Quantcast

You're All Trash*, Part 234,567,988 - DarkAero

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

flyboy2160

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2014
Messages
348
Location
california, USA
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I'm sick of people claiming all the paradigms are just no good, and, By God, We Have Found THE Solution.

https://www.facebook.com/darkaeroinc/


https://www.darkaero.com/


"the Hollow Grid helps the skin maintain its shape and prevent buckling. This approach results in assemblies that are stronger and significantly lighter when compared to other structural approaches."

Really? Let's see the trade study comparing your full depth multi-web design with a properly designed sandwich skin with 2 spars.

Fast because it's small, tightly packaged, and light? Huh? Ever heard of Lancair or of the Rutans planes?

I wish people well who want to try things, but these disparaging remarks about all the brilliant and ingenious engineers who have preceded them leave a bad taste.

This just reminds me too much of the babbling bozos at Boom Supersonic.

*Bad Guy Hulk Hogan yelling at the booing crowd in Rocky III
 

Doggzilla

Banned
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,352
Location
Everywhere USA
Speaking of Burt Rutan, he agrees with these young men and has called the majority of modern aircraft "crap" that are "mediocre".

If you dont want to listen to these guys, then go listen to what Burt has to say about most large aerospace companies.

He actually got mad when someone asked him if he wanted to be the CEO of a Boeing because it was insulting to him.
 

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
3,448
Someone handed me their spec sheet at OSH. I think it's optimistic. I talked with them. They seemed to be eager, smart young guys. We will see what they accomplish.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,519
Location
Fresno, California
Their basic approach is nothing new. Sure, the materials are different, but Piper opted for thicker skins and less internal structure when they introduced their Malibu.
 

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
6,277
Location
Australian
Takes 2 to tango, and it doesn't matter how much better your product is (or not), the resistance to change by the people who's money you want from them dictates the product far more than revolution does.
 

12notes

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
1,103
Location
Louisville, KY
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I'm sick of people claiming all the paradigms are just no good, and, By God, We Have Found THE Solution.

https://www.facebook.com/darkaeroinc/


https://www.darkaero.com/


"the Hollow Grid helps the skin maintain its shape and prevent buckling. This approach results in assemblies that are stronger and significantly lighter when compared to other structural approaches."

Really? Let's see the trade study comparing your full depth multi-web design with a properly designed sandwich skin with 2 spars.

Fast because it's small, tightly packaged, and light? Huh? Ever heard of Lancair or of the Rutans planes?

I wish people well who want to try things, but these disparaging remarks about all the brilliant and ingenious engineers who have preceded them leave a bad taste.

This just reminds me too much of the babbling bozos at Boom Supersonic.

*Bad Guy Hulk Hogan yelling at the booing crowd in Rocky III
Maybe I missed something, but looking at their website I didn't see any disparaging remarks about anyone. I'm not sure where the vitriol comes from. They are self financing, so it doesn't seem to be an investor scam. They are an aviation, mechanical, and electrical engineer designing a new plane.

What's your complaint exactly? That they think they have a better way to do something and have the nerve to try it, investing their own time and money? How does any progress ever get made otherwise?

This board has had far too many posts lately slamming any new idea, and that is 100℅ not the direction we should be taking. You should be very, very, very thankful that those engineers in the past you hold in such high esteem thought exactly like these people you are currently attempting to point out as a problem.
 

skier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
1,078
Location
CT
deleted. This was a rambling post about how many big ideas there have been over the past 15 years and how few have actually managed to go anywhere.
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,875
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I support anyone trying new ideas but why do upstarts have to post projected performance numbers before even one example has flown?

It's really pretty pointless and more liable to show in the end that you were not as smart as you thought you were.

Cool that they are working on producing an aircraft, let's wait and see how it performs when they are flying a prototype and costs when they have production models for sale.
 

wsimpso1

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
7,151
Location
Saline Michigan
I say go easy on them. Recent college grads who still think they will change the world will learn more about the wisdom of "convention" over a little time. In the meanwhile, I want to see their bird fly and a few customers build and fly too. I sincerely hope that their adventure in structural revolution does not result in major problems in customer's hands. Other outfits have discovered this sort of thing after they thought that they were the smartest guy in the room.

While I decry the whole "I am the smartest guy in the room" mentality, and I question that their scheme for the horizontal stabilizer has higher strength to weight ratio than other schemes, I will wait and see if their tiny airplane is successful, first as an airplane, then second as commercial product.

I have already gone on HBA.com and commented that this dense egg crate does not appear to be the lightest way to make strength. In detail, I mean that the stabilizer must both carry its airload plus the resultant loads at hinges from the elevator and from the actuator to hold the elevator and then set those loads on the fuselage. Those nasty point loads. Once you reinforce the drag spar enough to carry the hinge loads and actuator loads, it is about big enough by itself to be the shear web of a spar that can carry all of the bending and shear loads. The cap for such a spar will not be much more than the skins except near the root. At that point a sandwich skin plus the spar will carry the whole load without adding in the whole eggcrate of honeycomb sandwich pieces. Yeah, most of the eggcrate become superfluous.

Compare the weight of the above "conventional" composite structure to this honeycomb eggcrate with a skin and all of the adhesive to tie it all together and the drag spar to carry the elevator loads into the stabilizer, and you can see how you are doing. If they are both designed to same strength based upon airloads, the comparison means something.

I have one other concern over their eggcrate scheme. They appear to be achieving simple assembly, merely potting the honeycomb sandwich ribs in adhesive and sticking them to the skins instead of somehow wrapping the fibers from webs to skin. It will simplify assembly, but requires that all of those blind adhesive joints be reliably achieved, be good when new, and be durable when used. I do not know if these will be attainable.

In total, it is probably lighter than some schemes, but I suspect not lighter than the best. When you look at their marketing, they did not say it was the lightest, only that it is lighter than others, without saying which others...

Billski
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
8,642
Location
North Carolina
Hmmm, so you think the wing construction could be even lighter than the BV246?

Young people are always smarter than old people. This is because as a person ages, smartness is steadily replaced by wisdom.

Posting outstanding performance figures before flying something does seem rather rash. Once you are up into cutting edge performance, the little details start making large contributions. You'll notice I get vague when extolling the virtues of my latest brainchild...
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,802
Location
Port Townsend WA
They had a sample part loaded with sandbags or something on display, which is reasonable. Perhaps the competion part method could have been displayed with similar load.
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
4,711
Location
NJ
What I see on their web page is good design.....so far, both manufacturing wise and design wise. Lets hope they can get it done.
 

flyboy2160

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2014
Messages
348
Location
california, USA
Not to mention the Starship ....


BJC
..which was so overwhelmingly better, at a small fraction of the price, than the King Air it was to replace, that Beech bought back all but a few of the King Airs and crushed them! No, wait.....
 
Last edited:

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
3,448
They had a sample part loaded with sandbags or something on display, which is reasonable. Perhaps the competion part method could have been displayed with similar load.
I agree, it was neat. Unfortunately, they were not selling bridges (in which case it might have been relevant).
 
Top