Anyone looked at this thing ? (Smartfish)

[KeithO]

http://www.smartfish.ch

Apparently it is called the "Smartfish". Personal jet for 2 with the following specification:

 

Length 6.0 m

Wingspan 4.7 m

Aspect ratio 1.7

Height 2.0 m

Max. Takeoff weight 1'000 kg

Zero fuel weight 400 kg

Fuel capacity 300 kg

Payload 300 kg

Takeoff and landing distance 700 m

Vso 125 km/h

Vne Mach 0.85

 

 

Take note of the VNE of Mach 0.85 !!!! It looks like landing the beast will be just 1 step down from the shuttle "glider".. Apparently a Concord like AOA of 25 degrees is required to achieve the close to 70mph stall speed. There is a very slick marketing video here: http://www.smartfish.ch/art/SmartFish_Design_10.wmv

 

Does anyone know how much the original EJ22 engines were meant to be for the Eclipse ? Is it possible that it could be in the $100k range ? This kind of machine is simply dead without a suitable powerplant.

[raiki]

Can anyone say "Vapourware"!!!!!!!!!

[Cozy Girrrl]

They should strategically partner with Innodyne! One can blame the other for not holding up their side of the partnership and nobody will ever have to deliver the goods.. but they can take deposits!

...Chrissi

[satch]

looks like someone trying to do function following form .... again ... design it pretty and hope it flies

[Lynn Erickson]

looks like someone trying to do function following form .... again ... design it pretty and hope it flies

Many of us have had this aircraft right in front of us all along and did not even relize it. just omit the chapter where you build the wings and attach the winglets to the strakes. install a turbo fan engine and hang on.

[Cozy Girrrl]

Many of us have had this aircraft right in front of us all along and did not even relize it. just omit the chapter where you build the wings and attach the winglets to the strakes. install a turbo fan engine and hang on.

We're with Lynn; it just needs more power and I'm sure the Cozy without wings and canard will be a huge hit!

...Chrissi

[mfryer]

I agree this does not appear to be viable. However, if I were to look at a drawing of a Vari-viggin, Varieze, or Long-EZ back in the 70s I would probably be doubtful as well (hmmm doubtful and in elementary school). I wouldn't invest $$$ based on what I see on their website, but if they ever build a prototype I would look forward to seeing it.

[KeithO]

I'm comparing it to an F106A. Issues I see are cost for the turbine. Willingness of the turbine manufacturers to work with a project like this.

 

I also tried to get an idea on fuel burn for the single engined VLJ's that abound and the only one I could find was the Diamand Jet which calculated out to 6mpg. Somehow the advantage in fuel efficiency for the at least $250k investment in the modern turbines isn't becoming clear to me. Has anyone found any info published on fuel burns for the new generation of turbines ?

[Edge 513]

I think Chrissi and Randi are the secret Beta project...they just haven't added the upswept tips and winglets!

It is so cool looking...it almost hurts to put wings on that.

[Cozy Girrrl]

I think the F-106, MIG-21 etc were all of a genre where designers were strapping fins on an engine, a BIG engine back in the time fuel was cheap and whose sole object was to covert huge amounts of kerosene to noise. A concrete bunker will meet any flight performance criteria if it makes enough noise (requires some extrapolation)(dirty thoughts Dennis, dirty thoughts)

but in this day and age even the military is concerned about fuel efficiency.

The Smartfish might represent a shift in thinking beyond mere laminar flow. There are studies being done which look at whales and dolphins whose shapes actually change and adapt to speed.

But I fear that it is not capable of adapting through a full flight envelope, even our unlimited dollar technology cannot come up with a single form that can do everything therefore we have swingwings to give that adaptability needed.

Its like putting flaps on a canard aircraft; you then have to make the front airfoil move to compensate for it.

...Chrissi

[TMann]

Impressive ......... what you can do with 3D CAD.

 

So if the plane is called a 'smartfish' ,

...... would it be safe to say the investor would be referred to as a 'guppy?'

[Bearair]

 

So if the plane is called a 'smartfish' ,

...... would it be safe to say the investor would be referred to as a 'guppy?'

I was thinking more along the lines of 'suckerfish'.

[KeithO]

I had a look at fuel burn for the Eclipse and for long cross countries it worked out to be approximately 0.5lb/mile per engine. That is with 2 Pratt & Whitney 610F 900lb thrust turbofans. Working this back to miles per gallon it was 13mpg or at 370kts it s 31.1 gal/hr. Admittedly, a smaller aircraft would generate less drag than half of the eclipse or would be cruising faster.

 

Based on these numbers, at the proposed 300kg fuel load that would equal 96.5 gal or less than 3 hours endurance to an empty tank @ 560kts.

[Marc Zeitlin]

I had a look at fuel burn for the Eclipse and for long cross countries it worked out to be approximately 0.5lb/mile per engine. That is with 2 Pratt & Whitney 610F 900lb thrust turbofans. Working this back to miles per gallon it was 13mpg or at 370kts it s 31.1 gal/hr.

Whoa. Lets look at the #'s from Eclipse:

 

http://www.eclipseaviation.com/eclipse_500/performance/mission_profiles.html

 

Even the best case long range trip has a fuel burn of 0.56 lb/mile/engine. And that's at an average speed of 293 kts, NOT 370 kts. You do NOT want to know what the fuel burn of these engines would be at the max cruise speed. :-).

 

So with those #'s (from Eclipse), you get an efficiency of about 6 NM/gal (I don't know where you got the 13 from).

 

1232 lb/6.8 lb/gal =181 gallons burned

 

1100 miles/181 gallons = 6.1 NM/gal (7 SM/gal)

 

It's not going to be better going faster :-).

 

This also works out to 24 gal/hr/engine.

 

Calculating these #'s for the shorter blocks gives much worse #'s - for the 250 NM trip, it's 3.8 NM/gal (4.4 SM/gal).

 

I get anywhere from 17-20 NM/gal in the COZY, and that's with three or four seats full. With enough fuel to make a 1100 NM mile trip, the Eclipse can't take three or four folks, by my calcs.

 

Based on these numbers, at the proposed 300kg fuel load that would equal 96.5 gal or less than 3 hours endurance to an empty tank @ 560kts.

560 kts? Where'd that # come from, for any of these planes? Vne is not cruise speed...

[mfryer]

I was thinking more along the lines of 'suckerfish'.

[KeithO]

Agreed on the 181 gal for 2 engines, thus 90.5 gal for 1 engine. For 1100 nautical miles, that works out to 12.14 nmpg *1.150779 (to get statute miles) = 13.97mpg ( I didn't work out an exact number before and I used a slightly different density to you)

 

Isn't it incredible that this is the fuel economy a bunch of people get driving their truck or SUV at 70-75mpg ? I figure that for a significantly smaller airframe the cruise speed will be higher. Looking at some rough numbers yesterday using a demo version of Drag Estimator it seems like 500kts could be achievable on 900lbs of thrust at 20000 ft, but there is not enough info available on fuel flow mapping for the turbine to make a properly educated guess at how this will pan out. It seems like only OE airframe manufacturers are privy to detailed performance info on the turbines. No set of specific fuel consumption vs thrust curves are available for any altitude or any speeds.

 

 

1232 lb/6.8 lb/gal =181 gallons burned

 

1100 miles/181 gallons = 6.1 NM/gal (7 SM/gal)

 

560 kts? Where'd that # come from, for any of these planes? Vne is not cruise speed...

[Marc Zeitlin]

Agreed on the 181 gal for 2 engines, thus 90.5 gal for 1 engine. For 1100 nautical miles, that works out to 12.14 nmpg *1.150779 (to get statute miles) = 13.97mpg

I suppose if you could fly 1/2 of an Eclipse, estimating efficiency based on 1/2 of the engines needed would make some sense. But you can't, so it doesn't. The plane needs two engines to go that distance on the fuel stated, so the efficiency is 1/2 of what you state. What you're doing would be like claiming twice the efficiency for the SUV you mention, because four of the eight cylinders in the car only use 1/2 of the fuel. Makes no sense whatsoever.

[KeithO]

Marc, the proposed design is about 1/4 of the eclipse not half. Furthermore, it is a single engine design and assuming the operational profile is similar, it should have a similar fuel burn as one of the Eclipse motors. A piston twin would tend to have about double the fuel burn compared to a single and of course it will weigh more and should have more payload. I didn't think this was a difficult concept.

[gontek]

I love some of the aircraft I find from this forum.

I would totally invest in this idea but unfortunately I have interest in a similar project which includes solid/liquid metal hydrogen structure, variable geometry, Searl Effect anti-gravity drive and time travel capability.

 

http://dave.zfx.com/nav.html

[raiki]

I love some of the aircraft I find from this forum.

I would totally invest in this idea but unfortunately I have interest in a similar project which includes solid/liquid metal hydrogen structure, variable geometry, Searl Effect anti-gravity drive and time travel capability.

 

http://dave.zfx.com/nav.html

Would you believe I have that movie on DVD !!!!!!!!

[gontek]

Would you believe I have that movie on DVD !!!!!!!!

I would not doubt that anyone on this forum has that movie!!

[Neverquit]

So, gontek, you building or flying yet?

[gontek]

So, gontek, you building or flying yet?

Ironically I suspect I am being baited on a sujbect about smartfish.

 

My better judgement tells me to respond to private question via PM as it is off topic. However I have no reason to hide my feelings from this group of relative strangers whom I strongly admire and respect, so here is my response, for all to dissect:

 

I am not building yet. I am thinking about building a lot - where to build, what to build, what engine, budget, where to hangar, how obsessive would I get...so many decisions to make and I am a type of person who takes time to make elaborate plans from start to finish. I currently have other plans involving family, finances, flying and the future, and I admit I am having some difficulty integrating all aspects of these plans with building, but I'll get it worked out by the deadline. I do love it when a plan comes together.

 

There are many decisions I am considering and this forum has been helpful at brainwashing me into the fiberglass/foam composite branch of amateur experimental aircraft. The EAA is also a great source of info and support that I was not familiar with just a few years ago.

 

I have wanted to fly since I can remember, and I am a pilot. Now aircraft ownership is my goal and I decided that building is the path for me. Now that I have made that decision, I am finding many more important decisions. The best way to make important decisions is to arm yourself with as much reliable information as possible. I hope to make trips to Oskosh and/or Rough River this year to really see firsthand all available options - as well as meet many of you whom I regard now as heroes, celebrities, and icons of experimental aircraft and canard pop culture.

 

highest regards,

Kyle G

[argoldman]

...... I hope to make trips to Oskosh and/or Rough River this year to really see firsthand all available options - as well as meet many of you whom I regard now as heroes, celebrities, and icons of experimental aircraft and canard pop culture.

 

highest regards,

Kyle G

 

Looking forward to seeing you at RR. I admire your approach. Remember, we evaluate, dissect, study, research and finally make our decisions based on feelings:cool:

[Drew Swenson]

Speaking from experience of strictly following the plans---and getting off the beaten path (own design), I can tell you that there is a world of difference in completion time.

 

If you are still a neophyte at the design work----just buy a set of plans and build. You will gain a basic understanding of how everything goes together. Then if you have the engineering skills to delve into making all kinds of changes, you will have the much needed hands on experience to help guide you between the theory and application.

 

Even Rutan was building planes before working on his own design.

 

If you have no intent on building but are just playing around with some design software---go to it. But it may be a very long experience to get it built without prior hands-on experience.