Jump to content

gontek

Members
  • Posts

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gontek

  1. Not present in Janes AWA 2008-2009.
  2. I just happened to read this this AM, I think it may lend some information useful to the safe design of your harness system. I doubt you will be F-1 racing but this information is offered with safety as a primary objective. "2.7 Safety Harness - It is recommended that each mounting point be designed to support at least a 12g load or 1300 lb. load in the direction of the belt (180 lb x 12 g x 60%). The rules require a shoulder harness. The shoulder straps should be designed to meet the shoulders at an angle of 0 deg. to 30 deg. above the horizontal to prevent download on the spine in an accident." from International Formula One Design Guide 2002, www.if1airracing.com/IF1DesignGuide2002R1.pdf Also refer to Mil-HDBK-17 for information pertaining to composite structures design, I think you need Vol. 2F, and maybe volumes 1 and 3 as well. I read these and MilHDBK 5 when I have trouble falling asleep.
  3. It may be because I have my brakes set to the most aggressive braking level. Just taking off that way doesn't repeat the problem, it is a PIO. The physics involved mostly has to do with inertia and the pitching moment and the problem seems to be a pilot induced oscillation from the elevator and brakes.
  4. One short field takeoff method is hold brakes, runup procedure... throttle full, release brakes - that's a method I learned for Cessna aircraft. When I did this in X-plane my front wheel came up and I had a propstrike - so could that really happen? Maybe my X-plane pilot doesn't weigh as much as me. I have no delusions that I learned anything about a Real Cozy MKIV, just the simulated X-plane version, mind you.
  5. I flew my first Cozy IV in X-plane. Using X-plane V9 on my new screaming machine with a 15" lcd. need to work on the graphic situation. I got a little lost for a minute (I think due to the 15" screen) but I made a nice approach and landing the 1st time at 85 kts. The first thing I learned is don't let the brakes off at full throttle - short takeoff method does not apply.
  6. I googled it, and read in a few places that the crakcase is aluminum, and the automobile gross weight is reduced ~20kg with the diesel option. So, I have no answer, but maybe there is something to hope for. Jane's AWA 2009 should be out now, if not soon, I remember seeing BMW in the 2008-09, but I think they were motorcycle engines. I would be suprised not so see this in there with specs as an aircraft powerplant candidate. I'll check with the library.
  7. You're right! I wonder if there's a reason for that. On my cheapo 200 series garmin, have to use U D R L but it autocompletes possible codes so it's pretty easy, even while you're bouncing down through clouds talking to a controller. I'm not sure how the automobile thing or the lake thing would work on those.
  8. Check out the Garmin GPS MAP 496. It's like a NUVI with aviation databases and lake beds.
  9. I have designed a couple of aircraft, back in my aerospace days, but they fall into the category of DARPA projects that never make it off paper. I have a feel for roughly how many airplanes need to be sold in order to make a project break even, and how much this stuff costs, before a scent of a profit ever wafts into the factory. I admit know almost nothing of Aceair and their new owners - I just know the odds are against them. I sincerely hope they beat the odds, because that is one beautiful bird. I like the build from scratch - buy the plans business model more than kits, but that's just my opinion.
  10. I agree and you know me too well. It is very beautiful, and I can't wait to see the video. I am just being pessimistic today I guess. The Coffin being the website, however I hope they can resurrect this kit, but the odds are more against them to succeed with their business than me to build an airplane. I really really like this design. And if they need diesels, the WAM 120 has a nice feature article in EAA Sport, right after an amazing Cozy, the owner of which flew it from the Middle East to OSH. Or the SMART Suprex. I know I'm a great monday morning quarterback, everyone does it, I can use my imagination for what could be, even when things are going well.
  11. That's a nice coffin, but it looks to me like a funeral. I'm thinking widen it to a side by side, move the engine outboard to the wing, and add another engine on another wing to maintain symmetry. Ouch, that carbon fiber is expen$$$ive. I'll never understand why in the heck does anyone want to take the wings off and pull their airplane around on a trailer. Maybe it's a European thing? - hanger rent is some of the most inexpensive real estate where I'm from.
  12. Can you put the videos on youtube?
  13. I guess it goes under stability augmentation but the list shoud include improved pilot ability to control an inherently unstable aircraft. Also I would definitely consider a mechanical linkage as one of the redundant systems in this thought experiment.
  14. I have sort of been following along the NASA Active Aeroelastic Wing project lateley. I think an aeroelastic wing with FBW FCS would be a really cool project. This discussion got me thinking about it and designing an inherently unstable aircraft. Or using FBL and designing around that concept. I was just pondering this when I realized the Wright brothers had this figured out. I sort of remember something about Bodie Diaphrams and root locust plops. but I guess Mr. Bode and the MEMS came along later. But seriously that's not gonna happen until a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
  15. Thanks Marc, I figured that would be something you'd know. It's been 10 years since I dealt with this, my memory on the subject is rusty. Now that you mention it, I remember 1x10^9, that was something we were repeatedy instructed to memorize. That's why I'm not an aerospace engineer.
  16. Google the Cooper Harper scale. This is what is used to measure flying qualities level on various aircraft systems, at least it was when I learned aerospace engineering. Actually this is not what I was looking for to address the question. Along with the scale flowchart I found on wikipedia, there is also a log plot of the system failure probability vs probability of catastrophic failure due to system failure (or severity of system failure affecting ability to complete mission), which is used to determine redundancy levels of systems. If anyone could help me out with the name of this or a link online I'd appreciate it, or I'll look it up in my Roskam when I get home from work today. I can't remeber the name of this plot or the design tolerance for catastrophic failure but I think the allowable probability of catastrophic failure is 1 in 10 million or 1 in a million. This is one of the "secrets" of aircraft design that maybe you don;t want to know as a commercial airline passenger. I believe most commercial and military jets have triple or quadrulpe redundancy of the electronic FBW controls.
  17. I agree with the statements made here, FBW for the experimental crowd is probably a recipe for disaster and unwarranted. However I can see some positives, so I'll play the devils advocate and speculate some things that would be brought to realization by a FBW system. Stability Augmentation: You could add a FBW system to an aircraft designed to be INHERENTLY UNSTABLE. This type of design has benefits of lower drag and greater maneuverability. My friend designed the autopilot system for the Rutan Voyager, he said that aircraft would go unstable in a few seconds without pilot input. So you can do the same with any autopilot with mechanical linkage. However, FBW is even faster in responding than mechanical linkage, with ability to respond to perturbances on the order of 1/1000's of a second, versus the ~1.6 second response time of a quick pilot. You don't have any delay caused by torsion, stretching or bending of the linkages, or the connection between the linkage components, or hingemoment effects. The other possibility I can imagine is the ability to add intelligence to the FBW system, to not allow the pilot to perform certain attidues and rule out a pilot input. While this could prevent CFIT or malicious intentions from being carried out, it is not a quality I would want in my aircraft. Lastly, with feedback, you could program in the feel of your aircraft. You could basically load the flying qualities you want for that flight and either go up in an F-16 or cruise around like a cessna 172.
  18. Even if you buy a Robinson or a Bell Jet Ranger you will have noise abatement issues and neighborhood associations restricting you from taking off in your suburban backyard or cul-de-sac. The whole flying car world is still a figment of the Jetson's, I'd say about 100 years out. I think autonomous ground vehicles will be common and Rosie the robot will be my maid before there are any flying cars going mainstream. It would also be nice to have the flying car fold into a briefcase package for storage under my desk. In the meantime, I have been considering starting a venture into the sprocket and cog business, I expect great demand in the future for sprockets and cogs.
  19. Alsio consider you will be changing the aerodynamic center of your wing, aft. CG is also moving aft. That's a lot to consider, you may have to move the wing forward along the fuselage slightly. I agree with Marc in that low speed stall behavior would be of concern, that would be my primary concern. However, I say go for it. Make a bunch of changes, and make it better that it was before. Just be careful and study the changes thoroughly. I bet your proposed change could add 5 to 15 knots max if done right, at the cost of 10-25 knots on the bottom end of the speed envelope. Add Flaps too! Fowler flaps would be cool. or Flaperons and leading edge control surfaces. IBIS has flaps, and the wing planform is more rectangular, without the large strake.
  20. That would be a pretty major change. The strake on the cozy is pretty big, and I don't believe it doesn't contribute to lift. Wing area probably and wing loading include the strake. If the strake is not considered part of the wing in the plan measurements, it would still contribute to wing lift and drag in the physical world. You might make a pretty big difference in interference drag, but you are changing the wing aerodynamics and wing root farings pretty substantially. If engineered carefully I think you might be able to reduce some interference and skin friction drag and add a couple of mph. On the negative, consider stall characeristics as well. Some of that wing area and drag there may contribute to the docile low speed stall characteristics, and you don't want to lose those qualities of a canard aircraft.
  21. I really didn't expect a reply to that especially one so quick but thanks. Yes my managed funds are doing fairly well especially those focused on energy, transportation and foreign growth markets. I agree that's the way to go. Of course my largest stock holding is the company I work for. Anyhow the stocks are better than my craps returns at the casino, they just dont have the adrenaline. That's how I roll.
  22. Original Question: I got some answers. I knew what most of the answers would be (read the phrasing and verb bias - I totally set myself up) and I was right. This forum is fairly predictable, part of my intention was to follow a discussion that I believed would be entertaining. I offered information, asked your opinions, and got your opinions. I just wanted to focus on an audience of pilots and experimental airplane builders and flyers. I am not paying any of you for financial advice. However I admit it would have been nice to have one agreeable "sounds like a good idea Kyle" answer amongst the multitude of knowledgable former insurance sellers and estate planners screaming bloody murder. Maybe that's what I was looking for, but I stand by my decision. If I want support here I'd shut up and build a Cozy IV. Now that is some real useful information knowing actual comparisons. I like numbers. So, anyone recommend any good stocks?
  23. You know when I think about it about the only two organizations I can think of offhand that I get return from without them profiting off of me are 1. my flying club and 2. the government but I still don't like the IRS very much. I know there are many nonprofits out there that help people, I'm just not one of those people yet.
  24. The whole life plan I purchased covers flying and isn't too expensive (under $200/mo for $250K). I have heard the "buy term and invest the difference" argument and it's a valid argument, I believe it. I've been doing that for a few years now and will continue to invest in stocks/other. My new life policy is a very low risk (low return) investment but maybe still better long term return than all those US treasury bonds I was buying a couple years ago. We shall see what happens with stocks but right now, but low risk low return is probably a better return than what I have got in my stock values at this moment - I think this will turn around in the future but some of my stocks I'm holding have gone to crap this year, more than offsetting the ones that are doing well. As far as borrowing my own money from the policy, as I understand it I get dividends (not guaranteed however) from the full cash value even if the money is out on loan as long as I am paying back the loan. I am convinced (perhaps incorrectly, but still convinced) that different types of insurance may fit different people better. Term is probably best for most people. I wondered how many pilots and homebuilders had considered whole life. I'm not trying to sell anything. On the contrary, I'm a buyer of things - and I can use the financing and like the idea of keeping the interest I would otherwise pay to a bank, plus being able to shelter retirement income from taxes. I understand the life insurance company and my independent financial advisor are profiting off of me, but so are banks, credit card companies, oil companies, stockbrokers, fund managers, my employer (the top engineering design firm in the world), lawyers, costco, local bars & grills, and everyone else who I buy something from, pays me or facilitates my ROI. I am used to that and accept it. I'll add that they profit greatly from our term insurance too unless, god forbid, we bite the dust. Maybe that goes into my dividend.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information