Illustration for the previously mentioned idea

Here is a rough illustration about the configuration layout. This picture is not drawn into any scale dimensions, it is just “artistic” illustration of the idea. I did not draw taper to wings etc. because I wanted to draw it quickly. Here is the picture:

The drawing program is by the way the Rhino3D for MacOSX, a pre-beta -version of it, I am privileged to be a beta-tester.

Basic locations I had in mind:
Seats are in front of the canard wing. The fuel and baggage is stored between the canard and main wing. The engine nacelles are more forward than in the Long-Ez derivatives. They protrude from the main wing forward in a similar manner like they would be additional fuselages in midwing configuration. The engine nacelles are not necessarily fat enough to look realistic, but they hopefully deliver the basic idea, as this is not a final drawing but a computerized sketch of the configuration layout. The two horizontal stabilizers are in the propeller stream because that way they are more effective than winglet mounted rudders would be on a canard aircraft, and instead of becoming effective at relatively high speed, these can be made to be effective from almost zero speed, similarly than conventionally configured aircraft.

The idea is influenced by this:
http://www.scaled.com/projects/proteus_specifications.pdf

Advertisements
    • ant1ant1
    • October 9th, 2008

    Hi Karoliina

    Interesting concept and very graceful.
    I see one issue though. I think there is a critical spot structurally at the end tip of the fuselage.
    I can imagine that you (too) have hundreds of sketches in your drawers. I have set myself a filter for such sketches:

    Are the major mechanical loads concentrated in one area (wings, main landing gear, engines). If yes, does this area have a sufficient cross section to economically handle the load transfers?

    In my opinion, if a structure does not pass this test, it gets you into the loop: unnecessary weight > additional wing area > additional drag > additional power> additional fuel weight > back to square one…

    I hope this does not offend you. I would love somebody to provide constructive criticism on my sketches….

    Greetings from sunny Switzerland!

    • karoliinasalminen
    • October 9th, 2008

    This is just configuration layout without structural analysis considerations. These sketches are usually hand-made, but I am better drawing them with Rhino. For that reason, the fuselage is too narrow from the point where the loads are supposed to be transferred.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

You must be logged in to post a comment.
%d bloggers like this: