Jump to content

wider/longer ez


Recommended Posts

All is coming along well. After shaping the fuse I laid a course of bi directional kevlar along the bottom from F-22 to the firewall, it draped about four inches below the bottom longeron. (just in case of a front page landing, thought it would provide some deterant to shattering fiberglass) Next step will be to wrap the rascal in UND, per plans, and move towards the canard.

Contrary to plans, I did lay kevlar in the floor pans. A little extra strength in the traffic areas can't be a bad thing.:P

 

I plan to use the infinity retracts.....wilhelmson nose gear, a souped up 13 B mazda rotary, an electric adjustable three bladed MT prop. I suppose I will have to begin to reach into my pocket and stop griping about the cost. (which is nothing compared to a factory built )

 

I am 4" wider in the front seat..........two inches wider in the rear, and six and one half in overall length thusfar. I am going the way of the long nose in an effort to accomodate my kwx 56 color radar.......another little toy I thought would come in handy for scoping out summer thunderstorms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

May comes and my fuselage is complete!!!!!!!!But......(how do I say this?)

I ordered another backbreaker box of foam and have started to build my second fuselage. This one will incorporate ideas I had after constructing the first one, and naturally will reflect this strange need of speed.

 

I will be ten feet long from F-22 to firewall. 1 1/2 " taller from plans, the F-22 will be one inch taller, and spread the rest out along the line. The width will be 30" at the front seat bulkhead, 2 1/2 inches at the firewall increase, the rest broken down and moved to allow a flowing profile.

 

Reasons?.....Ok, ok......bigger moter aquired, role of aircraft changed somewhat. She is going to be a hydraulically actuated machine from the standpoint of ailerons, rudders, elevators, landing brake, landing gear (3)

Engine driven pressure compensated pump primary, electric driven standby.

(comfortable redundancy) I happen to work every day with equiptment which is hydraulically operated, tons of it, and decided to do the math and came up with a system which will require minimul pressure and do away totally with trim tabs all around.

 

Anticipated weight increase of complete system will be 100lbs........ease of flight free of constant trim changes=priceless. Naturally the autopilot will work marvelously with hydraulics, all will come out in wash if it don't.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to work every day with equiptment which is hydraulically operated, tons of it, and decided to do the math and came up with a system which will require minimul pressure and do away totally with trim tabs all around.

 

What trim tabs will be done away with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... She is going to be a hydraulically actuated machine from the standpoint of ailerons, rudders, elevators, landing brake, landing gear (3) Engine driven pressure compensated pump primary, electric driven standby...

I wonder if you can point me to one aircraft under 12K lb. MGW that uses hydraulic controls for flight surfaces - especially non-redundant ones. Having a redundant pump does not a redundant system make.

 

...decided to do the math and came up with a system which will require minimul pressure....

So you're going to use boosted controls on an aircraft that weighs less than 2000 lb? You are aware, of course, that there are MINIMUM force requirements for control surfaces for controllability reasons, right? Given that canards already have pitch forces than many feel are too light, you'd need negative boost for pitch.

 

and do away totally with trim tabs all around.

Uh huh. Which trim tabs would those be? Pitch? Nope. Yaw? Nope. Roll? Nope. Maybe I've forgotten an axis?

 

Anticipated weight increase of complete system will be 100lbs........ease of flight free of constant trim changes=priceless.

Hmmm. So you're going to increase the empty weight of the aircraft by about 10% so that you can reduce reliability, complicate the systems, screw with the handling characteristics, and eliminate trim systems that don't exist? You know, of course, that even aircraft with hydraulically boosted controls have trim systems.....

 

Naturally the autopilot will work marvelously with hydraulics......

Which autopilot for small GA aircraft works with hydraulic controls?

 

Or are you just trolling with this post to see what reaction you'll get out of the engineers in the group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasons?.....Ok, ok......bigger moter aquired, role of aircraft changed somewhat. She is going to be a hydraulically actuated machine from the standpoint of ailerons, rudders, elevators, landing brake, landing gear (3)

Engine driven pressure compensated pump primary, electric driven standby.

(comfortable redundancy) I happen to work every day with equiptment which is hydraulically operated, tons of it, and decided to do the math and came up with a system which will require minimul pressure and do away totally with trim tabs all around.

 

Anticipated weight increase of complete system will be 100lbs........ease of flight free of constant trim changes=priceless. Naturally the autopilot will work marvelously with hydraulics, all will come out in wash if it don't.:)

I hope you're trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if you can point me to one aircraft under 12K lb. MGW that uses hydraulic controls for flight surfaces - especially non-redundant ones. Having a redundant pump does not a redundant system make.

 

So you're going to use boosted controls on an aircraft that weighs less than 2000 lb? You are aware, of course, that there are MINIMUM force requirements for control surfaces for controllability reasons, right? Given that canards already have pitch forces than many feel are too light, you'd need negative boost for pitch.

 

Uh huh. Which trim tabs would those be? Pitch? Nope. Yaw? Nope. Roll? Nope. Maybe I've forgotten an axis?

 

Hmmm. So you're going to increase the empty weight of the aircraft by about 10% so that you can reduce reliability, complicate the systems, screw with the handling characteristics, and eliminate trim systems that don't exist? You know, of course, that even aircraft with hydraulically boosted controls have trim systems.....

 

Which autopilot for small GA aircraft works with hydraulic controls?

 

Or are you just trolling with this post to see what reaction you'll get out of the engineers in the group?

Sir, I am very aware that hydraulics take all the "feel" away from flying. I also am well aware of some of the perceived complications associated with hydraulics some people have. Sure, not much pressure is required, and since many have pointed out the drawbacks of hydraulics I cannot go against the grain anymore and will simply show up with the end result. I do realize certains hazards with hydraulics, the same hazards found in defeating gravity and acheiving flight. No, I do not need to overcome twenty some grand of force to move an aileron at speed..........its experimental aircraft, remember?

Controlling pressures are easilly acheivable, making a system completely immune to failure...........sure, when they make a swage that never fails or

a storm that never appears on the horizon.

I anticipated a certain backlash, actually it was mild compared to some of the other comments made on this site. Rather than ride in the seat free of risk, I choose to take the one where an idea might be taken to its inevitable end. (besides, mechanical redundancy can still be incorporated)

Appreciated the grill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trolling???????Me......very uncharactaristic, but knew how maddening the idea would be to those inside the box

Yes, that's right. Scaled hired me because they want the safety and comfort of those that can only think inside the box, and Richard, who was instrumental in bringing the Berkut to market, also is a staid, inside-the-boxer.

 

There is the remote possibility that we have a slight clue about this issue, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's right. Scaled hired me because they want the safety and comfort of those that can only think inside the box, and Richard, who was instrumental in bringing the Berkut to market, also is a staid, inside-the-boxer.

 

There is the remote possibility that we have a slight clue about this issue, no?

Marc?

 

What's a box?

 

RR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......its experimental aircraft, remember?

Absolutely correct, but usually, folks are trying to make their aircraft safer, or perform better, or do something that other aircraft can't do. Not just make them more dangerous and heavier.

 

Since you don't address the questions that have been asked, or explain why you believe that your ideas will make the aircraft better, the only thing we can assume is that there are no reasons, and you're doing it just to be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc?

 

What's a box?

 

RR

It's the thing that Burt's in, because he hasn't put hydraulic controls on any of his homebuilt designs, nor the vast majority (if any - can't think of one off the top of my head, but there might be an instance here or there) of Scaled's designs, no matter how large. And because he's not interested in adding weight to reduce reliability or control harmony.

 

Don't feel so bad that you're in it with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the thing that Burt's in, because he hasn't put hydraulic controls on any of his homebuilt designs, nor the vast majority (if any - can't think of one off the top of my head, but there might be an instance here or there) of Scaled's designs, no matter how large. And because he's not interested in adding weight to reduce reliability or control harmony.

 

Don't feel so bad that you're in it with him.

Oh! So that's what it's called!

 

I've done a lot of very, very silly things with airplanes. I've built (hell, am building) flying systems and structures that are wildly different just for the sake of difference. Or elegance. Or wackiness. I've just put 3 years into an aircraft just to prove out a wing that's unique for it's low part count and planform. There's not a spec of practicality to it. It's just an for the heck of it.

 

But this one flat out impresses me. It brings to mind the design process of the Tu-144, the CA 60, even the Christmas Bullet. I'd thought those days were gone forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to all of the above reasons, hydraulic lines would greatly inhibit your ability to remove the wings. If you used silicon based hydraulic fluid, you run the risk of hopelessly contaminating your composite material surfaces, and the mineral based fluid has that nasty flamability issue to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's right. Scaled hired me because they want the safety and comfort of those that can only think inside the box, and Richard, who was instrumental in bringing the Berkut to market, also is a staid, inside-the-boxer.

 

There is the remote possibility that we have a slight clue about this issue, no?

sorry\, never ment it that way, suppose I should have simply used the word "conventional" in regards to thought???
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information