Is there a better term for a pusher of this type ?

I mean a PUSHER means a person who deals drugs. Wouldn't for instance AXIAL THRUST JET ( ATJ ) sound a lot better ( or Axial Thrust Fan ) ?

Axial...because..the prop is connected to an axel that leads to engine unlike many other pusher.
Thrust...because the propfan produces propulsion/thrust
Jet...because this kinda plane goes at best solutions faster than regular jet ( LF 2100 was faster than a Citation I ) with less fuel ( Cri Cri with 36 kilos of jet thrust goes 150 mph...Max III will go faster with just 20-30 kilos of thrust provided by a 2-stroke piston engine ). Word fan is already used instead of the pusherprop...but also fan bears the similar meaning as the air circulator AKA fan...which lacks some certain appeal.

Jet engine propelled AC is actually quite primitive compared to this kinda ATJ lay-out ( even with a piston engine ) since it sucks lotsa air in and thus produce lot of drag as an airframe.

Word jet has been also used in jetsteam to describe a fast wind in high altitude also quite appropriately in an engine that we know as gas turbine.

Max 3 on skis..FABULOUS

I think this looks very cool. I got the idea as I was skiing on the frozen river yesterday;...what would it be like to land a MAX here on skis. The skiis will need another look by an aerodynamist for sure. Also the prop should be more flat pitched to provide more thrust and thus the cruise speed would be lower maybe 120 mph. Stall speed could be around 33 mph due to increased lift by the skis.


Here you can see the same dia propeller ( with 2x more prop blades ) with flat pitch giving almost double the thrust with the halfed speed.

New prop position

Now the prop is more apart from elevator and rudder than in BD-5B.





New length also enabled to bring wingsize where I wanted it in the first place 3.2 with flaps extented. In this fowler flap matter we agreed also ( with mr. Laukkanen ); the pusher plane can be brought to land in better AoA with this kinda flaps.

The Lieutenant Colonel Jyrki Laukkanen update !

Ok since the FAF former chief testpilot was able to comment the plane before even not having seen it ( just by what I described to him ), I had to redraw the profile.

Here is the 220 mm longer version with 1,95 m2 profile area ( still 2/3 of BD-5B profile area ).



This comment was also among the sites comments so I decided to put the prop as well another 100 mm back ( + 120 mm lengthening ) as I was anticipating earlier.

Jyrki Laukkanen said any AC flies better with longer fuse ( I am nowhere near Vmax after this change but no lilliput either ).

I bet the flat plate area was reduced and weight marginally increased. Possibly I got rid of the space problem for fuel as well...laminar air flow into the radiator scoops seems to have eased as well.

I thank chief test pilot Jyrki Laukkanen. We did a trip into Farnborough in 1976....my daddy was there too. Gosh how the time flies; that was 43 years ago ! I saw the F-15 Eagle there for the first time ( in bicentennial colours ).

Really small aeroplanes; WeeBee

WeeBee Air Scooter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-TE7MOuo7c&feature=related

4.25 meters in lenght...according to this site:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0214.shtml

Amongst these Max III is biggish !

If those are scooters...then Max III is a light motorcycle and BD-5B a Harley Davidsson of the skies. If you scroll further back I also had a air scooter or a moped design...but it was considered PIOs sensitive. This would have been nearly a foot shorter than a Bumble Bee II.

Specified biplane below was a study to see how small in theory I can go...limit was 2300 mm long monoplane..this below has less wingspan..thus would have been the world's smallest.

BD-5b and LH-10....other sporty pushers !

Excellent footage of "two imperial fighters" !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LumgkzFqY4&feature=PlayList&p=94B3C987F559C43B&index=5

BD-5b:s was ordered 5 000 at start.

James Bond movie was OCTOPUSSY where it first appeared.

Here is the...BD-5J JET !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gPc2D9FMOo&feature=PlayList&p=94B3C987F559C43B&index=0

What is Jim Bede into these days ( litestar car ); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOpqVXHMAAo&feature=related ..looks a bit like Aptera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XArAnuK3cW4&feature=related

LH-10 has some lookalikeness with Bede-5; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDpQsq_1O-M&feature=related

LH-10 specs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LH-10_Ellipse

I will add here some NTSB reports on Bede-% accident as I find them:

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=36338

Cost of this kinda plane ?

Here is a lite twin with 2-seats. It can be bought with different options from USD 86 000 - 100 000.

http://www.airox.cz/

----------

The engines for Max are from 4 000 - 17 500 €. Avionics minimum and gear selfmade etc. I figure a selfmade man does this at 10- 12 000 € from plans ( and less if you get a free motorcycle engine of 20-25 hp ) and kit with 50 hp certified engine and structure tested for 230 mph ( +6 -3 Gs )+ minimum VFR instrumentation the cost is near 50 - 60 000 €.

Is this plausible thinking ?

LANDING GEAR CHANGES

This is the salt of this project..retractable light and durable main gear.




How does the shock absorbers look for real: http://www.bike-revival.co.uk/exp.html

Prices start from £ 55 a pair.

VmaxProbe and Max III

Some questions have raised about relation between these two planes.

First of all I saw no adequate cooling device in VmaxProbe. Max will have patented system that cools the engine before it even moves.

Destruction of VmaxProbe shows some shortcomings of the design. These have been speculated in VmaxProbe thread in http://www.aafo.com/. I won't go back to them.

Drawing below shows how these different planes could be able to cope with the prop related issues.

I also claim that VmaxProbe wingtips weren't best possible at low speed to cope near stall.

I also think the tailwheel was not controllable in taxiing with Vmax and if you want to wonder why I just did not copy Sierra-Sue aka Northrop Turbo Pusher I'd feel more tempted.

VmaxProbe is sorta like Me-109 with tail prop and MAX like a Mustang ( in proportions ) with laminar radiator installation.

Most of all a MAX III with 22 hp engine can be flown as ultralite if pilot weighs less than 85 kg. In USA that is. In Europe plane could be ultralite even with heavier pilot and to have more "unlimited prop" that would enable 150+ mph speeds ( USA demands max 55 kts top speed for an ultra ).

http://www.answers.com/topic/ultralight

Where it all started ( my small ac discussion ) !

I made a first comment about new small AC in 29th of November in 2007. This was in FS Nordic / FlightForum site:

Designing and building a small aeroplane;

PART I:
http://www.flightforum.fi/forum/index.php/topic,72496.0.html

PART II:
http://www.flightforum.fi/forum/index.php/topic,75402.0.html

All this caused much alarm at the moderators that they had to bann me for indefinite time ( I hope they ask me join back there soon ).

All comments and texts are in finnish, but some pics and links are in english.

So it has been 16 months and yet we don't have anything that flies. I hope someone in Finland takes the phone soon and calls me in intention to start manufacturing them. I haven't got a nickle of pay of my 16 months job so far.

2002-2003 I made an unlimited racer design TS II that is widely accepted as capable contender for the world absolute speed record:

http://www.geocities.com/jatakamaa/tigershark_page.html

To research the possibilities of a small affordable racer with 2-stroke engine I started a thread at http://www.aafo.com/ parallel with the designing and building of a small aeroplane at FS Nordic site:

http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/showthread.php?t=5952

These are in english.


Here are few related pusher plane comments and links ( in finnish ):

http://www.ilmailu.org/forum/index.php?topic=2533.0

2-stroke engine weights ....

I pursuit of perfection and a really small pusher I have ended up using simple APT or Limbach 2-strokes for one good reason...excellent power to weight ratio.

Typical 2-stroke aviation engine like Rotax would weight 45 kilos and produce 40 hp.

engine: http://www.ultralightnews.ca/rotax447/rotax2strokepdf/weightcg2strokenges.pdf

gizmos: http://www.ultralightnews.ca/rotax447/447info.html

I would really need 40 hp to carry all that extra weight compared to 6.5 - 7.5 kilo engines of 20-22 hp.

Thing is that Max III needs powerplant of non reduction geared engine because the transmission to the shaft has a possibility to do a reduction..in a very light way. Like in Bede-5B.

Also the internal systems of cooling and position are easily obtained with this kinda layout...another advantage is that the engine of this lightweight and size can be placed further in the fuse and a short shaft is needed; this will further reduce weight and vibration caused by this type of engine/shaft/propeller combo.

The best engine of all would be Axial Vector Engine for the incredible power output and torque. In fact an AVEC engine would produce at the same weight as Rotax 447 enermous 200 hp ( 5 times more ! ). I have hard time even imagining how fast that type of engine could propel MAX III type AC..certainly close to 400 mph with close to 1:1 power to weight ratio ( even the world fastest racers don't produce those kinda figures ).


Here is S Stefanuttis 1936 designed pusher with 15 hp 2-stroke engine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6FeC5KiHxM&feature=related

Solid proof of the economy of a pusher.

Here is the original FLEA with 17 hp engine..this shows the small size brought avantage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiCuHpMEOCc

The Flying Flea was just as long as Max III 3.5 meters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Flea

Advertisement banner !

Here is an eye candy with sweet colour.



First time 3-views...sil vous plait everyone !

There is only one but in the scheme..if the engine looses 10% of the power to the transmission the estimated specs will not be quite as high since MAX will have to use lower pithed prop ( or nitrous oxide boost ) for take off...this has now become very interesting. Any transmission experts out there ?

NASA folks at Langley are working with the same problems ( Civetta looks down right ugly to me ); http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060056430_2006259410.pdf

Transmission also caused trouble in the 2x weighted Bede-5B: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-5

Bede-5 albeit small is almost 3 times heavier with maximum take off weight of 530 kg than Max III with a light pilot and 22 hp engine.

Why my way of doing things is different ?

Someone from aviation business might find my almost primitive way of calculating drag and then finding how that drag is fought by the engine hp and prop size and pitch as absurd.

I find this very exhilarating and practical to be honest and very avantgarde too. Just the way a true artist would do it. You should try it sometimes.

Recently I calculated the minimum force to keep Max airborne at 80 km/h and the power minimum needed for take off at 89 km/h.

I assumed that the rolling force ( force needed to roll the wheels due fraction ) goes to zero at take of by the speed increase and lift..and no friction is thus counted in to equation. The air resistance or drag of the wheels at this speed is same as the drag of the airframe ( ie 50% )..flaps at 15 degrees increase the AC drag by 60-65% at this stage of the flight. Wheels of a regular Cri Cri create 25% drag and highly modified wheel collars on small wheels some 9% as in AR-5.



I have tried these low power take offs also with Lear Jet in FS simulator and technique I have developed is as follows:

You throttle that 33-35% power and let the plane accelerate almost to the end of the runway and there you deploy the 15 deg flaps just for a brief monent to get off the ground..and when higher speed is obtained after gear retraction you take the flaps in..pretty soon. ( I would not recomend that technique to be used by "Sully" in LaGuardia or any other pilot..it is just one of my energy saving "weapons", that might come handy in some emergency situation ( like when taking off with RATO in the Antarctica with a fully laden C-130 etc ). This is also very essential aspect in MAX III cause it has to take off with a prop that has a huge pitch and is quite ineffective at low speeds..therefore knowing that 6.5 hp with the right prop for take off is minimum. That leaves a window open for a take off with a prop that has only 30% efficiency at take off with maximum power ( I am going to calculate that next ).

Seems that 22 hp is a good engine choice..and take off with 35% power looks very feasable with a prop optimal for take off. Higher pithed prop ( that enables the 165 mph cruise ) indeed needs 92% power to be able to take off with 22 hp engine.

I am very open to suggestions for the right foil for MAX by experts ( Wortmann, NLF, NACA, SD ? )..it could be laminar, but not necessarily to avoid too narrow window of use.

I have kept my design simple and used all the experience ( knowledge ) of aerodynamics I know of and also all the design skills how to squeeze the functional aspects of the design into smallest yet most aerodynamical shape without compromising any of it.

I do read stuff like this to recheck and double check if I am on the right track, but haunch of the things is more important to me: http://www.adac.aero/

Cutting down the drag !

Cheers !

Talking to an aviation enthusiast he said it is insane trying to make a record braker as a first project ! I realize this, but I see it comes as a by product.

I was calculating following:

Gear induced drag at 100 km/h is 10.1 kg ( cut down 4 kilos by reducing the size ).

Airframe drag at 219 mph ( new FAI 300 kg class record speed ) would be 92 lbs ( 41 kg ).

To reach this I figured I need 50 hp depending of the prop.

Ok after really hard study I got following specs that also match the drag measures that I got:



This also matches closely to figures VmaxProbe had ( and AR-5 )...cutting down the wing by 1 meter MAX III would be able to reach 240 mph at 50 hp. I added 10 % thrust to figure due to the fact that prop also has lift force..I have seen the thrust calculator does not recognize it.

What is really fantastic is that my almost beyond belief guesses of the economy seem to come true and indeed I could go 165 mph at 65% with 22 hp engine..and go way under 3 liter consumption a 100 km ( with APT possibly with just a liter !!!? ).

Aspect Ratio is 10 now...this will also lessen the drag. Max has also a wingloading same as in ballast filled open class sail plane has.

Wing is the thing !

Stanford data of the wing's lifting force:
http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/highlift/clmaxest.html

Lift Coefficient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_coefficient

How to get most of the wing..what foil to choose...what needs to be considered ?

Needed formulas to calculate the lift:

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwinglift/wing_lift_equation_force.php

I like this last one alot !

I got take off speed clean 136 km/h
Flaps 15 Deg 89 km/h
Stall 62 km/h

Approximations only for MAX III ! I think 3-3.4 m2 wing is the right size.

DRAG AND FRICTION

I found a site with specs for wheel friction:

http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/davinci/osa2.html

and for drag in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

It is important to have minimum friction at the wheel while taking off..because the most power is needed to get airborn.

I was using the thrustHP calculator and seems that taking of with 22 hp is a challenge with Max II...Cri Cri was able to do it with 18 hp like DA-11 and prototype of Quickie ( by Burt Rutan ).

Maybe I will istall also a nitrous injection device to get 35 hp for the take off and the speed dash ?

Here in english the friction coefficients: http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/tech/JL.htm


See how little thrust the 22 hp delivers:




Cri Cri jet has 36 kg of thrust and flies well on one engine ( 100 mph ).

http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html

Drag will also be increased by little things like pitot tube that measures the speed:

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot-putki

AR-5 story they talk about 0.0037 drag coefficient: http://ar-5.com/kitcarm93.html

According to this data and known dimensions i get drag force of 3,2 kg for the fuse of Max 3 at take off speed of 100 km/h.
Tailfeathers and wing has even less, but gear extented gives a sizeable increase compared to AR-5 gear. Gear drag is 14.2 kg at 100 km/h.

"Educated guess" about the economy

VmaxProbe was a space age design ( and estimated to go 240 mph at 50 hp ). So was AR-5 and it does have 25% more cross section area than Max III. AR-5 was estimated to go 206 mph and did 213 mph gear out and Bearcat style open radiator on the front.

VmaxProbe also has gear out and about 3.5 feet longer than Max III with about 25% more wetted area in the fuse. Wings albeit small in area are non tapered and have about same drag as Max III with 1/3 more wing ( area ).



Max has poor mans area ruled fuse and very ( extremely ) light engine + laminar effect in cooling and retractable gear ( saving around 9% of the total drag ).

I draw an assumtion that 60 kg lighter AC with 15 % less drag would be also 15 % faster with same power. This equals 115 x 240 mph = 276 mph. This speed would be obtained at 520 g/hp/ hr SFC rate ( 1 liter gas is 0.71 kg ).

http://www.limflug.de/files/pdf/DS-L550E.pdf

This equals 444 km/h top speed at 50 x 520 gramms of fuel around 36 liters / hour and 8.1 liters pro 100 km.

This is not yet very economical, but if you take the smaller Limbach L275E
( http://www.limflug.de/files/pdf/DS-L275E.pdf ) with 20 hp power and use 65% power 13 hp and still go 265 km/h ( cruise 165 mph ) you get 400 g / hp/ hr and 13 x 400=5,2 kg = 7.3 liters for 265 km and 2.78 liter pro 100 km.

All this of course need a new engine mount and shaft arrangement and structure ( much lighter than for the 50 hp engined version ).

All in all two separate AC:s would have to be built the other for speed record ( 276 mph ) and other for super economical flying ( also fast at about 205 mph top speed ).

But this is not all Air Power Technologies provide even better engine in respect of the consumption: http://airpowertechnologies.net/UAV_116cuin.html

At 65% power it uses only 1 oz of fuel / min. This equals 280 km/h speed at 2.37 liters used. This engine is also one kilo lighter.

This would mean 0.85 liter consumption pro 100 km thus 449 km per gallon of fuel in other words MPG of 266 !!!

I have asked APT to verify if this figure is correct ( the 65% consumtion ) and they claim their reed valve invention saves that fuel in 2-stroke engine of theirs. I find this hard to believe since it is nearly 3 times better than in well know aviation engine such as Limbach.

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

What would this mean in practise ?

If I took off with Max III in London and headed for Cádiz in Spain for a round of Golf at 04:00 in the morning and flew at 65% power at 280 km/h. I would arrive in Spain in 08:30 and after 4 hour round and a 1 hour at the clubhouse I would head back to London and arrive there at 18:00 in the ( six o'clock ) evening. I would have used 9 x 2.37 liters = 21.3 liters of fuel that here costs 1.2 euros per liter = 25.6 € for the whole trip. I would not even have to fill the plane is Cádic Spain ( if I landed at the par-5 course in Valderrama etc ).

Limbach L275E would have used 9+7.3 liters 65.5 liters ( worth 79 € ) of gas.

Limbach L550E at full throttle would have taken me to Cádic in 3 hours and back to London in 03:00 in the afternoon, but I would have have to have 110 liter tanks and fill her up again in Valderrama and used 260 €:s worth of fuel.

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

If just even ½ of this was true I would start to manufacturing MAX pushers with APT engines very soon...wouldn't you ?

Idea of using smaller L275E or APT 11.6 cu in engine came to me when I realised that L550E costs 17 000 €:s and knowing that APT and Limbach 20-22 hp engines just $ 4000 and 4500 €.

All this needed tuning MAX III into 90% size of what it was a week ago. Well worth it don't you think ? Also the landing gear wheel is 260 mm dia instead of 290 mm. All saving the weight and drag.

There is saying you have to multiply the power to the square to increase the speed..that is where I got the "65% power speeds" if you wonder. In fact 165 mph of 276 mph is 59%..and increase of that by 41 % would require...how many more hp:s ? : )

Apparently the old saying is not true is it ?

Fuse by 4 ft longer and 3-4 times more powerful engine propelled the AR-5 at 165 mph at 3 gph and 4 gph at 175 mph speed. Certainly the consumption specs of MAX III are pretty close the truth and better than in AR-5, but it needs a certainly lots of experts in the team and good selection of parts and components to make it work 100%.

What is also noteworthy is that 2-strokes deliver lotsa power ( to weight ) and are quite thirsty, but not so much at lower settings.....in fact very little at 65% power. If someone thinks MAX cannot fly with 22 hp APT I can always place 2 of them in the fuse ( running contra props ) and get the 133 mpg at 65% if that is what it needs. I recall PIK-20E motorised glider needed 38 hp for take off, but it weighed 3x Max III weight empty. Also good to remember that twin egined Cri Cri was able to fly home with one engine after other seized ...@ 9 hp power ( other engine outboard and unfeathered prop braking ! ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CriCri

Frustrating....designing...changing

I have to quit soon this tuning.

Good to know...

Reynolds number calculator; http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/calc_reynolds.cfm#calc

Martin Hepperle site and XFOIL; http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/methods.htm

Jan Roskam Airplane Design; http://books.google.fi/books?id=TfRcDpWw9i0C&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=basic+aeroplane+design&source=bl&ots=cw9wpd7I-Y&sig=gqs15XmcBFbEzxaQFlH_GdYUGw8&hl=fi&ei=ZkWdSbWELsOO_gaAhamhBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA3,M1

UIUC airfoil data site; http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads.html

Karoliina Salminen has a dream; http://designaplane.blogspot.com/

Latest MODS are as follows....

I had to do something since that L550E is 4 times more expensive than L275E.

This Max III is now 220 mm shorter than previous..wing is slightly smaller and 120 mm forward. Gear is more forward and position different.

I am afraid this is the smallest I can go.

I am pretty confident that this has now some 70% of the frontal area of BD-5 and unlike AR-5 and VmaxProbe this has light retracted maingear ( thus also lot lighter than BD-5 ).
I also increased the gap between prop and tailfeathers.

I have to give special thanks to all people in http://www.aafo.com/ at the thread....Can prop plane brake the sound barrier !



These modifications approximately saved a 10% in drag and possibility to use a size smaller engine is evident. Aircooled engine if 2-stroke may only weigh 7.5 kilos when 22-40 hp ( latter figure when enhanced with nitrous ) and bring this plane a lot closer to a regular homebuilder.
Wing may remain at 5 meters in lenght but area reduced by 0.3 m2 to 3.1 m2. Wing is still sizeably bigger ( 25% ) than in VmaxProbe, but a lot smaller than in BD-5B generally.

Limbach L550E..550 ccm and 50 hp !

Here is the price: http://www.cepce.com.cn/service/%E8%88%AA%E7%A9%BA/%E6%9E%97%E5%B7%B4%E8%B5%AB%E5%8F%91%E5%8A%A8%E6%9C%BA/901.201.025.005.pdf

I was told it costs 17 000 + € with all accessories. I find it slightly expensive..since with the same money I would get 110 hp Rotec Radial or 4 Limbach L275Es.

This is the engine that I drew the whole MAX III for Limbach L550E. I wonder what the funding group of MAX III thinks about it.

Max III in tough company !

I enclose a drawing with two other FAI 300 kg class contenders.

I do this because I get sometimes critics that i just draw pretty pics that have no understanding of aerodynamics etc. ( btw. I do read quite a lot of those aerodynamics books....by Andy Lennon the last one...foreword by Grumman chief designer ).

Drawings are 98% accurate and definitely in right proportion with each other:

I think the pic reveals that Max III is smaller. Despite being a lot longer VmaxProbe possesses less drag than BD-5B.

The complicated tricycle landing gear and liquid cooled engine needs a lot of room and it shows in profile.

Gear wells " cut the fuselage in two" !

I am spending a lot of time to figure out this gear system. This is important since the wells cut fuse in two pieces just under the wing...to make this strong the structure has to be slightly complicated and gear mount also acts as a strenghtening piece.

I know one thing for sure now....the linkage to the gear from last pulley has to be a stiff rod to make it work...this requires a new design for the the pulley ...and it will have hole for the locking mechanism to work 100 %. : ) Finally I figured it out.

Now I have also drawn the whole gear mechanism, but for trade secret purposes I won't unveil it.



Here is how they generally function in a R/C model ( F-16): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJy9lW7OVew&feature=related
Positive about Max III gear is that it turns only one direction...up and down. It does not twist like many ac gear does.

Small corrections in the gear arrangement

I widened the fuse a bit and made the gear more realistic. I wonder do they drop yet by the gravity, but at least a 10 degree bank would help...maybe a string that pushes them out definitely...the locking device when extended is still missing.





I think this gear thing is important. In Ar-5 pages they say it is more than 8% of the drag.

The cross section area of the fuse at thickest point is 0.335 m2. That is 3.7 sq ft and 1.3 sq ft less than in a AR-5. This kite is also 2 ft shorter than a AR-5 so over all drag in fuse less than 80% of AR-5. Cooling is AR-5 is excellent...I aim to have at least 95% effiency of that ( and 3x better than in VmaxProbe ).

World smallest AC...a 32% Bearcat !

This is a vital lesson.

Bearcat being the world fastest piston AC it means it packed so well that many qualities remain even when scaled down to 32% size. With these qualities I mean good visibilty during landing and good maneuverability..and a change to make a splendid power to weight ratio. This would need 80 hp to be exactly as powerful as the real model ( in power to weight ratio vise ).

All of a sudden my Max III started to look very big and heavy.

If built that F8F -2 could go 200 mph since the biplane Bumble Bee II was 190 mph mover.

http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/smallest34.html

What else could one build around a 50 hp Limbach L550 ?

Here is the pinnacle of WW II fighters a F8F-2 Bearcat in 40 % size.

Highly tuned Bearcat " RARE BEAR " for time being is the world's fastest piston aircraft with 528 mph ( 850 km/h ) average speed.

40% size F8F-2 would have 3.75 m2 wing area that is marginally larger than MAX III sports now.

AR-5 that is the previous FAI 300 kg class world record holder is based on Bearcat design ( more or less...it was studied when AR-5 was created ).

http://www.ar-5.com/

Arnold AR-5 pages have one of the web:s most complete study of a record setting AC. It is well worth to read if interested in aviation.

Here is a comparison between Ar-5 and Vari-Ez. Both are 14.5 ft long. That is just one metre more than a 2/5 size Bearcat is.

http://www.ar-5.com/sportav93.html

Lightest retractable landing gear ( ever ? ) possible

This is not totally my idea. SPetrel amphibio ultra has sorta similar, but I just drew to get some idea of the weight of the system and the space it needs.

It is operated by few pulleys and a lever in the cockpit. Initially the rope will have to travel 125 mm:s and with a lever I could get possibly the initial force/weight of the needed into 1/8th so it should be light in use. Obviously this is not ready yet so the measures will be different in the built model.

Here is how a pulley generally works.
http://visual.merriam-webster.com/images/science/physics-mechanics/double-pulley-system.jpg

Here is my first sketch for MAX III retracatable gear. It needs a locking device when down. Gravity will pull it down with no force applied ( how...not yet detailed ). Brakes are also missing in the pic. Mounting for the fuse and ropes way to cockpit into a lever not detailed. This needs an engineer for the project to make it an optimized device.



Here is the Super Petrel I got the idea fore this gear system: http://www.flyingboats.ca/PurchasingAFlyingBoat/EDRA-SuperPetrel-Brazil.htm

Here is plane with STOL caracteristic MAX II never reaches:
http://www.slepcevstorch.com/

Golf clubs in the MAX pusherfan

Some improvement as I was studying briefly the rudder and transmission etc. I had to change the contour of the plane a bit to fit those longest golf clubs into the fuse.

I think this is very important matter. Local FAA official was interested if my earlier design had room for clubs ( it did not and had only 22 hp engine ) ?

I just played 80/72 round of golf in Sankivaara's Sanki 18 hole course before the snow and ice came and halted all playing for the winter season.

Woods would be placed so that grips are towards the prop and irons just behind pilots back club heads upward positioned inside a cavity between the wheel wells. This way they will not harm the C of G in the plane as it flies.

Only negative thing is that the bag will not fit inside the plane and a special ski/bag tube would have to be developed to be attached on top of the PAV.

I thing MAX will be a must for everyone who wants to play as many courses during the season in the short beautiful summer in Finland. With a Lamborghini you cannot take short cuts like a MAX can. In the future they may even be short STOL landing strips for a MAX ...unless you want to land it on a par-5 course before the Country Club of yours opens. : )

In the same room as the clubs you can also fit a PC or a brief case or rolls of drawings etc.

Not bad for 3 800 mm long and 120 kg weighing 220 mph mover !

Link to a bigger pic: http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/attachment.php?attachmentid=12492&d=1234526792

What is a PAV ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_air_vehicle

There you go.

Pipistrel seem to rule the PAV with its performace.

http://www.pipistrelaircraft.com/sinus_technical_data.html

That is a two seater and about 2x heavier than Max III is intented to be. Will there be a two seater Max with 80 hp Rotax....maybe....maybe even an 8 seater of just under 1500 kilos Mtow with 250 kts cruise speed.

Ergonomy and safety on MAX III

I am currently working to get interior worked perfectly in MAX3. As a keen golfer I like to have room for a golfbag and the clubs ( after the cockpit above the engine ).

Meanwhile before I publish anything enjoy Steve Miller Bands excellent FLY LIKE AN EAGLE !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnlTrq6wLf0&feature=related

I already did design similar cockpitted Tweedy Bird and there for instance that thick safetybar has instrumentation buried in it...rear view mirror on top etc. Really cool and modern and spacious. Austerity second to none.

About safety.

Due to trade secret purposes I won't show everything, but a engine cooling system will be introduced that will not only give the benefits of ramair effect into practise, but will increase the cooling efficiency by 99% in mid-engine mounted pusherfans.

Also wing geometry and fowler flaps will give plane STOL caracteristics never seen before in a pusherfan. Very lite structure and efficient engine help alot in this respect too.

Plane will naturally have aft cockpit mounted recoveryparachute, which when deployed will not damage aircraft itself. Landing site if a field will also keep the plane in tact. Pilot may have a small dent in self esteem after using it, but will be 100% healthy othervise.

Visibility forward down is 11 degrees...just like Reymar suggests.

PS: I have several other AC developements here in www.aafo.com like this one : partially lifting body ac Max II http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/attachment.php?attachmentid=12381&d=1232529336
Max II sports another patendable feature.

How fast could a small pusher go with 50 hp ?

Reading Lars Giertz VmaxProbe site he says with 50 hp his plane was calculated to go 240 mph.

See Lamborghini specs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Gallardo_Spyder

Lambo will be 50 km behind after an hour ! That is pretty good with under 10 000 USD engine isn't it ?

Here is also a top view of an earlier design phase:

Please give comments !

To make this product best possible I need your feedback. Don't hesitate to comment.

I want your response to know following:

1. How far do you want to travel with your PAV ( Personal Aerial Vehicle ) ?
2. How fast do you want to go ?
3. What do you think it should cost ( what are you willing to pay ) ?
4. How much luggage it should carry ?
5. Should it be STOL capable ? ( Short Take Off and Landing )
6. Do you want to know more about the safety issues ( recovery chute, patents etc ) ?
7. Do you want is as a jet ?
8. Something else you want to know ?

I have so far got green light to use the Helsinki Technical University ( TKK ) aerodynamics students under professor supervision/guidance for aerodynamics of this innovation.

I have a test pilot of EAA certificate to test fly it available and willing.

Let's do this...are you with me ?

This is the Aerial Motorcycle !

I wonder if you really see what am I about here clearly ?

This kinda 100-125 kilo aeroplane is like what moped or a scooter is to a car.

Here is the air " moped " I developed as an "offspring" while studying the right size for this scooter/motorcycle of the air.

This was considered by several people as too small AC...and thus dangerous due to PIOs etc ( pilot induced oscillation ).

But that tiny pusher of 2300 mm of length shows clearly how small AC you can produce with an aft mounted prop.

I am still not 100% certain which size is the best, but certainly at 160 mph speed that smaller needs 110% studied aerodynamics.

Developement of MAX III and my background

I have been labelled by some aviation people in Finland as "Steam Jukka".

OTOH I am an engineering science graduate of technical department from the Oulu University. I majored in architecture back in the eighties when Finland was in the strong shadow of USSR. Our AF was flying Mig-21s and Saad J-35 Drakens and Fouga Magisters those times with high rates of accidents too ( normal back then ). I was too tall to be a fighter pilot at 6 th 4 in lenght ( I would still be ) also I used to suffer from migrene headaches ( gone now ). All this made decide that I have to forget aviation, but I choosed architecture to be able to maintain touch with drawing and designing. I used to draw planes already at age 5 or 6 and fly all kinda glider of my own design. One particular R/C plane of totally my own design was flying with .01 sized engine with normal sized servos back in 1978. Later in 1990 I was the first to fly a scale 1/12 sized Me-109G of my plans naturally ( it was possible due to the small servos that became available in late eighties ). It was a centerfold in R/C mag in USA in 1991 or 1992. Some point I built 50 drones for the AAA corps.

I have been since collected a lot of info on flying on various internet sites like http://www.aafo.com/ , http://www.rcscalebuilder.com/ and http://www.twitt.org/ etc. Also http://www.luft46.com/ opened new eyes to new thinking too. As you have seen I am a keen history fan too. You don't have to invent everything new every morning...many things just have to be seen in new light to make it "new".

In a way MAX III is new. It can hold 6 ft 4 in pilot with helmet and utilises only 50 hp engine. It is the smallest plane with retracts ever. Some of its other features are new too like fowler flaps and few yet secret features that are common in bigger successful planes.

I spent a whole year developing a ground effect utilising partially lifting body AC and and realised I entered a field where I have no means to achieve anything practical during my lifetime to be used by me personally in my AC ( I did one major aviation invention that is yet to be patented ). Drawings of it can be seen in http://www.aafo.com/. Also I was attacked heavily from my countrymen by claims that my designs are of no practical value and bear no aerodynamical hall marks. I dare to be of different opinion.


I think my best feature as aviation designer is the ability to see forest for the trees. I don't start wasting my time in aerodynamical finetuning when there is no use of it. I develop the concept ready...and then if God allows I start to grind the details. I have to say more strongly than Salvador Dali who said "that only thing that differs me from a lunatic is that I know I am not one" I claim that I am very practical thinker, but my concerns are hard for some lunatics to see. I was born in a fighter town in Finland and my godfathers daddy teached pilots to the Winterwar and suffered a nervous brakedown due to immense amount of flying ( there were only 2 "unteroffizier" instructors ). My daddy has flown jets and gliders and I had one of highest decorated aviator in family of the frontline duties in WW II and several less decorated ( one ace with 5 kills ). One of my uncles who still lives was commander of the Blenheim squadron and flew also with Me-109 and Fiat G-50. This does not make me instantly a good designer, but gives me rare insight.


Ok here are the developement phases of MAX III so far:





You can clearly see that cockpit size has increased in height. This has been done in order to fit the pilot with a helmet in nicely and see forward despite the safety arch. Plane has less lenght to save weight. It does look slightly stubby now in profile, but I am afraid I increase the induced drag if lengtening it too much.


This for instance is one aspect to be solved with a model that I am going to build pretty soon.

Edson Gallaudet

I recently found this site: http://www.earlyaviators.com/ebjorkl1.htm

You'll found out more about Edson Gallaudet designs there.

Hi everyone !

All whistles and gadgets are missing here, but info is beeing presented as was my intention. Never made a blog before. Anyhow let's concentrate on this pusher fan.

History of aviation in short:

1903 Wrights fly first time ( Whitehead flew little earlier 1901 )
1909 Bleriot crosses the channel
1910 Coanda flies the first jet.
1912 Gallaudet flies first time MAX III kinda aeroplane at 2x the speed of anything before.

Here is the E. Gallaudet's Bullet:


Based on this brilliant principle placing the prop aft like a ship Edson Fessenden Gallaudet was able to reach the speed of 130 mph in 1912 using 100 hp engine.


Later in USA base company Acme-Sierra produced a plane that was able to a lot faster with 80 hp engine.

It was designed by Northorp:



So all in all as weird as it may seem to many the pusher prop planes have been around nearly 100 years.

One of the historys most expensive pusher project was Bill Lear's Lear Fan 2100. It came to publicity around December 1981 after the first so called oil crisis in the seventies. There is plenty of information of it in the net and magazines. It was able to fly at 42 000 ft and cruise at 350 kts. It's main feature was economy since it went fast as the business jets, but was using less fuel. Despite of three protoypes and 260 orders FAA never approved it and project was cancelled...also Bill Lear passed away and oil crisis seemed to vanish too. But the idea was brought to the media and great potential was seen and admired by the aviation community all around the world.

Very little is known about another great pusher called XB-42 Mixmaster, but it also was able to cruise 100 mph faster with ½ the power of contemporaries carrying the same load.

XB-42 Mixmaster:


Recently also a private person Lars Giertz made an attempt to break the FAI 300 and 500 kilo classes world speed records. His plane was officially the AC with smallest drag factor ever produced, albeit it had a fixed landing gear. It was very small and powered with 100 hp engine. His blog ( which still exists ) he explains his plane was calculated to go 250 mph with 50 hp power and faster than 300 mph at full throttle. Unfortunately we will never know, if it was really so since he suffered severe head injuries when his plane stalled at 5 feet altitude over the airfield. He had radioed of rising temperature of the powerplant. He did not wear helmet nor did his AC have a safety arch in the cockpit. He died 6 hours after the accident in the local hospital.
More about his plane VMaxProbe here: http://www.webcamsue.nl/vmax.html

The safety record of another pusher is not the best either, but it is the current world speed record holder in FAI under 300 kg class. It is the famous BEDE-5B. Its jet version BD-5J is well known of the scene in James Bond movie OCTOPUSSY. Bede-5J is also the world's smallest jet with retracting undergear ( Cri-Cri being the smallest jet and smallest twin engine AC ).
More about the FAI record: http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/history.asp?id1=16&id2=27&id3=1

Bede - 5B:


Max is only foot shorter than an average BD-5B ( and 8 cm shorter than the shortest ), it has to be since all or most Bedes are equipped with 60-100 hp engines and MAX III is intented to be fitted with a 50 hp air cooled 2-stroke Limbach L550 engine. Max is not the world's smallest AC since Bumble Bee and Bumble Bee II are about a meter shorter and officially the world's smallest aircraft. Bumble Bee is in a museum in Tucson Arizona, but Bumble Bee II suffered an engine failure in tailwind section of the finale and crashed ( pilot Robert Starr now 86 is still going strong and made a full recovery after the crash that took place ).

History shows that there are advantages in pushers like this..almost forgot...the most successfull pusher prop AC designer of all times Molton Taylor..he made the famous Aerocar and Mini-Imp.
Molton's Micro-Imp was never realized, but it was intented to be propelled with a 40 hp engine ( as was BD-5B originally ).

Back to MAX III.

MAX III dimensions:

Span 5.0 m
Length 3.8 m

Weight 120 kg
Mtow 260 kg
AR 1:8
Wingarea 3.4 m2
fueltank 35 l


MAX III estimated performance.

Top Speed 230 mph
Cruise 210 mph
Stall 50 mph

Fuel consumption of MAX III:

full burn 14.5 l/h
cruise 11.0 l/h

Several aspects of MAX III are still trade secrets, but it will have very well cooled engine and fowler flaps and retracting undercarriage.

Most of all it will be excellent flier and very economical ( about 3.2-3.5 liters per 100 km ) and relatively fast. How fast will it be...if goals are met..possibly the fastest in 300 kg class. MAX III will have 10 hp less than most contenders in the category, but it is lighter and cleaner so it is interesting to see how will it perform.

Biggest obstacle at the moment is money. We have engineering + design help and test pilot, but so far no funding. Don't worry I am working on it.

If you want to know about this aircraft contact me at: ToimintaA4@gmail.com

More about it:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=87774

MAX my dear feathered friend !

Max III is a plane dedicated to a swallow who has inspired this aviation innovation. Swallow had a broken wing and waiting her death in a thick vegetation when I found her/him.

I gave her the name Maximilian Wingspan the I. I made her an architect designed cardboard house. I also fed Max. He liked water a lot.

He took many flight attempts om my floor. It was apparent he was never gonna fly again. I called a vet. She said we could stuff it here.

I put her into her quarters in the balcony. I was watching the Formula 1 races in Silverstone on TV. Max escaped..to his death. Neighbours boxer dog found him and bite. I saw the burial/funerals by nearby rosebush. I was very sad..I lost a friend who knew how to fly. Indeed Maximilian Wingspan the I was ruler of the skies with all his 37 cm wingspan.

R.I.P. Max !

Hello all aviation enthusiasts !

After some pressure I decided to start a blog of my own.

This will serve for the updates of my small pusherfan project called MAX III.