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

Super-eze, I bet you've been working on this for a while. Did you do any structural calcs, or is this just a proof of concept? If it is, I think it's decetly thought out. Edge has a point about the structural calculations, but from looking at what you have already I'd say the proportions look about right. I can't say for certain because I haven't analyzed it myself, but the truss-system looks plausible at least . Don't fear posting here about your innovations. A lot of folks here worry about insurance premiums going up. While I can understand their worries about people putting out paper ideas, and believe me there are a great deal of folks out there (Including myself) that are trying to innovate and design and collaborate. Don't let anyone take you down or your ideas. Listen, or don't listen to advice, that's your call but don't stop asking questions. And definitely do those structural calculations if you haven't done so, they'll keep you safe! And if you don't know how, consult E.F. Bruhn's Book, it's THE book on aircraft structural analysis, including composite sandwich analysis. Good luck! :-D -Chris

Hey guys, It was just odd to me that virtually no one seemed to post all day . Glad to see so many posts and I am excited for Oshkosh! Hopefully I'll run into some of you... Take care! -Chris

Knock Knock ..... Is Everyone at Oshkosh or something ? . I just thought it was funny I've been checking all day and no new posts. HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO . Speaking of Oshkosh, who's there, or who's going? I am headed out Thursday night! Cya there! -Chris

Super-Eze, Attempting to lower construction times is a great idea! Your plans to build a super-fast built plane is a great thought, and keep up the innovative thinking. I need to preface my response because I have not built any full-scale aircraft before. I have read quite a lot of material the corroborates the stories told by others... It's the little things that take the most time, including the finishing work. That's where kit manufacturers add value (And thus price) because they make the pre-fab parts that make the finishing work much easier. So, if you want to continue down the path of making a fast-built kit, I would suggest focusing more on how to integrate some of the more complicated tasks into your tube structure. What the structure would allow you to do is provide a solid platform for locating plates that attach all the wiring, and other gizmos and who-ha. Also, think about providing wiring harnesses and cable assemblies. And ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, think of maintenance. How can I make this kit to allow better access than was available before (And what does that do to structural integrity, etc...) Good luck, and keep at it! -Chris

Hi Pezzi, The Orion is a beautiful airplane. My design will likely have many similarities to the Orion, but as far as I know you can't build them anymore. I thought the molds got sold off to someone in France and are essentially not available for building... Is this not true? I am definitely planning to model my drive system off of the Orion and Mini-IMP. By having the engine near the wing, changes in engine layout will affect the CG a lot less, and the W&B will hopefully turn out well. A preliminary W&B work-up is one of the next things on my long list of design calculations, but I am working on a 3D wing generation tool that will allow me to take .DAT airfoil files and produce the curves for input into CAD for a 3D wing. It's an interesting exercise, I am now learning VBA for excel, and I am enjoying it so far! Thank you for the post! The Orion is a great airplane, and I hope to see one up close @ Oshkosh this week! -Chris

Lynn, Thanks for the information on the forces and travel involved! Maybe there will be a way to keep the forces down using geometry and the method Rich described (Like the Method 1 in my drawings). I won't know hinge moment data for a little while yet, but this information again gives me something to chew on I was not previously thinking about at this time! Thank you! Rich, If Airbus can use a side-stick, there must be a way for me to do so! Hehe, maybe I'll use fly by wire as well, hehe . If I do that I'd probably need a separate auxiliary power unit just to power the hydraulics ... -Chris

Lynn, Certainly a good point! One of the reasons I built the mock-up is to check how much leverage I can get with a side stick. I'm going to check around Oshkosh and see if there are any conventional aircraft that use a side stick. I imagine the Cirrus will be there. Maybe I will be able to talk to those folks and see what the story is! Until I know what kind of control power I need I won't know what leverage I will need to get to a desirable stick force. We'll see I guess, but great point! Thanks! -Chris

Hey Rich, Thanks for the drawing, I think I understand your point more! I think you and I had similar ideas (Check out Method 1 with the universal joint. If I understand your drawing correctly you are keeping the two sticks "speaking" to eachother by a torque tube off-set from the roll axis? In my concept, I use the universal joint on the tube to transfer the roll torque and the cables to transmit the torque to the elevators. I see now that a tube will be necessary to transfer elevator though. This would reduce the risk of losing positive elevator cable tension during high G maneuvers and deflections. I hope I made my initial ideas clear as well. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! -Chris COCKPITS.ppt

Edge, I provided 3 ideas of my own before Rich suggested his.... you make no sense. I was a little fuzzy on what Rich meant, so I asked him to draw it if he had time. If it looked like I was ordering him to do so, I apologize. I provided a mock-up of my cockpit to visually show people my idea and solicit feedback so your assertion that I somehow haven't given any prior thought to this stuff is silly. My objective here is to have people get feedback on my design, and Rich and others have done a great job providing constructive feedback and changed the paradigm I have about cockpit design. Someone talked about making sure switches are near someplace a hand can be steadied in heavy turbulence. This was a great Idea I would not likely have thought of if someone hadn't mentioned it here.... As said before, this thread is supposed to be mainly about the cockpit and instrument panel, so I will take what you said about engines under advisement, and it is prudent advice that I will follow when I get there.

Rich, Thank you very much for your discussion on the bellcrank and push-pull tube situation. I had not initially planned on using tubes but rather cables. The longitudinal tubes would rotate only, not translate. The push pull motion was to come from wires that coupled the two sticks together, while the ailerons was to come from the tube twisting (Coupled through one of the three mechanisms described before). If you could, I would like to see a drawing of what you are meaning. your system sounds like it could be more simple, but I would like to understand what the layout you were imagining looks like. Thank you for the input, and I certainly will give some more thought to that! Thanks! -Chris