PDA

View Full Version : Poll....dream aircraft !



First time Juke
02-09-2009, 03:40 AM
How about it ?


What if you had an extra 35 000 - 50 000 usd given to use and you would have to get with that amount following aeroplane ( maybe second hand ) of the list and complete/proper training for it. Which one would use choose and why ?

1. Highwing STOL plane ( Cub, Husky or a good ultralite etc )
2. Low wing monoplane ( Cassutt, RV-4, Sonerai, Sonex etc.)
3. Biplane ( Pitts etc )
4. Glider ( LS-6 or Sweitzer etc )
5. Something historical ( vintage Cessna or a Mig-15 wreck )
6. Fast pusher plane ( like Bede-5B, LH-10, Mini-Imp or Vari-Eze )

Let us discuss this.

I did this poll because I have been wondering why there aren't more pushers like Sunseeker, LH-10, Bede-5B and LearFan 2100.

All facts show that it does open access to more economical flying with powered aeroplane.

Are the setbacks with Bede-5B, Vmax-Probe and LF 2100 totally paralyzed aviation community ? I think now there is enough data to start producing them more and also the demand.

First time Juke
02-09-2009, 06:30 AM
Just a fact that I found:

http://www.earlyaviators.com/ebjorkl1.htm

Edson Fessenden Gallaudet of Rhode Island flew in 1912 130 mph with 100 hp engine.

That is 15 mph faster than 10 hp bigger Fokker DR.1 did 6 years later.

bflynt
02-09-2009, 03:13 PM
Pushers have a number of advantages but they also have a number of problems which make them not always ideal. In the commercial and general aviation markets aerodynamic efficiency is nice but reliability and ease of maintenance are far more important.

Some key issues that relate to reliability and maintenance:
-Pushers tend to get ground debris into the prop more easily in addition to the increased chance of the prop hitting the ground.
-To keep the center of gravity in the proper location most designs require a mid engine mount which makes engine maintenance more difficult. In addition, the mid engine requires some type of torque limiter/damper to dampen out frequencies in the shaft connecting the prop and engine.

Another factor is history.
Most new aircraft designs start off by comparing to existing aircraft and going from there. Since historically there have not been many pushers there are not many designs to compare against. Since building a new aircraft is an expensive and risky proposition a company usually takes the route with the most time tested principles.

Bryan

blacksheep
02-09-2009, 08:09 PM
My choice , a new and updated Scorcess all composite fusulage and wings ,etc.

As for Pushers some one better tell Burt Rutan about all the problems with them

First time Juke
02-09-2009, 11:21 PM
Pushers have a number of advantages but they also have a number of problems which make them not always ideal. In the commercial and general aviation markets aerodynamic efficiency is nice but reliability and ease of maintenance are far more important.

Some key issues that relate to reliability and maintenance:
-Pushers tend to get ground debris into the prop more easily in addition to the increased chance of the prop hitting the ground.
-To keep the center of gravity in the proper location most designs require a mid engine mount which makes engine maintenance more difficult. In addition, the mid engine requires some type of torque limiter/damper to dampen out frequencies in the shaft connecting the prop and engine.

Another factor is history.
Most new aircraft designs start off by comparing to existing aircraft and going from there. Since historically there have not been many pushers there are not many designs to compare against. Since building a new aircraft is an expensive and risky proposition a company usually takes the route with the most time tested principles.

Bryan

Bryan,

Thanks for the input.

The early history of aviation was short:

1. Wrights do their thing 1903
2. Bleriot crosses the channel 1909
3. Henry Coanda flys the first jet 1910
4. Gallaudet flys rod connected pusher @2x speed anyone hitherto 1912
5. Nazis do the rocket and ramjet experiments 1940-45

Jet engine to its present form came in 1938 by Ohain and Whittle.

What has really been developed new since that..ok axial vector engine in 1950....but it was neglecled.


XB-42 was flying 100 mph faster than prop plane and carrying load with ½ the engine power....it was a pusher.

0-200 weighs 220 lbs with all gizmos to it and produces 100 hp.
AVE does 200 hp and weigs around 100 lbs ( 64 lbs just the engine ).

I think there is still aeroplane that hasn't been built yet. It isn't supersonic, but sure burns ½ the gas ( per 100 km/person ) we are doing now at best settings.

Point to be considered again in the near future IMHO.


:bullhorn:

Juke


PS. Read the Bob Ford comment here:

http://www.strangenewproducts.com/2005/08/axial-vector-engine.html

and here is more: http://www.stockpatrol.com/article/key/axialvectorengine

also known as orbital engine: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7059294/description.html

Bill@Interstell
02-13-2009, 12:41 AM
My dream, my reality. 1955 Cessna 170B. This was my Dad's airplane for over 50 years. I'm in the process of a firewall forward restoration. Engine by Performance Engine of LaVern, Ca. I won't break any speed records, but if you like low and slow you can;t beat it. I love the way this plane flys.

The plane... before and after engine shots. More work to do.

kiwiracefan
02-13-2009, 02:59 AM
That is one pretty 170b you have there bill...

Me, if i could find a nice wee project i would love to find something unique way down here in NZ... something like an A-1 or P-47 would be nice... but if i had to stay cessna or the like, maybe a nice navion or a Mooney Mite

First time Juke
02-13-2009, 04:05 AM
That is really georgeous indeed ! :thumbsup:

---------------

I tell you about my dream.

Lars Gietz VmaxProbe was estimated to go 240 mph at 50 hp power.

I drew a plane that has just that 50 hp engine that is 100 lbs lighter than his engine was and my plane has retracting under carriage. Let's assume we get aerodynamics working really well and ramair in the cooling and we go 260 mph with Max III.

What that means is that if I take of 05:00 in the dawn in London and head for Cádic Spain to play a round of golf in Valderrama. I land on a par-5 and play 4 hours and spent ½ hour in the clubhouse and fly back.

Guess when I am back in London ? I'd be back in 04:00 in the late afternoon !

This is very theoretical, but possible weather permitting.

What is also noteworthy is that I would use 104 liters of gas which would cost me roughly 120 euros ( 150 USD ). That is 400 euros less than I would pay if flying an airliner.

I call that freedom...but most would call me an idiot ! Ok Ok I know it is not legal to land on a golf course, but DiCaprio did it in Aviator. I would also have to have someone to fill her up and check the oil while I play.

:cool:

I can fit a set of clubs into Max III:

First time Juke
02-25-2009, 03:09 AM
The poll is nearing to the end. Cast a vote while you still can.

First time Juke
03-03-2009, 09:49 AM
STOL aircraft 12.50%
Low wing monoplane 12.50%
Biplane 8.33%
Glider 8.33%
Historical project 41.67%
Fast pusher 16.67%


As a person who has just drawn up scetch of a pusher with 490 MPG fuel consumption I like the result of this poll.

:beerchug: