Arbiter

If anyone is interested, here is a review I completed as part of Roskam's Preliminary Design Sequence 1 of the major challenges Endeavour will face. Thanks! -Chris PROJECT_ENDEAVOR_MISSION_SPECIFICATION_REVIEW_FINAL.pdf

Hi Folks, I've moved my discussion so to speak to the models/sims concepts topic since that is a better fit for discussion about Endeavour. I have uploaded a new document there if you would like to take a look Thanks! -Chris

Darrell, Thank you for the history! I will check out the links in the next few days! Thanks! -Chris

Lynn, Thank you very much for the explanation! I've seen the A/C Spruce catalog and the AN hardware they have available. What you described makes sense and based on that I think the 3D library of milspec hardware is equivalent to the AN hardware. I'll do some more checking but I think the library had a lot of the terms you were referring to in you post. Thank you very much for the clarification! -Chris

Hi Folks, I have been reading a number of books on aircraft design and construction and all of them say use only aircraft quality hardware. This would seem straightforward, but I am confused. The confusion lies in which specs are the correct to use. Bolts for example are usually called out as AN-something. However, this spec is now supplanted by NASM, but people don't call them NASM-Something, but AN still... Does anyone else find this confusing? Also, I have seen some information that say Milspec is the same as AN... Can anyone provide clarity to this confusion? The reason I ask is because I have hardware libraries that have milspec bolts listed that I can use in modeling and they appear to be similar to AN bolts. I don't want to use the wrong spec bolts, so I was hoping someone could add a little clarity to this issue. Thank you very much in advance! -Chris

After multiple attempts, and a new re-write, the initial sizing output document is now larger than the maximum allowed in pdf format. If anyone does have any interest in seeing the document let me know via PM or e-mail me at christopher.zupp@gmail.com. Thanks! -Chris

Hi Folks, I wanted to let anyone know who was interested that I have completed the preliminary sizing effort on Project Endeavour. Endeavour is a design for an aircraft meant to carry 2 heavier passengers starting from a clean sheet of paper. Since I've been here on CanardZone, I have been interested in building my own airplane, either a Cozy at first, and then a LongEZ. I am afflicted with fatticus maximus that I put myself into (And have been working hard getting back out of it) and that is I am way over the normal size used for designing aircraft (170 Lbs).... I do not see this condition changing any time soon since eating right, playing fast racquetball 5 days a week doesn't seem to make a dent. Naturally, this becomes an issue when I want to build an airplane meant for a smaller sized person. I would have to modify the LongEZ, and I could not carry full fuel in the Cozy or LongEZ with full passenger loads. To me, I see this as compromising the original design intent of these aircraft. As has been said on this forum many times, "Major modifications can cause huge headaches in the build, and reduce the overall performance of the aircraft". The point I am trying to make is I would have to modify these beautiful aircraft too much to suit my needs. It would be like using a dremel to make a round hole to fit a square peg, even though the square peg would like a sleek composite aircraft. After looking at my options, I have decided to do a design on my own aircraft, and that is Project Endeavour. I have just completed the preliminary weight sizing of the aircraft, and I think I can actually pull this off. I have the preliminary sizing documents I created detailing my initial sizing specifications for Endeavour. Unfortunately I cannot seem to upload files at the moment, and I have large PDFs to share. If anyone wants to take a look at what I have just PM me and I will send the documents. I hope to be establishing a website within the next year or so to document the design on. Thank you! -Chris

If Deltahawk has UAV orders (Presumably they have shipped) then they have a product that should be working fine. Small UAV companies can't afford to screw up the powerplant selection when in their infancy. There may be many reasons why they chose Deltahawk, but I don't believe they would choose a powerplant they think may not pan out. A good engine development program takes this amount of time (And then a very willing launch customer ) and there are always MANY MANY changes on the test stand before the engine flies, and then MANY MANY more changes until it's released. I am glad that they keep at it and I am confident they will get it right in the end, which should be soon! -Chris

It's good to see that they are scoring UAV contracts! If they are successful for the company it will be great for the company's capital, and hopefully that means that they will fund the 200+ HP version! I have to do some more calculations, but I actually may need only the 200 HP version since it's turbo-ed and doesn't lose power in the altitude range I am looking at! Actually, as I think about this, I am encouraged by this realization. Endeavour is a little heavier than the velocity XL at the moment (3200 lbs) but will not be designed to fly as fast, so maybe this will work! Gotta go crunch the numbers now! Maybe Deltahawk is looking better and better! Take care! -Chris

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer Helping Design Jet Engines. Currently working in Computational Fluid Dynamics Group as part of the Edison Engineering Development Program. Bachelors AE/ME @ Clarkson university 2006, and Masters in ME from University of Cincinnati (Just graduated). Learning from all of the experiences I can! -Chris

I saw these dudes @ Oshkosh this year. Looks like they have an engine that is almost down the engine development cycle . My experience is with Jet Engines, but I imagine the development cycle is similar, and it takes a good 10 years from inception to production for a new engine. There are so many things to work out, I am glad they kept it up! I am not sure I like that it's going to cost $70K a new engine (I think this was for the 300 HP version they are planning), but they said it was for everything forward of the firewall (Behind in my design though, and the same for the velocity that's already flying!). Anyway, my $0.02 is they should be nearly done and ready to actually start selling, which is what they told me when i spoke to them. I'm still 10 years out from needing to make a deposit, but I need to make a selection on which engine architecture for my design I am going to choose. The appeal from my perspective is the better SFC (If you believe their values) and that you are using fuel that will be around for a long time. They are working on Jet-A from biofuels. Still not sure which way I will go, but I am hoping I can figure out a way to make my mind up in the next 6 months or so, and then I can finish my preliminary sizing! Yay! Anywho, I thought it was neat to talk to them at OSH and I hope to see them next year with production starting! -Chris

Engine arguments are fun, and I've found on this forum, they tend to be the ones that are filled with a lot of back and forth.... Could we accept that there are a number of different installations that will work? Each installation comes with its own issues. I think we can all agree that the traditional aviation engine is the one that requirese the least on your own development of systems (Ignition, injection, etc...). Rotaries and other auto-conversions have been done successfully, but they do require a lot more thought and engineering to implement successfully. Doesn't mean you can't do it, though one should read as many books on the conversions, and study what others have done. Learn from those that have succeeded and then see if you can directly apply those successes to your situation. Where there are gaps, you are on your own. It's certainly not an insurmountable challenge, but you do need to know "what you don't know" so to speak and figure it out! So, in summary, I think we could agree that neither direction is necessarily correct. You just need to know what the challenge entails, and meet it head on . Good luck! Did anyone else that went to Oshkosh hear the deal with 100LL going away in the not too distant future? Anyone know what it's going to be replaced with? Will they just use auto-gas with some additive to simulate 100LL? When I heard that, the Jet-A diesels (Along with the developments in Jet-A biofuels) are starting to look more interesting I think. Anywho, have a good night! -Chris

When I saw the two Diesels at Oshkosh I thought they both looked pretty well thought out. I know that they aren't in any kind of large production, but I am interested in seeing how they come into the market place. I think 100LL is going out the door in the not too distant future, and a lot of effort on aviation bio-fuels is towards making Jet-A. Maybe a diesel is the way to go in planning for the future (10 years out or so)? Deltahawk has one flying in a Velocity, it looked pretty cool. I'll definitely be looking more into Diesel and I am excited to see how the development progresses! I think Deltahawk seems to be about 10-12 years into their development cycle, which should mean they'll be starting to trickle out of the factory soon. That's about the right time-line for the development of anything to do with Aviation , especially engines... Shhh, don't tell that to the 787 guys... they might cry :-P.... -Chris

I'm flying out today, It will be my first time, hopefully starting a tradition! Hope to see some of you folks there! Happy flying! -Chris

That's pretty sweet looking . I like the inlets! Don't forget the boudary layer diverters .... -Chris