>Focusing and streamlining my concepts into 5 steps or tiers

>I have apparently so many ideas that they can not be incorporated in one aircraft. Therefore I have concluded that there needs to be several steps or tiers with a slightly different themes.

So these are now:
Tier 1: Conventional simplicity: Low drag low power low cost twin. Small wing but high aspect ratio. Compromise: Medium power to weight ratio required. Concept usable for personal aviation.
Potential outcomes: RC-models, UAVs, Private aircraft.
Budget: Shoe-string

Tier 2: Flying wing: Suitable for diesel power, series hybrid and other non-optimal power/weight ratio powerplants. Large wing. Compromise: Poor power to weight ratio is ok.
Potential outcome: Plane with long range and diesel economy. UAV applications possible.
Budget: Shoe-string, external funding possibly needed for the large craft

Tier 3: Ladder: Large aspect ratio, climb machine. Compromise: High power to weight ratio beneficial, has impact in fuel consumption. Interference drag from multi-fuselage configuration.
Budget: External funding required. Implementation requires substantial investments in infrastructure and machinery.

Tier 4: Scissor wing delta: Aircraft that are optimized for speed and altitude.
Budget: Requires substantial investments.

Tier 5: Will happen only if tier 1-4 succeed. Idea not announced. Not all of these will be guaranteed to produce real flying aircraft, these are just categorization for a family of concepts.

  1. >1. Twin is more expensive. For private aircraft what sertificate requirement – CS-23?2. Diesel power – Thielert diesel (and Austro) not good mounting in to the flying wing, SMA – may be, Raikhlin – to powerful for light aircraft, for "hot&high" SMA is sufficient.3…why not push-pull? low drag

  2. >1. Yes it is. However, not like I was thinking it. Single engine fuel consumption, lower cost than one Lycoming per two engines + props.2. Idea was: Volkswagen diesel+ custom installation (series hybrid, no gear reduction drive, no drive shaft).3. Turbulence penalty in front. Drag penalty from that. Also rear prop suffers from the front propeller stream. Could be one concept though in the low cost twin realm.

  3. >Of course it needs to be noted that twin has more expense in pilot certificate, maintenance and insurance. However, as parts cost it is not higher, but actually lower in this case. I am talking about 2 x 80 hp turbo engines.

  4. >And about the flying wing. This concept is not so light. I was thinking around 1700-1800 kg gross weight. Heavier than DA42, but lower wing loading.

  5. 1. CS-23 is the major problems (for this reqiurement company must have CS-21), or You design aircraft without certification? With one engine You design for LSA (USA reqiurement) or European Ultra Light (I don't now – are you have ELA)Twin is more heavy and complicated – two fuel systems, two motor frame, prop must not be located perpendicular to cockpit2. Volkswagen diesel – automotive diesel, it work on 20-25% of power, aircraft engine work on 75% of power, I think, better use aircraft engine, or wait, when anybody install and test it)))3. Turbulance penalty not for wing, only for fuselage, whith push-pull you have clear wing and low moment of inertia in bank. Stream from front propeller – look for more good layout (fuselage lenght, wing position, rear propeller type)

  6. >Karoliina Salminen said…Of course it needs to be noted that twin has more expense in pilot certificate, maintenance and insurance.- Not pilote, aircraft and manufacturing company – product and company certification (to more tral tests and to more paper))))

  7. >Karoliina Salminen said…And about the flying wing. – SMA is the best choice, as I think.P.S. UAV – why? What market for UAV? Military (this market not competetive)?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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