data is many pages long:

Part #1: Configuration Selection

Requirement study
  • Gross weight 380kg (calculations for 450kg as safety margin)
  • Single pilot, 120kg max.
  • Stall speed clean <60kt
  • Cruise speed ~220kt
  • Vd/Vne >300kt
  • 150l (40gal) Jet A1
  • Part23 compliant
  • +9G/-5G
  • Ergonomic, >60cm (23") at shoulder
  • Reduced workload (for a jet)
  • Easy handling characteristics
  • >26G frontal / 10G other directions safety cell
  • BRS available as standard, built in crumple zone in nosecone
  • 1100N jet engine
Define mission
  • Max. endurance >3h @120kt
  • Max. range 550nm excl. reserve
  • 30min aerobatics, 3min sustained inverted flight minimum
Study aircraft in similar class
JSX-2, BD-5J, Beast One
Crew 1, 1, 1
Length 5,1m, 4,0m, 4,5m
Span 5,5m, 5,1m, 6,0m
Wing area 5,6m², 3,5m², 5,0m²
Airfoil 64-415, 64-215, Beast 15%
Empty weight 227kg, 188kg, 180kg
Gross weight 454kg, 370kg, 380kg
Fuel capacity 150l, 113l, 150l
Powerplant TJ-100, TJ-100, TJ-100
Stall speed with flaps 50kt, 67kt, <60kt
Cruise speed 209kt, 208kt, 220kt
Never exceed speed 249kt, 278kt, >270kt
Range with 30m reserve 417nm, 200nm, 550nm
G limits +4,4G +6G, +9G
Rate of climb 1600fpm, 2400fpm, 2400fpm
Fuel consumption 68l/h, 68l/h, 68l/h
Ballistic recovery Yes, No, Yes
Handling charac. Good, Bad, Good
Safety cell No, No, Yes


Study aerodynamic goals

  • Soft stall characteristics (special profile: derived from 64-215, but better stall and Ca at low Re)
  • Emphasis on low Reynolds behaviour (for outer wing, due to smaller chord)
  • Decreased interference drag at wing junction (fuselage design + nonlinear fairing)
  • Decreased interference drag at tail (elevator placement)
  • NACA turbine inlet (high alpha behaviour, ice accredition,...)
  • Spoiler design (evaluation of wing, tail or even split rudder)
 

Scheny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
203
Location
Vienna, Austria
We checked the data sheet of the engine and it only allows for 6G continuous and 9G peak. Because of that, we put the requirement to +9G (still evaluating weight penalty for 14G ultimate). For negative, we thought about redout and added some margin on top, so we came up with -5G. Due to the design of the spar, it will be more likely almost the same value as for positive.
 

Scheny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
203
Location
Vienna, Austria
It has been some time since I last posted, but there is some progress.

We will continue the project more in a commercial matter, so I cannot throw around numbers anymore, but I can provide a status update.

Instead of a full scale mockup, I built an ergonomics validating model of the cockpit. The long planning proved wise, as everything was perfect right away and the test pilot loved it.

In two weeks there will be a kickoff meeting with the government agency. They already asked some preliminary questions regarding v/n diagram, torsion and bending load calculation for the carbon skin and noise levels. As for now everything looks quite good. To fulfill the claims will be challenging, but I am surrounded by experts which are really critical and second guess every part. So I am not running blind.

Instead of a full scale mockup I am in negotiation to partner up build a 1:2 scale flying model which should be available this year.
 

Scheny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
203
Location
Vienna, Austria
So we had the meeting with three government officials. The short summary: it was one of the finest homebuilt projects they have seen in the last years they said.

Still, there are a few things they addressed that we have to take care of. One concern was the light wing load. As it does not have a negative penalty for cruise, we chose to have a relatively huge wing. This leads to problems in case we have a tiny girl flying with empty tanks through moderate gusts. Although unlikely, we will have to calculate and simulate for this scenario.

Another thing was how to address carbon saturation for using vacuum infusion process and strength of non-aero resins used in this process. This will be easy to show with sample tests. Last huge point was fire extinguishing. As the turbine is embedded in the tail structure, a fire can destroy the whole tail. For this, it is built in a way, that as long as the plane is moving, the fire gets blown out and structural integrity stays (only nozzle compromised). They were concerned about the corner case where someone panics at cruise level and opens the chute while up there and on fire. So we have to think about sufficient barriers to delay the fire reaching the cabin while going down. Last but not least they wanted to see CFD calculation of the air inlet for high alpha and high beta, but this was planned as the next step anyway.

What concerns us most, is that here in Europe there is some concern that foreign governments could block in case that they are "quick built" in a builder assist program, as this applies to oversight according to local jurisdiction of the manufacturer country, but may contradict the interpretation of the country of operation. For light aircraft this is no big deal, but as this is a jet, there is no precedence how it is handled (which flutter tests, what static tests, etc.).
 

Aerowerx

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
5,568
Location
Marion, Ohio
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
I always get a kick out of that one.

There is a third option. You could end up hopelessly mangled and in a vegetative state for the rest of your life. Technically, you are not dead but certainly not stronger either.
 

Andy_RR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
241
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Eh? A light wing loading doesn't affect cruise...? That's a new one! You should ring up all the glider manufacturers and tell them not to bother with ballast tanks and stuff. They'll be pleased to hear this news!
 

Scheny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
203
Location
Vienna, Austria
I always get a kick out of that one.

There is a third option. You could end up hopelessly mangled and in a vegetative state for the rest of your life. Technically, you are not dead but certainly not stronger either.
It was intended that unlike the BD-5 it is build in a way it doesn't want to kill you ;)

Behaviour is designed to be better than any other small jet and safety too.
 
Top