twin boom pusher plans

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by cheetah650, Jan 15, 2009.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jan 20, 2009 #41

    addaon

    addaon

    addaon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,686
    Likes Received:
    100
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Yep. There's a reason I'm doing my flying wing single seat for the first version... I wouldn't be terribly comfortable asking anyone else to get in it with me. But I'm designing, constantly, with the idea towards a second version with a second seat.
     
  2. Jan 20, 2009 #42

    cheetah650

    cheetah650

    cheetah650

    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Blackhawk, can you elaborate on design details? structures specifications etc.

    Canopy looks like cold folded rather than blown.
     
  3. Jan 20, 2009 #43

    Inverted Vantage

    Inverted Vantage

    Inverted Vantage

    Formerly Unknown Target

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes Received:
    32
    Easier said than done when it comes to extremely limited funds ;) As someone who's taken a huge awesome super duper airplane and simplified it into quite literally a box with wings, the one thing I would not want to sacrifice is the two seater capacity...if it ever does fly, I'd want to share it with someone else, and I might not have the funds for a good while to build another plane.
     
  4. Jan 20, 2009 #44

    Grimace

    Grimace

    Grimace

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Well, are you pushing the envelope, or are you building within the norm? For instance, no doubt, someone could build a Cub-type airplane as a two-seater. A flying wing is a different beast. Also, the presence of two seats doesn't require you to have someone with you...

    But it does complicate the process.. and it does lead to temptation. I ride motorcycles and when I started, that was the toughest thing. There was a cute girl.. and I had two seats... but I was a new rider. I knew I shouldn't... but dang... she was cute... odds are, nothing was going to happen... I'd take it slow... Temptation arises.

    Nothing wrong with starting out two place, but you do have to appreciate the complication it adds to the design... and the risks of human factors (such as horny-ness, for example) creeping in...

    I'm just saying... :roll:
     
  5. Jan 20, 2009 #45

    etterre

    etterre

    etterre

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Interesting... My first thought was "hmm, a Metal Airaile" More info here: RANS Aircraft Page It's a kit, but Ran's is one of the few manufacturer's that I'd be willing to bet will stay open for the next 10 years.

    I must admit, this thread has covered quite a few aircraft that have interested me at one time or another (Edgely Optika, Sadler Vampire, Laminaire, etc.), so I'll throw out three more: the Snark http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/f...ation-about-bill-barbers-snark.html#post21985, Janowski's J1-B Janowski Aircraft Page, and the ORKA EM-11 Orka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    None of them is terribly practical for you - the Snark was essentially a one-off design with a few copies in Australia and New Zealand. The J1-B is a one-seater and it isn't officially available anymore. The Orka is a twin and it was intended for production (no kits or plans).

    But one of them might give you more ideas to pursue...

    Last thoughts: If you're really serious about "speed doesn't matter" then take a real hard look at the various "2-seat ultralight trainers" like the RANS Airaile or the Challenger II or the Kolb Mk III or the .... Almost all of them would have the visibility you're looking for. But they would have to be purchased as either a kit from the manufacturer, a completed used airframe, or a partially completed kit. If your goal with plans-building is to save money by spending more time, then wander over to Airplanes & Aircraft Parts For Sale - Free Classified Ads - Ultralights to Airliners - Used Aircraft and Helicopter Sales and Classifieds including Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper, de Havilland, Boeing, Airbus and Lockheed planes and do a search with your price range I just found this Challenger II http://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?id=303504 that may be a good buy for you at $9500 (if it has an N number). I have seen partially completed kits pop up there from time to time as well.
     
  6. Jan 20, 2009 #46

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,974
    Likes Received:
    4,919
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Ah yes... while most truly revolutionary experimental prototypes are built as a single seat, let us not forget the 3-seat Spaceship One! Of, course, the X-prize requirements did dictate 3 seats.

    As for the rest of us who are stretching the envelope without the X-prize mandate, we can always extend our motto from "Share the joy" to a broader concept: "Share the joy, share the terror". :roll:

    Nothing wrong with building a prototype with more than one seat, but I'm sure we would all agree that thorough testing is in order before populating the extra seats.

    Bruce :gig:
     
  7. Jan 20, 2009 #47

    MalcolmW

    MalcolmW

    MalcolmW

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Okay, Cheetah650;

    Here’s a glimpse of what I believe you’re looking for in a short take-off, high-visibility (observation) aircraft. I found more pictures of it, which should give you an idea of what a well-designed aircraft should look like. Apparently this is a derivation of a design (about ten-years old) called a ‘SAI G97 Spotter.’ Aero Motor Academy | index

    And, to confirm that it is a ‘STOL’ aircraft, here’s a short clip of it taking off…
    I hope that you can finally figure out what you can ‘compromise’ upon, since there never is a perfect aircraft, especially when you intend to build it yourself. Too bad the SkyMaxx went out of production.

    Oh, I've added this as an edit - it's a 'Power-Point' of a SkyMaxx sales brochure with lots of pretty pictures. I hope you can open it http://www.all4education.de/downloads/sky.ppt


    All the best, and fly safe.
    MalcolmW
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
  8. Jan 21, 2009 #48

    cheetah650

    cheetah650

    cheetah650

    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    this is a catia drawing i made back when i was playing with idea of mid-engine pusher configuration. wings look out of proportion since i was after relatively higher wing loading cruise Cl of 0.4 or so.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Jan 21, 2009 #49

    CNCRouterman

    CNCRouterman

    CNCRouterman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Greetings,
    The Ion seems to meet a lot of the original goals stated. Some posts indicate concerns about Ion Aircraft's lack of updates on the website, engine changes, wing changes etc. and importantly the question of whether it is still an active work in progress. So, having Steve's number on my cell phone, I called him.

    Ion Aircraft is definitely alive and kickin'. Here are some updates on their project.

    The original Jabaru engine has been retired do to several plaguing issues that were not surmounted during the flight testing regime: Cooling- Difficulties in maintaining even cooling for all cylinders proved a moving target. They did get them reasonably close, but Steve did not like the contortions required, and they still varied more than Steve felt was appropriate. Unexplained loss of static RPM. This problem arose after a number of test flights, and there was no traceable cause. Steve explained (when it happened last year) that they check, rechecked, and re-rechecked everything, prop, balance, track, runout, fuel, air, oil, etc. etc. and could not figure out why they suddenly lost 300 or so RPM on static runup. They returned the engine to the distributor who still doesn't know why they had the problem. As the flight testing of the airframe still has to get done, Steve and company selected their alternate choice, the Rotax. He is now, as I type this, building a replacement engine cowl to accommodate the new mill. Steve did say that the Rotax does have a couple of benefits over the Jab. It is about 60 lbs lighter and is liquid cooled. Knowing from past conversations that this prototype, like many, ended up a bit tail heavy (relative to target weights), the lighter powerplant is a good thing. The one slightly less than optimal characteristic mentioned is that the Rotax has a PSRU gearbox, which was one reason Steve had banked on the Jabaru direct drive 6 cylinder initially on the airframe.

    Regarding the new wings- this is not quite accurate. The wings have suffered a few dings and dents during the long development period, and spent a lot of time off the airframe, however, they were reconditioned and sound for the initial test flights. Recently (Steve did not say just when) the right wing lost an argument with an errant fuel truck so Roger is making a new set with the same airfoil and aerodynamic specs. This is actually somewhat of a good thing, as the new wings are going to be lighter. The first set used solid ribs and spars where the new set will be using the updated versions with appropriate lightening features, more in line with what will be used in production.

    Regarding the overall lack of documented progress. Steve is busy with the aircraft, and less concerned about the website. From an advertising standpoint, not a great result, but Steve and company are self funded, and not dependent upon outside/customer deposits to keep the lights on. This is both good and bad, good because they do not want to treat others the way Dreamwings (copyright or trademarked) treated them, and bad, because they do not have depositor's funds in the bank to expedite the remaining tasks to bring the product to market.

    Steve Schultz is a meticulous individual who has a good grasp of project management, and who is not willing to trade expediency for safety. From a fiscal standpoint, and I have done business with him, Steve is a conservative, pay as you go, stay out of debt, get the best bang for the money, build it right or don't release it until it's ready type of businessman.

    The apparent lack of progress is just that, apparent, there is a lot that goes into a project like this, and it takes real discipline to dot all the "i's" and cross all the "t's", discipline that Steve has demonstrated admirably. This is the kind of operation a customer can have real confidence in.

    I believe/hope that Steve will be looking for a few, select individuals to take the next step, after flight testing is done, to build several flying platforms concurrently to prove out the production steps and methods before final roll out of the kit. Assuming I have the discretionary funds, I hope to be one of them (unless I build one of Bill Husa's designs first and run out of room/money). Time will tell.
     
  10. Jan 21, 2009 #50

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,873
    Likes Received:
    5,484
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Well, that's good to hear. I still question whether or not they're "tweaking" the design for too long, but I'm not there and don't really know what's going on.

    I will agree that yes, they're making a huge mistake by allowing their website to go 'cold', and the speculation that's taken place here - of which I was a part - is prime evidence of that, and also evidence of the bad PR that can result from neglecting their interface with the community and potential customers.

    I'm happy to hear that Steve's funding is secure, but this is still not a time to let their marketing slide, no matter what's going on with the airplane. I completely respect their desire to distance themselves from DreamWing's practice (and am glad to hear it!), but "marketing" goes far beyond "advertising" and is fundamental to running a sound business practice. You have to keep your customer base aware of your product - and involved with its development if it is not yet on-sale. Letting that customer/community involvement lag now is going to kill sales later on. They need to keep the 'buzz' going, or they'll turn around and find that nobody remembers who they are when it comes time to start selling kits.

    I wish them well, and hopefully they'll bring the airplane to market soon. Thanks for the update!
     
  11. Jan 21, 2009 #51

    CNCRouterman

    CNCRouterman

    CNCRouterman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Legitimate points Topaz, I will see if I can entice Steve to read this thread and contribute, but I doubt he has much spare time. Having sat in the Ion several times, only once when everything was attached, I can say that it feels good, really puts a grin on your face. I could just imagine enjoying the thrill of flying with such a great view. I hope to get a ride or two this summer. I would bet that it will be ready for a full function fly in at the next Osh though. The instrument cluster was full up when I sat in her last year, cool little glass display with all kinds of features. Center stick fore and aft, regular pedals, almost F16 like canopy.

    I don't think that "tweaking" in the sense of reworking something that is already up to spec is accurate. The craft is functional now (except re-engine-ing), just not quite up to expectations (well, Steve's anyway). The current work, and a major delay, has been centered around a cantankerous powerplant (the Jab). Re-engine-ing means a new cowl, new motor mount, new exhaust, adding a radiator, including ducting, moving the oil cooler, re-calculating weight and balance, adjusting the nose ballast (battery), possibly a new prop and prop extension due to change in torque curve from one engine to another and positioning of the engine's axial position. Plus, I remember Steve saying that he still had to shave weight from a number of components, rework the main gear spring or mounts, and he would like to change the front gear as well. All of these thing require careful consideration, evaluation, engineering, fabrication, test fitting, actual testing etc. Since Steve is careful and safety conscious, it all takes time and resources, and more time.

    I will encourage Steve to update their website.
     
  12. Jan 21, 2009 #52

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,873
    Likes Received:
    5,484
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Oh, it's a neat design, and if they're capitalized and handle the marketing at all competently, they'll sell quite a few, IMHO. I've mentioned elsewhere here that I'm happy to see something that isn't a low-wing tractor monoplane come to market again - we're in another phase where most of the main competitors look alike, and that's no good for anyone. I don't know if you remember the old Acura TV ad from the late '80's, where a couple comes out of a restaurant and the valet brings the wrong car up to them, repeatedly. "No, mine's the black Buick." The thrust of the ad was that all the period mid-range luxury cars of various models parked in the valet area looked exactly alike - except the Acura. And they were right. Apparently that ad really torqued some heads in the auto industry. Whole design departments were born of the aftermath.

    It's nice to see someone breaking the mold in aviation, too.

    What you describe sounds - to me - like classic "endless tweaking", especially when you say it's "...just not quite up to expectations (well, Steve's anyway)" [emphasis mine]. Babbage was a classic example - the world would've had a programmable mechanical computer (his "analytical engine") back in the 19th century if Babbage hadn't been such a perfectionist about his designs. Someone recently built a module of his last design - which he rejected as "unacceptable" - and it worked perfectly.

    Please don't interpret this as any kind of shot against Steve or his company - I don't know either personally - but rather just a concern based upon outward appearences. It's very easy for designers and engineers to get caught up endlessly 'perfecting' their design and never actually "let go" and let it get off to market. I've seen it many times before. Heck, anyone who's known me long enough on these boards could tell you that I'm probably more guilty of this behavior than Steve ever would or could be - at least he's got hardware that he's working upon! :gig:

    Again, I'm not at all involved in ION Aircraft or the design of the Ion, but on the surface it seems to me that it would be better to fix the cooling problems (new cowling/baffling) and possibly install a different Jab engine to resolve (or at least test) the static RPM difficulties, rather than redesign the airplane for an entirely different motor.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2009
  13. Jan 21, 2009 #53

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,873
    Likes Received:
    5,484
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    I think you need to talk with Grey_Out. :gig:
     
  14. Jan 22, 2009 #54

    cheetah650

    cheetah650

    cheetah650

    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes this is pretty much like what gray is working on now. the only difference being structure is all composite. it is mostly drive shaft concerns that has scared me away. i was thinking of filament wound drive shaft or a aluminun one supported with many bearings between the ends.
     
  15. Jan 13, 2012 #55

    sconner

    sconner

    sconner

    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wabash
    Just found this thread, because I was looking for information on the ION and I found in this 3 year old thread exactly what I was afraid I would find. I have searched the Yahoo group and I do not see any "updates"
    So the best I can tell, this plane has been flying now for 5 years and they are still not to production or kit sales?
    CNCRouterman, if you are still here and still have Steve's # maybe you could give an update for the ION?

    Scott
     
  16. Jan 13, 2012 #56

    etterre

    etterre

    etterre

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Last significant update (fall 2011?) from the Yahoo group that I saw on the ION was that work was progressing on prototype #2 and the goal was weight reduction. I did ask for pics of proto #2, but haven't seen any. My guess is that they're busy building it, but don't think updates are worthwhile since it looks just like proto #1.
     
  17. Jan 13, 2012 #57

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland

    This would work if the electric engine on the back and batteries in front cone.
     
  18. Jan 13, 2012 #58

    CNCRouterman

    CNCRouterman

    CNCRouterman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Re: twin boom pusher plans- ION

    Greetings,
    I haven't talked with Steve for a while now. Last time I was at Janefield we were discussing a re-do of the engine cowling, and a new vendor for the nose gear. Sounds like he has the main gear sourced, the avionics, motor and prop pretty well dialed in. There was a ground adjustable prop on it at the time. Current (at the time) issues that equate to a burr under Steve's saddle were: Engine cooling on the ground, debating on keeping flaps or no flaps, trimming some additional weight from the aft section, and settling on a canopy latching system, and a checklist of miscellaneous details.

    One thing to bear in mind is that Steve is doing the majority of the work himself. He hires engineers, Carbon Fibre Layup shops, and various other assets as needed, but at our last meeting, he was adamant that the whole works was "pay as you go", and it is all coming out of his pocket (and a few other co-investors). Steve has been doing the development full time, I believe he cashed out his previous business to run this program, and I don't think he is getting paid, not till the company actually starts selling the product, so I have confidence that he is not sitting around wasting time, and he has demonstrated the integrity and will power to make sure that the final product is what he says it is, and is as safe as he can make it.
     

Share This Page



arrow_white