extremely economical small ac by A4 AVIATION WORX

New name for the byrd...IO !

2012-02-10T00:33:00.000-08:00

IO is the fourth moon of the planet Jupiter ( I can actually see it with my small telescope from my work room window in the night sky ! ).I change it to IO since finnish government decided to move the AF Flight Academy from Kauhava to Tikkakoski ( Tikka Rapids ). I was born in Kauhava.IO is short and easy to remember.It also has extraordinary features like my craft. I tell you it can fly 150 mph with a 26 hp Compactradialengines MZ-175..or it can fly indefinitely with 5,5 m2 area of the new lite solarpanels ( 2 kilos for this baby generating 2 hp constant power ).I recounted the estimated best mileage with a light pilot using Baileys 175 4-stroke...and I did get MPG 250 !!! I just tell everyone it is 120-140 MPG since no one would believe it anyway until flown. Anyway this craft can move at 2,8 hp still 72 mph. This is due to the optimised drag/lift features of the aeroplane IO !

Looks a lot like an orange...maybe the prototype color will be orange ! It also looks a bit like the Käsekuchen ( or a Flammenkuchen aus Elsass region http://www.elsass-netz.de/168/Kueche-Elsass/Speisekarte/Vorspeisen/Flammkueche-Tarte-flambee.html the pizza with only cheese and ham inside ).Here is the IO; http://www.solarviews.com/eng/io.htm

Brand new MZ175 !!!

2012-02-08T04:27:00.001-08:00

I got it today from Leon Massa of the Compact Radial Engines ( CEO ). The picture that is. It is lighter than MZ100.

reflex and the foil

2012-02-07T17:38:00.001-08:00

Tässä 2 kk XFRL5 ohjelmalla laatimassani siipiprofiilissa on enemmän nostovoimaa kuin FX63-137 foilissa jota pidetään huippuna...ja mikä parasta paljon vähemmän vastusta ( drag ).

Testing the set up with a model !

2012-02-06T03:10:00.000-08:00

This engine is 15,3 kilos equivalent ( in power 13,4 hp !!! )..pilot is really skinny...just 45 kilos in "real life" !Spinner after sanding is 13 grams...with engine, muffler, r/c throttle and prop the whole set up is 71 grams.Similar sized spinner on my Me 109 G model ( 1/12 scale ) was 30 grams with aerodynamical changes to make it a G-6 spinner. This particular yellow spinner ( cut down sized ) was still yesterday 16 grams and was used in my 1/12 scale Marutaka Spitfire Mk I model in 1992. Incredibly the Cox Baby Bee was able to turn it with a prop ( enough to fly 360 degs circle at the maiden ) ! This 13 gram spinner should turn nicely with another 0,8 ccm engine ( 2-stroke ).

The engine/prop combo is a bit too low in proportion to the ergonomic test pilot "Rick ".

Thicker skin and spar cap added.

2012-02-05T02:47:00.000-08:00

Skin switched into thicker and wing walk added..thicker spar cap. Also the spar web went through a major change. The wing walk also serves as a stiffener/reinforcement for the main wheel structure. I have a pretty good feeling about this now...it is 5600 grams...and only few kilos of structure only uncounted for. This could be the lightest ever motor plane detachable wheel + wing design.The 170 mm thick wing root and 1 metre wide and the planform is really paying off now as I expected as does the foam, thin plywood and carbon structure.

..calculations...5400 gram wing so far...

2012-02-03T03:33:00.001-08:00

Flaps, aileron and wing tip + leading edge and rear spar are missing from the calculations + glue and paint/primer & horns and control pushrods.

I think the attacment has changed and I get rid of the rivets !

Wing attachment and panels with riveted plywood

2012-01-31T05:13:00.001-08:00

It looks bit like a feather...with 9-10 kilos you could say it is feather lite wing !

Here is the new engine 19,3 kilo Bailey 175; http://www.flyschool.co.uk/Bailey4stroke.htmIt has 1.5 l / h burn at 6 hp.

Swift

2012-01-29T02:17:00.001-08:00

Here is a very interesting AC http://www.aeriane.com/Swift has set the A-0 record in distance 777 km.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvyrWUm7CRk&feature=player_embedded#!Motorized AC with 24 L/Dhttp://www.aeriane.com/data.htm

Teoria lyhyesti ja ytimekkäästi...

2012-01-27T01:46:00.000-08:00

On tuolla HBA saitilla käyty kiivasta keskustelua siitä kun möläytin kehitelleeni alternatiivisen tehokkuusteoria lentämisessä.No itse asissa mitään pyörän kaltaista asiaa en ole keksinyt vaan tavan katsoa asoita eri tavalla...siitä esimerkkinä olkoon tämä meilini joka lähti herralle XXX tovi sitten. Tämä tuskin on varsinaisesti kirjesalaisuus sillä en kerro kenelle teksti oli ja ja teksti on omaani;-----XXX sä ajattelet näitä asioita liian vaikesti...F=Ma...eli siiven tulee kehittää se nostovoima mitä laitteen, polttoaineen ja pilotin paino tarvitsee. Suuren huippunopeuden ja toisaalta turvallisen lentoolähdön ja laskeutumisen takia ollaan poistuttu Lilienthalin ja lintujen maailmasta..ja alettu käyttämään siipeä jolla ei ole nostovoimaa vaan hyvä L/D jossa painotus on mennyt äärimmäisen pienen D:n ehdoilla..nostovoima onkin haettu toisaalta isoilla hevosvoimilla ja valtavilla laipoilla..kun sitä on lennon päissä tarvittu kentälle /-ltä pääsemiseksi. Olen ottanut 2 askelta taakse jotta sekä rakenne kevenee 50-70% ja nostovoima siivessä nousee 400%..tämä aiheuttaaa luonnollisesti huippunopeuden pienenemisen 140 km/t pintaan..ja sakkauksen alanemisen 60 km/t luokkaan. Siksi foilikin oli keksittävä itse. t. Jukka-----Teoriaa voisi kuvailla "heikkotehoisen moottorilennon teoriaksi". Se on paljon laajempi asia kuin tuo meilini, mutta siinä olennaisin osa. Heikkotehoisella tarkoitan 5-15 hv teholla lentämistä...en aivan HPA ( human powered airplane ) asiaa.

Why the TIKKA's wing is so strong and lite !

2012-01-26T02:06:00.000-08:00

Here is a chart with the right proportions for both Cri Cri and Tikka.

You can see that in order to get relatively high AR ( 8 ) Colomban used a very narrow ( 600 mm non tapered ) but extremely thick wingfoil ..over 22% thick.I took different approach and chose 17 % thick foil of my own design ( interpolated mainly from Wortmann and Eppler foils ) but it is tapered and swept and fairly wide at the root. This causes despite procentually thinner than Cri Cri foil it to be much thicker at the root by 2,4 cm ( 24 mm ). Also since the wing is tapered with wash out there are less loads at the root. This kinda wing can be constructed much lighter and still stronger if well managed. I have same AR ( 8 ) on TIKKA. 24 mm is not much..but is exactly 20% thicker than MC10 airfoil. Ask any bridge engineer how much more strenght/lightness a 20% increase will give and you'd be surprised.

TIKKA wing will have far less foils but their construction as foam/plywood is unique.Colomban wing is simpler in one aspect..it has same foil through the wing ( 35 per wing ).

Graphics of the XFRL5 program

2012-01-25T14:58:00.001-08:00

That is the wing plan form for TIKKA 123 MPG efficiency aeroplane !It does look a bit like a surf board does it not ?

Update !

2012-01-24T04:54:00.000-08:00

I got the planes 3-views in order and ready and few more calculations done.Name is now A4-TIKKA ( company name and plane name ). It means a woodpecker.Tank is now 20 liters and allows to fly 8 hours continuosly..it may end up being 15 liters. Each wing has a capacity for additional 50 liter wing tank, but for any realistic record the 15-20 liter wing tanks are possible to build and more likely. I tuned a cavity in between pilots feet for a tuned pipe...and actually the drag from engine and prop is minimal...the large spinner helps a lot.Tomorrow I'll be 3rd time in the invention foundation scrutiny ( or the design ). Then we will see how the realisation schedule will be.----------Many people think it is just to choose a foil in a project like this. HPAs fly at 11 mph and sailplanes 200 km/h..my plane foil is a high Cl_max foil in between. Purpose designed for this aircraft only. I think that is a proof on concept..all parts are customed to gain the goal...minimalist ac with solarpower capabilities to fly...and not looking like a teenager build glider.----------Well I'll inform you. Test pilot said it is extremely good proportioned and looks very real now.

Using thrust calculator to define the engine thrust

2012-01-17T12:33:00.000-08:00

http://personal.osi.hu/fuzesisz/strc_eng/index.htm

Above the Radne Raket 120 cc with a reduction gear.When you design a very low FPEA plane you need very little thrust for take of and use high pitch prop to achieve decent speed for a flight.Radne consumes only 2,5 liters in an hour.

Based on this combo and a large spinner FNX can cruise at 125 km/h at very minimal gas burn..actually allowing a 1800 km to be flown just at 36 liters.

Radne is sold with 1/3 reduction so this one above matches better.

This MZ-100 18 hp gives me even more "edge" over others.

I'd be really happy if this vehicle flew at 100 mph at 2,6 litre fuel consumption with a MZ-100.

Wilhelm Lischaks LW-02

2012-01-17T01:07:00.000-08:00

http://www.wildbergair.com/registrations/C/OE-CLW_1_01.htmThere are many ways to do C-1a/0 record. 1987-1988 Willie Lishack made his records.30 hp engine in a streamlined fast machine and cruising at 100 kts.

Speed record could have been broken by Quickie model 54, but distance seems to be a different matter...speed has some advantage in distance flying too.

Is less than 18 hp viable hp figure for an aeroplane ?

2012-01-16T00:16:00.000-08:00

Burt Rutan has done it at 18 hp ( taken off ).Michael Colomban did the same with Cri Cri proto ( 2 x 9 hp ).http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/rutan-model-54-quickie

Whing Ding II flew at 10 hp but was open cockpit at 45 kilos..here is the lightest closed cockpit ac yet; http://www.scalesoaring.co.uk/VINTAGE/Documentation/Elfe_P1/Elfe_P1.html

Final correction to the overall size ?

2012-01-12T11:42:00.000-08:00

I lenghtened and repositioned seating and wing today. Also talked to a test pilot for an hour.Wing is now 4.73 m2 and plane some 3740 mm long and spanning 6200 mm. This gives now a change for a 230 lbs pounder pilot to fly at 65 km/h with the new wing at 7 -8% flaps deployed.All these might bring the overall weight closer to 65 kilos or beyond, but chanches are that it'll stay still under 55 kilos.

2012-01-11T12:24:00.000-08:00

I just made even better foil...a thicker one 17% thick with the best LD and lowest Cd for TAKE OFF and highest Cl with flaps 36 degs at Cl 2.35 !!!

You should never give up when you are onto something !

I need a 17% thick foil to make the structure lite and durable..13-14 % would have been too thin a foil.The lift of this foil at 36 degs flaps is actually OFF THE SCALE !See this vid and you get the touch of the spirit of my new design; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKQb8GMoUJM&feature=player_embedded

Flaps on a wing..at different AoAs

2012-01-11T06:48:00.000-08:00

Above shows a good number of campered foils with and without flaps as lift/alpha chart.

Above pretty good numbers..lowish Cm and good lift/drag.

Best Cl 2,26 was at 25-30 AoA, but curve was smoother at 25 degs flaps used.

Campered foil with 2,2 Cl with 12 degs of flaps.

Campered foil at 15 degs of flaps.

10 degs of flaps and less campered foil and less drag than on campered at 15 degs of flaps.

Above the best Cl I was able to come up with at 36 degs of flaps; Cl max 2.3 !!Best performing foil was 13,6 % thick at 120 L/D at 1.9 Cl with 8 % of flaps !

74 year old ultralite Chilton WD1

2012-01-09T03:18:00.000-08:00

http://www.chilton-aircraft.co.uk/nuacinfo.html

Fuselage extension...sorta...:)

2012-01-05T13:33:00.000-08:00

I replaced the elevator to new position further aft...and tailwheel as well..some other mods too for rudder. Elevator is 310 mm more aft and tail wheel 360 mm total lenght is now 3600 mm. I did this cause the elevator looked sorta weak..it is now shorter and wider and more leverage like in a Cri Cri. I think the really campered foil causes a strong Cm that had to be compensated.

Tuning and a find !

2012-01-03T08:01:00.001-08:00

http://www.aircraftinternational.com/catalog/motors/3w240i_b2_r/3w240ib2.htmThis seems to propel many of the Cri Cris !I had to lenghten the 3240 mm long version to 3340 mm to get the tail volumes right..looks better too.Frontal area is 0.92..old was ( high wing ) 0.96 m2..flat plate around 0,8-0,9 sq ft. This is very slick.--- Another cool engine; http://yuneeccouk.site.securepod.com/PowerMotor_Tech_spec.html

Electric vs. combustion !

2012-01-02T00:59:00.001-08:00

I can cut the size of a small ac by 7% to the smallest tractor instantly and 15% compared to a complex pusher homebuilt ( BD-5B ). There are two possible locations for the batteries shown. Weight with the tractors remain the same, but a pusher is double the flyweight ( unless electric as well ). I bet there are more weight reduction possibilities just in the pushers...when no rod is needed etc. Plettenberg with 10 kW and 20 kilo batteries and some 4,5 m2 wing area should do it ( with AR 10 ).

15-25 hp plane in comparison !

2011-12-31T13:14:00.000-08:00

I am sure this plane could have been smaller too , but with 6'5'' tall pilots it would have been impossible !I estimate the weight to be 55 kilos ( empty ) without wing struts. I might get it to 52 kilos depending of the engine.With 32 kg/m2 wingloading and drag less than AR-5 I think It should get airborne with just 10 hp:s ( 15 for bigger dudes like me ) !Very Happy New Year 2012...still 45 minutes to go here in FINLAND !----I am again considering the wing strut..the structure becomes heavy without the struts and I am aiming low weight over high speed. If I cannot get the both ( speed and low weight ) then I have to settle for the low weight and somewhat limited speed.

Safety and wing !

2011-12-31T03:55:00.001-08:00

http://www.wainfan.com/wingdes.pdfLink shows among other things the impact angle and speed vs. survivabily in aviation crashes.I am pretty sure I can get rid of the struts too and still make it lite and strong ( the wing that is ). I was thinking of copying the MC30 wing but came up with more into my thinking and plane fitting structure...no carbon at all, but some glassfibre to stiffen the plywood here and there.

Name for the new AC; HAUKI ( Pike )

2011-12-30T02:59:00.000-08:00

Strongly influenced by this predator of the finnish lakes.HAPPY NEW YEAR 2012 to Y'all !

Benefits of the forward sweep !

2011-12-28T11:41:00.001-08:00

This has been researched thoroughly !It says here a modest forward sweep is good and prevents stall. Swept wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sweeping a wing forward has the same effect as rearward in terms of drag reduction, but has other advantages in terms of low-speed handling where tip stall problems simply go away. In this case the low-speed air flows towards the fuselage, which acts as a very large wing fence. Additionally, wings are generally larger at the root anyway, which allows them to have better low-speed lift. However, this arrangement also has serious stability problems. The rearmost section of the wing will stall first causing a pitch-up moment pushing the aircraft further into stall similar to a swept back wing design. Thus swept-forward wings are unstable in a fashion similar to the low-speed problems of a conventional swept wing. However unlike swept back wings, the tips on a forward swept design will stall last, maintaining roll control. Forward-swept wings can also experience dangerous flexing effects compared to aft-swept wings that can negate the tip stall advantage if the wing is not sufficiently stiff. In aft-swept designs, when the airplane maneuvers at high load factor the wing loading and geometry twists the wing in such a way as to create washout (tip twists leading edge down). This reduces the angle of attack at the tip, thus reducing the bending moment on the wing, as well as somewhat reducing the chance of tip stall.[9] However, the same effect on forward-swept wings produces a wash-in effect which increases the angle of attack promoting tip stall. Small amounts of sweep do not cause serious problems, and had been used on a variety of aircraft to move the spar into a convenient location, as on the Junkers Ju 287 or HFB-320 Hansa Jet. But larger sweep suitable for high-speed aircraft, like fighters, was generally impossible until the introduction of fly by wire systems that could react quickly enough to damp out these instabilities. The Grumman X-29 was an experimental technology demonstration project designed to test the forward swept wing for enhanced maneuverability in 1984. The Su-47 Berkut is another notable example using this technology. However no highly swept-forward design has entered production. My question is since I have no idea how to count the spanwise lift hitting the fuselage benefits in span efficiency number wise, that is a moderate forward sweep 10% better than an elleptical wing or more in efficiency ? Is the efficiency doubled in comparison when flaps are used or similar with straight wing ? Iliyshin Il-28 was slightly forward swept winged ac ( 4 used as target tugs in FAF ); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwNdeRuAdqQ several source says it had straight wing ? Refined copy of this actually; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvpbpIn9Zrc Junkers JU-287 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_287 The swept-forward wing was suggested by the project's head designer, Dr. Hans Wocke as a way of providing extra lift at low airspeeds - necessary because of the poor responsiveness of early turbojets at the vulnerable times of take-off and landing. Anyone with an answer to my 2 questions ?

How to reach 65 km/h minimum speed ?

2011-12-28T03:57:00.000-08:00

I figure I need to design plane to fly at ease with 6 degs AoA and then place 4-4.5 degs incident on the wing. Also place flaps so that the lift distribution at the 65% span and 75 wingarea wise will be at Cl 2.0 region when flying at 6.5 AoA ( wing AoA 10-11 ).

There are some other features that at that angle will cause lift..like the prop and fuse about 10%...this would apply 105 kilo pilot...a 75 kilo pilot can fly at 3-4 degs incident to go 65 km/h.This is good enough too ( 16 % );

Also very thin ( 10 % )foils with just 0.004 Cd at zero AoA will have enermous lift with flaps;

The Cd is bad, but Cm looks good !!!

Some foils get totally destroyed by the flaps like FX73K170 with flaps at 12 degs and even with most angle will not produce much lift in 2D.Also with 6 degs flaps it just doesn't get close to the lift required and Cd is bad.

FAI microlite vs. Part 103

2011-12-28T02:07:00.000-08:00

I just found out that there is a microlite category with minimum Mtow speed of 65 km/h ! I like it !http://www.flymicro.com/records/index.cfm?record=minspeed

click to enlarge the image !

This means that Part 103 which is based on wingoading and stall speeds is not the only class for superlite weight planes. I am relieved !

I might have created a foil that makes sense ?!

2011-12-25T03:20:00.000-08:00

I kept modifying FX73 and FX 75 separately and then combined them.

CL max is 1.7

Tad thicker..

This has lift 1.716 Cl MAX

The foils won't work in re 200000 area...for the R/C model so this fx73 blended with hq3510 and Aguilar seems to work;

If you doubt my ability to switch foil into other re-area..then here ios my present to the aircombat hobbyist..my vision for the 1/12 scale P-51D as 10% ( thinnest the rules allow ). Its re 200000 Dd is 0.011.

Some of the Cl/Cd_alpha figures as a chart;

Stits BABY BIRD

2011-12-23T03:22:00.000-08:00

http://www.airventuremuseum.org/collection/aircraft/Stits%20DS-1%20Baby%20Bird%20Specifications.asp#TopOfPageThis is my example or my inspiration to the latest design.Baby Bird was the smallest monoplane ever ( still is ).Weight with 55 hp Hirth engine was 113,5 kilos ( part 103 in weight wise ).It was only 11 ft long ( 3,355 m )..i have a 1/2 foot longer kite.The engine is already 30 kilos more than my small ZDZ 210 is. 44'' prop is 10 '' more in dia..and heavier.Stits BB is without engine and prop around 75 kilos with heavy tricycle of metal contruction.

Fuel tank and ZDZ 210

2011-12-22T04:41:00.000-08:00

I switched to ZDZ 210 that burns 1,25 gallons in an hour.I have a 20,8 litre main fuel tank behind the firewall and 2 auxiliary 20 liter fuel tanks in the wings ( if needed ).Giving total flying time of 3.8 + 6.5 hours ( 10 hr 20 minute ). I briefly calculated that speed is around 195 km/h. So plane should fly in facourable conditions 2000 km. 700 km with only main tank with reserve.This puts my plane target empty weight to 55 kilos. since 21 liters is 15 kilos. My plane can only weigh 70 kilos tops. With extra fuel tanks the weigh is near or above 100 kg. Then it needs to be certified if sold.Limbach SFC chart to it; http://www.limflug.de/files/pdf/DS-L275E.pdfIf we assume 65% happens at 6200 rpm we get SFC 360 gr/HPh and thus 4680 gramms / hr at 13 hp ( wich is plenty for cruise on my motorglider type ). That would be 1,5 gallons an hour with 275 ccm engine.I'd be inclined to think ZDZ 210 burns less than 1,25 gallons at 65% power..hardly a gallon.

Control system and fuel tank studied.

2011-12-21T16:59:00.000-08:00

I have put whole evening and night in tuning and creating the control system. And my haunch of making the Howard Hughes version* of the Beaujon ultralight control* worked out fine. Now I am trying to figure out how to make a cool trim for it. Only idea that I could think of was a big "lever" on both ends of the system. Rear lever/horn would be around the elevator axel that connects the elevator panels to each other. Panels have "noseweight" to make them fly right..this would be locked after each adjustment ( stiff ? ). Is this how it works ? ( My trim is supposed to work like the one in BELL X-1; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailplane )....What I could suggest instead is a system that actually moves the actual elevator linkage up and down ( near final link to elevator surface )..thence working as a secondary control system, but with only very small movement and lockable positions from the cockpit ( like a jack screw really ). How does that sound ? * Howard Hughes version means; awesome thoroughly studied chick magnet style design !!! *Beaujon ultralite control means the highwing monoplane upperside hanged kinda design..that does not hang in this case ( I don't wanna bang my head on it at crash landing or anyone else ) , but controls go via the channels in upper side of the fuselage ( ceiling/roof ).-------------------I just finished the detail of the DeHavilland Comet racer* type of rudder control system..it is like riding a horse..to fly my kite. Tiny surfaces for the heels to push them. They are darn cool. * It is basically a bar hinged from the middle.I measured a 6'5'' type can fit nicely now..if the back ( butt-top of the head ) is under 988 mm ! I figure me with 960 mm back can fit with a helmet. ALSO ZDZ 210 looks like the REAL engine now; 100 kts at 1,25 gallons / hour..that is not bad for fuel burn is it ?I had t put a 300 mm dia spinner to fit all inside !!!...:) It meant also lower drag coefficient !http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items/ZDZ210-JENGINE.html

Wheels / landing gear !

2011-12-19T12:04:00.001-08:00

I am thinking of making my main gear system in 4 lbs ( 2 wheels ) and a taildagger. I have brilliant idea for it. I will bond two thin steel sheets from both end with 4 bolts..these small bolts will attach the leg into fuse on the other end and on the other end to the wheel casing ( through the wheelpants ). This is the shortest route for the leg and material is minimised. Inbetween the plates on both sides is a aluminium square tube 10 x 10 mm..this is riveted to the thin steelplates..there could be a foam 1 mm oversized in between for damping the system. Underside could be 2 mm and upper 0.5 mm thick...for the loads. Both ends are flatted tight and bend to needed form..inside the ends are 3 mm thick steel plates welded to the underside for about a distance of 50+50 mm..to avoid forced breakage at the bending area where attachment and material change. The wheels are small 250 mm dia and airless..or with air but narrow if used on grassfields. Wheelpants are 5 cm thick ( at the thickest point ) and made of carbon...overtly aerodynamic looking. Braking happens with a press on a plate on the wheel inside the large profile pants .--- EDIT; Still little ackward with this..maybe a bent plywood with fiberglass ( sandwich ) and final coating with carbon ?Here is a pretty interesting and simple gear; http://youtu.be/QtMMhPPMgk8

2D foils analyse

2011-12-19T08:43:00.000-08:00

This is also not the final foil, but something that I am after low Cd ( lowish ) and high L/D and better than moderate lift. Because I want to get airborne with a small engine I need to have low drag foil and enuf lift to get airborne with simple wing without flaps.Little warning for all XFLR5 aerofoil software users. I was able to tilt the program when analysing and used the animation..and tapped suntin too early. All work was gone in a split second...and never found since.

This latter foil has some of the aspect that I am looking for. Cl MAX 1.8 at 15.6 AoA.

What I really do want ?

2011-12-17T11:45:00.000-08:00

I seem to have reached full speed in design now when I got the XFLR5 aerodynamics simulator working at home. It is free program and does the job.I have interpolated a new foil that shows Cl MAX 2,062 at 13,5 AoA..and over 100 L/D at 12 AoA. This foil along with a slight increase in the wing area and span ( 6 m and 4.3 m2 ) I get new figures for stall 33 kts and take off at 48 kts. DA-150 looks like the engine for this at 3 kilo weight and 16.5 hp it will supersede FR-4 power to weight ratio.Wing loading is just under 6,3 lbs/sq ft. I also refined the fuse a bit and it is now 3450 mm in lenght with a tad bigger rudder. Aerodynamist commenting on this likes electric engine so it is looked closely also as this developes.---enclosed foil is one study for the foil..not the one I developed recently.

The 10 hp equivalent electric engine gives performance close to ASK-14 motorised glider and a 17 hp emergency output/boost is possible for it..or there is an other engine that has it.

What I am slightly proud of is that this craft is about 2/3 in size of the Electra One and ElectraFlyer-C and yet lighter wingloading and smaller engine. All this on paper at the moment.

Elektra One is 8,6 m spanning and has 6.4 m2 wingarea.

ElecktraFlyer-C has 8.4 meter span and 6.8 m2 wingarea.

What I wanted to avoid in the looks !

2011-12-16T03:01:00.000-08:00

I did not want the plane to look like it was somehow bulged real plane dimutized. Like the ledendary all right MC30 and DA-11 are. I wanted the plane to look clean. DA-11 looks sorta clean, but seems that the visibily forward down ( or sides..due to the wings ) at landing with high speed with high AoAs is limited.DA-11 only holds a small 80 kilo man. Empty is 79 kilos.

MC30 is also limited for the pilot 90 kilos empty.

New specs !

2011-12-16T02:28:00.001-08:00

I found a new foil that will satisfy my specs and is easy to construct.Specs for speeds are; 35 kts for stall and 51 kts for take off ( 105 kg max pilot ).Level max. speed with DA-150 engine 69 kts.http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items/DA-150.htmlRe numbers in the wings vary at 766000 - 2366000

HPA as an example ?

2011-12-15T23:58:00.001-08:00

The PSU Zephyrus has 0,8 Cl in flight as target. Ailerons are made like in combat models; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSU_Zephyrus

Could Carmen Electra be a name for the electric version ?

2011-12-15T13:53:00.000-08:00

I saw this this morning...O'boy; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFeLDK6V_M&feature=relatedCarmen Electra is possibly around 52 kilos right ? Carmen would be a great asset in marketing as well..who has her number ?

Electric conversion ?

2011-12-15T04:33:00.000-08:00

Here is the accu/battery ; http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__8586__ZIPPY_Flightmax_5000mAh_6S1P_25C_.htmlI have no idea how it takes to stay airborne as for now.Here is the engine; http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__14427__Turnigy_CA120_70_Brushless_Outrunner_100cc_eq_.htmlIt won't quite beat the Fournier Fr-4 in power to weight ratio; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fournier_RF-4But is level with ASK-14 ; http://www.sailplanedirectory.com/PlaneDetails.cfm?planeID=17

What is light AC all about..seen the lite yet ?

2011-12-14T05:19:00.000-08:00

Like Jake Elwood in the BLUES BRO:s; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1KZKZs-2YM&feature=relatedI think I saw the "light" when I started to do this latest version !

Whats important in a wing ?

2011-12-14T03:28:00.000-08:00

I have a 4 deg forward sweep and wash out wing tips with 10 back sweep and 75% long ailerons ( starting from the root ).I think that is very optimal wing geometry with 10:1 AR.Foils give very different speeds at different AoAs.Now I have stall speed estimations from 40,5 kts to 48 kts for 105 kg pilot and 36 kts for 65 kilo pilot with no flaps.Wing would have to be lite yet strong too and endure flutter and few Gs.It ought to allow moderate aerobatics as well.This is a quite a task for a minimalist ac.I have disgarded the HQ 3,5/14 and Eppler 210 as they are model foils.E562, GOE748, GOE 533 and FX 63-137 are still or time being under investigation.Flaps would enable to use more foils to choose from..now only fx 63-137 gives reasonable figures.I like what Al Bowers have to say about the wing lift; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=223OmaQ9uLY

Reynolds number calculator from NASA !

2011-12-13T08:47:00.001-08:00

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/BGH/reynolds.html

Second calculations...

2011-12-12T12:10:00.000-08:00

Dudes I am learning.Now I realised I had done a mistake in the calculations.L=d1/2V^2SCl ( I forgot the ^2 part ! )I have chosen HQ3,5/14 as my foil.Excellent polar show cl to be 1 at nearly 0 AoA.My planform in the wing..moderate forward sweep and high AR ( 10 ) gives the 3D value around 80% of the 2D value.And it is then PART 103 legal...even ( or at most ) with a 5-10 hp engine.

It is not totally unheard of. Skeeto by Ray Stits flew at 3 hp straight and level.-----------------------------I got 16 mph for stall speed and 7,8 lbs/sq ft for wing loading.I guess it is then doable. PART 103 legal aerial vehicle with 6 hp engine.Also the take off speed is 50 km/h ( 31 mph )for a 110 kg pilot.I am slightly puzzled now....even the FPEA calculator that I have does not recommend me any bigger than 2-3 hp for the 55 mph speed ?!!!----------------------------I was informed the PART 103 would need more wing area. A 2,2 m2 stagger wing addition would make a 60 kilo person fly in the limits.

First calculations !

2011-12-10T15:51:00.001-08:00

I did a whole day research and calculus day for the specs and defining the tail volume coefficient numbers ( tail size optimization ).Then estimates for the wing ( 3,8 m2 ) with flaperons ( 20 % of the wing ) and I got with 230 lbs pilots ( heavy ) take off speed 65 mph and 138 mph top speed. Cruise at 60% power 120 mph.Stall is at 62 mph ( 230 lbs pilot ) and for a 90 kilo pilot at 55 mph. For a 60 kilo pilot the stall is 48 mph.This goes double speed compared to the ultralites and is for real life pilots...not beginners. Loop, roll and few other aerobatic movements are in prospect for this bird and at very low cost.Does this grab you at all ?-------------Well I did these pretty hastily and not verified by any aerodynamista..I am certaing the figures go down a smitch ( I had wrong equation..or counted the figures wrong ).

What is revolutional about FNX_IX aka J1 Albatros ?

2011-12-10T04:27:00.001-08:00

I am trying to sum up what I have been trying to investigate here for the past 4 years by now.I am by profession an architect and by background "a AF base brat" with lotsa flying relatives and buddies. I have been more concentrated in model flying.I have spent time trying to find best economical solutions to go with very little money ( both in price of the AC and MPG ) from point A to point B. Ground effect, pusher lay-out and small size has been under scrutiny.Several records by Giertz, Stits, Bede, Starr, Colomban, Staib, Wheeler foremost have made me convinced that an aeroplane does not have too be bigger than 3400 mm in lenght and 4-5 meter in span if the weight and speed is right. Wheelers Scout was unsafe...so was the BEDE 5A with short wings and unreliable engine.Most important finding is the fact that if the drag is kept minimum along with the weight a considerably smaller engine can be used. This brings about the most savings. Stits Snooky 1 used only 3 hp engine to stay level, but had to be towed into the air. None of the planes had a V-tail ( Bede tried it ) all have traditional landing gear systems.Andersson's MFI-9 Junior with forward sweep wing and side by side seating is also remarkable through its size and weight + aerodynamical and constructional simpliness...all these have inspired me a lot..as well as their followers like Airbike and Legal Eagle ( derivatives of the Stits Snooky 1 ). MFI flies faster with 80 hp than several similar seated with 200 hp. This can't be an accident.The fact that unless you have very little drag and very little weight is directly related to the fact that one can not fly fast with fixed pitched prop at lesser horsepowers. Also I found that which end ever you have the prop the landing gear has to have legs, not for the prop but for the fuselage to be aerodynamically the right shape for economical flying. Most important lesson is to remember the physical measurements of a human being and how they affect the sizing of the fuselage. I have now less than 0,96 m2 frontal area and thus something in betweeon 0,5 and 1,0 sq ft FPEA..FNX II had just 0,35 sq ft, but pusher was too complicated and heavy to be economical to build for my purposes !I recon a 65-75 kg empty weight for my small aerobatic plane is feasible...and my fellow aerodynamist says the plane has no problem to work...I like it. I think we can now advance peacefully into the next phase !

NEWS !

2011-12-08T12:41:00.001-08:00

BREAKING AVIATION NEWS !STAIBS AIRY-PLANE is the world's smallest twin engine aircraft ever !SCROLL DOWN THIS LINK TO SEE THE FACTS !http://www.usua250.org/history/earlyul.htmThis means that CRI-CRI never was the smallest twin..it is the smallest jet engined twin and smallest 4 engine airplane ( EADS electric ).---------------Slightly lesser news is that since Scout is 49,4 kilos there is no way to beat it. Instead I will try to make the lightest aerobatic aeroplane ever. I try to beat 70 kilos to fly it also without lisences. Should be doable. This means it will have almost ordinary tails on this taildagger...well not quite..elevator and rudder are all moving entities ( less drag ).I also have to remember that this ac will be the 1/2 scale model of my 4 seater STOL capable aeroplane of the future.

J1 "Albatros" project needs co-workers !

2011-12-07T10:35:00.001-08:00

I was wondering if there were people interested to somekinda interesting project for this...revenue could be aeroplane of your own from the first batch of the fresh J1 Albatrosses ! I have made few inventions and therefore I won't publish it right away.Very small ac will have v-tail, small size, easy to control airfoil/wing with interesting washout wingtip. The monowheel arrangement and peculiarly pleasant looking aerodynamically clean fuselage...not just clean but with a "twist".I will make a flying model with cockpit where a 1/6 scale action model will be placed to test the fitting/ergomics for a man/pilot.The rotation at the take off will have 10 degs to happen.10 hp engine ( 2-stroke engine ) will burn 4 liters in hour and provide 90 mph speed. Weight is under 65 kilos ( empty ).I don't necessarily mean handymen..I have built 50 AAA UAVs myself..but structural and aerodynamical help are needed alike.

Scout 49,4 kilos empty and SPRATT 103 !

2011-12-05T12:54:00.001-08:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skycraft_ScoutHere is V-tail in an ultralite;http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=K2foxCdQ6b0&feature=endscreen http://spratt103.com/spratt103_english/characteristics.htm#TECHNICALSpratt 103 is very interesting as well.

Drag of the world fastest bicycle !

2011-12-04T14:50:00.001-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V2FgwN_re4The small openings cause 50% of the total drag !

J1 " Albatros" frontal area ( and FPEA estimate ).

2011-12-04T03:00:00.001-08:00

I have counted the total frontal area and I have 0,95 m2 visible area. This would indicate around 0,7-0,8 sq ft drag for the entire air craft since all part are aerodynamically countoured to have very low drag coefficient ( number ).Could someone do a study how in a very smoothly aerodynamically refined aeroplane the frontal area vs. FPEA are proportioned ?-----Well ( I went through this blog ) my WASAMA II design has this ratio 1/20 and 1/3 when flaps and gear extented.http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1i7bx5vtc6U/SbUA3H_rvoI/AAAAAAAAAKg/4te8aFEwAVg/s1600/1_1_1_FRONTAL_lo_d.jpg

US FAR PART 103 Legal Eagle video and WhingDing !

2011-12-03T02:07:00.001-08:00

In the United States a man can build and fly a under 115 kilo empty weight planes with no lisence.In Finland the limit for an aeroplane not counted as a real aeroplane is 70 kilos 144 lbs.Here is Legal Eagle; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiKcZBvRr8U&feature=related FNX II, GM-1 and WASAMA II did not reach this weight limit so I have now turned my assets to conquer this nearly unbelivable task to do a less than 70 kilo plane with some spectacular specs.PART 103 planes top speed is limited 55 mph..I think I need more speed to get more lighter plane flying safely maybe 70 mph. Stall at around 32-35 mph.It is doable since the Whing Ding II with 10 hp engine was 57 kilos empty weight !!!http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/international-aircraft-directory/homebuiltkitbuilt-aircraft/hovey-whing-ding-ii.html------------------PS: I seem to have difficulties to enter homebuiltairplanes.com ! Does someone else have similar experiences ?

FNX II revisited ( mods ) !

2011-11-28T10:34:00.001-08:00

...and the wing;

SPECS of the "J1 Special ( Albatross )"

2011-11-27T12:03:00.001-08:00

The new design will feature:1. 3,35 m fuse 2. 7 m span3. 50-60 kg dry weight4. 5-22 hp 2-stroke UAV-engine5. monowheel6. V-tail7. good visibility all around8. high wing9. 27-33 kg/m2 wingloadingAim is to make it also moderatly aerobatic with 110 mph top speed and 35 mph stall speed.

Dassault Systemes DraftSight

2011-11-27T11:57:00.001-08:00

I just downloaded that and near future we'll see how it worx out to do the 3D with it.This sounds really good since it has the best sides of both AutoCad and SolidWorks and can read DWG that I have drawn the latest ultra lite high wing monowheel monoplane with V-tail of 56 kg of dryweight.----Edit: Seems like it only reads 3D DWG.

Two remarkable "birds" !

2011-11-21T08:16:00.001-08:00

First STITS DS-1 BABY BIRD; http://www.airventuremuseum.org/collection/aircraft/Stits%20DS-1%20Baby%20Bird.aspThen Le Pelican; http://machnoneflying.com/2010/03/ultralight-museum-pelican/You might ask now: " What is this crazy finn up to now ?"Well I'll tell ya ! I have to make an aircraft that needs no lisence nor permission to fly ( this will have to be max 167 lbs empty with BRS ). Since I need fuel too it can only weigh 144 lbs empty. I figure if you have the fuse sized like in Stits Baby Bird and 20 kilos lighter than a Le Pelican with same span...I just might be in my specs with a 15-22 hp engine of 4-5 kilos ( 2 stroke ). What do you think ?There is an aeroplane with engine that is only 56,4 kilos empty...a hanglider type ultra.I have so far figured 4 aspects that Le Pelican and Baby Bird did not have that can save weight....and down sizing of course. There will be more AR too..which actually is 5 th feature since the area gets smaller and spanloading increases a tad. I can tell you that my scetching method has been pretty much like what Howard Hughes did to his biplane to make it cleaner..."sledgehammering" away several features of an aeroplane that you never figured that one could getaway with and still make the plane look cool and sporty. That is our secret now okay ?...:)

Why a new design with lifting body element ?

2011-11-15T11:30:00.001-08:00

I got this idea that if i get more lift out of the fuse I can decrease the wing size and drag in cruise speeds + I am possibly able to counteract the CG depth or width.This means many advances since the fuel positioning and pilot layout becomes more free as they are not presicely predestined to be closeby the CofG.Lifting body will also help to rearrange the the landing gear into totally new kinda approach...that would yield lighter construction all together.

Small prototype ?

2011-11-15T09:49:00.001-08:00

I was figuring when DA-11 gets 125 mph on 18 hp ( with limited pilot size ) I think a 140 mph speed should be reached with heavier pilot if aerodynamics were even more refined.This craft would be a downsized model for the 3-4 seater with 80-100 hp engine. Having a 30 hp B&S tuned for 50 hp with a new carburettor and some fixed inlets.DA-11 is 170 lbs I figure the 80 lbs engine and some new aspects would still keep it ( new design ) in 160 lbs. Red lining would occur at 220-230 mph.

New 4 seater design !

2011-11-06T10:51:00.000-08:00

I might switch into a economical 4 seater design.It sports:1. One retractable mainwheel ( tail dagger )2. Partially lifting body3. Very small size 6 meters long4. Unorthodox seating arrangement5. V-tail6. One pilot7. Very clean aerodynamical fuselage8. Weight saving structural feature

Wing change !

2011-07-20T09:32:00.000-07:00

Less tapered wing more spin resistance...so I was told to do in HBA...and I agree.

I am not sure if I have actually been able to develope a better AC than the previous Wasama was, but at least this FNX is smaller and cheaper to build.

FNX II mods to get CG right !

2011-05-20T02:24:00.000-07:00

ALso to get it look good at the ramp...I moved the wheels back and taxiing attitude 2degs more upright.

"Final update on GM-1"

2011-05-09T01:18:00.001-07:00

1.lifting body
2.ground effect
3.uniwheel taildagger

Some of the new features.

Also the rudders will work as winglets and some sorta boudary barries at underside when ground effect is being collected to enhance lift.

Last of the last includes a new back bone !
This is to enhance:

1. Flow
2. Stucture
3. Weight
4. Control
5. Spinrecovery

1/4 scale model of the 4 engine jet..initial design.

2011-05-04T12:19:00.000-07:00

I switched into bigger engine and scale.

My problem is like in the Apollo 13 flight...how to make this object that has round shape......

.....go into this aeroplane fuselage that has rectangular form ( more or less ) ?

Seem to be doable in measure wise.

A-4-CE 1

2011-05-02T05:30:00.001-07:00

GM-1 in camouflage !

2011-05-01T09:48:00.000-07:00

All good hot designs end up in the AF !....:)

I tuned the GM-1 again.

4 engine jet !

2011-04-24T10:45:00.000-07:00

And a 1/6 scale model is coming along too.

An other economical FAN AC !

2011-04-20T13:13:00.000-07:00

I figured this out an hour ago;

Runs with 4 of these p200 by Jet Cat USA;

http://www.jetcatusa.com/p200.html

4 x 52 lbs of thrust !

It is less powerful than TSR-18 of the BEDE 5J but the craft will be 100 kg at most
( engines 4 x 5 lbs )and really really sleek.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-5_Micro

An electric engine of 100 ccm equivalent !

2011-04-19T02:30:00.000-07:00

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=14427

Cool....really cool.

Could be used instead of these DA-85s.

That electric costs only 299,90 a piece.

GM-1 twinengine open cockpit !

2011-04-18T06:26:00.000-07:00

This has few advantages...smaller engines ( 2 x 6-10 hp ) available and cheaper props. Plane is also cheaper to build with open cockpit.

DA-85 doubled would yield 17 hp and flies fine with just one.

Engine costs 795 usd; http://desertaircraft.com/engines_detail.php?Page=DA-85

Both engines would cost 1240 €.

GM-1 ( Glidermonkey ) update !

2011-04-17T12:26:00.000-07:00

Changes in:

1. Maingear
2. Rudder
3. Wing
4. Elevator
5. Fuse.

Sportier open cockpit:

Tweaking...6 m by 4,3 m !

2011-04-15T14:03:00.001-07:00

One has to operate this beast mechanically...thence it has to be small...at MACH I the forces are enermous.

CELEBRATION TIME !

2011-04-15T09:04:00.000-07:00

Blog had today hit 85 nation mark...more international visitors than Finland has embassies !

To celebrate I hereby publish the alfa study and present you the vector / trim system I introduced in GM-1 earlier !

My vector panel is where F-14 Tomcat has the pancake..near arrester hook...comprende ?

A small correction.

2011-04-15T03:18:00.000-07:00

I scaled it down a bit.

I heard the P6W 610 F is not suited for supersonic flight. The original idea of Williams FJ22 or FJ33 could then be the other options.

Lotsa fluid dynamic testing etc would be needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-10

BD-10 run into severe problems as the initial testing showed severe problems in controllability at 350 kts and beyond.

How to fly @ MACH I with a homebuilt ?

2011-04-15T00:40:00.000-07:00

Here is a solution to the heating caused problems.

Some minor changes in the rudder area.

This version is to compete with VLJ:s...a MACH I capable private jet for 3 persons !

GM-1 ideology something new ?

2011-04-13T02:55:00.001-07:00

No this is more or less just old things in a new wrap.

Here is what this ac's ideas would mean if it was MACH II or MACH III mover ( if pressurized to go to 70 000 ft ) !

Click images to make the appear bigger !

PRESS always wants to be the first right ? Here is a photorecce plane for every enthusiastic news parer reporter. A homebuilt MACH II mover under 100 000 usd.

Ideal engine would ne Williams J22; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FJ22

I guess the simplicity is a main goal and somehow it can be implied to other aeroplanes too.....like fast jets.

Here is the latest GM-1 update;

A 10 000 usd aeroplane with STOL caracteristic at 18 hp ( DA-170 ).

Back to Flying Squirrel version GM-1 !

2011-04-10T10:42:00.001-07:00

There is now a square hole in between wing and elevator in the wing/fuse.

I got rid of the ruddervators and have bigger dia prop possible ( 1000 mm dia instead of 860 mm ).

This should give better handling in general. Some weight saving and total drag savings too.

Mantaray in Tieteen Kuvalehti -magazine !

2011-04-07T09:58:00.000-07:00

I was totally inspired by it. It was in a large group of 10 000s of Mantarays..but one of the was further away from the others...and actually jumped into the air and seemed to have flown several meters..maybe 5-6 even if not 7-8.

Ok I got an idea...since that mantaray besides swimming can also fly pretty controlled jumps...why couldn't I ?

I have to confess again...flying Squirrel might be at the end of his/her career as an aeroplane ( role ) model ? Time to concentrate on something new maybe ?

I have a strange feeling the simple flying wing is the thing.

This has longer cockpit too actually one meter longer compared to few existing designs.

Small size..lite !

2011-04-06T00:44:00.001-07:00

As you can see my target is not to brake the speed record anytime soon.

Canopy has more visibily than several other designs and seating positio is more upright.

Retract and small size also mean less drag.

Did you know that ground effect increases the lift by 250% ?

More wing less body !

2011-04-05T10:10:00.001-07:00

After several remarks about the stubby wings..here is the new looks.

I am extremely satisfied by the fact that this is now in several ways les wetted area possessing AC than MAX III and yet 100 kg lighter !

How much rudder..flat spin by accident ?

2011-04-04T00:42:00.000-07:00

On the HomeBuilAirplanes.com I was asked will this go easily into flat spin.

Valid question. remeber that unbuckling the harness and weight shift forward will be very dramatic change in a plane that weighs only 50-60 kilos empty.

Here is the two rudders as one ( same area ).

Click on the image to enlarge it.

Side view and foil 23011 with flex + frontal view.

2011-04-03T03:43:00.000-07:00

Some color to make it look less agressive !

The canopy lay-out will allow the pilot to have limited forward view at 18 degree AoA !

These are based on a very experienced aircraft designers assumption;

Could be more or a tad less. Use of the huge trim ( vectorvictor panel ) required.

Last but not least the frontal view !

With little tweaking it might beat my previous "world record"; http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1i7bx5vtc6U/SbUA3H_rvoI/AAAAAAAAAKg/4te8aFEwAVg/s1600-h/1_1_1_FRONTAL_lo_d.jpg

Another update..

2011-04-01T12:59:00.000-07:00

The centroid of the wing and fuse was not balanced so here it is again.

Here is also "extented" directors final cut version !

This sports more forward sweep and bigger ruddervators.

Squirrel's tail...

2011-03-31T23:31:00.000-07:00

I forgot the original idea...and thus introduce to you now the vectorvictor panel that works as an elevator...the tail of the squirrel ( Pteromys Volans ).

This has some foil flexing capabilities and possibly gives some interesting vectoring possibilities in aerobatics.

Tail is very visible in Flying Squirrel flight !

Update on GM-1

2011-03-30T00:55:00.001-07:00

Much smaller and looking better than before.

I am possibly leaving the compact "foldable" element out fron this plane...this is small enough to be placed on the roof of our dining room for the winters !

Over view

2011-03-28T13:20:00.001-07:00

Wing area 3 m2 and total 4.6 m2 ( around ).

Close study !

2011-03-24T02:24:00.000-07:00

Late in the evening done study.

Glidemonkey GM-1

2011-03-19T08:38:00.001-07:00

Something more...

I like very much the fact that all of the tailbooms are now lifting area...compared to my previous similar design ( scroll back few pages ).

Sorry readers !

2011-03-14T09:12:00.000-07:00

I am slightly need of a vacation and maybe just maybe...I'll stick to the FNX II...and change the name into ACROMONKEY since the Phoenix is already taken at the similar niveau looking aeroplanes.

Sorry for the inconvinience...the Glidermonkey was a side show Bob ! Or something that I will do next !!!

From FNX II to Glidemonkey !

2011-03-12T05:26:00.000-08:00

To my great dismay and disappointent there is actually a Soviet/Russian design called Phoenix M-5 and it has many similar features as my design FNX II...even the name is close.

I decided to go for a new single engine design with 128 lbs weight.

This uses blended body and ground effect to be able to take off with very small enginepower and yet fly fast.

This solves several problems that I had with FNX II...for instance the twin engine lisence...who has it ? No-one who builds small homebuilts. Starting the engine...and most of all the easy gear system with one main and two tailwheels.

Glidemonkey name is pretty original...I hope no-one has it yet ?

The idea came from the PTEROMYS VOLANS..."gliding squirrel" in finnish ( liito-orava ).

C of G

2011-02-22T01:29:00.000-08:00

Power to weight ratio in comparison

2011-02-16T06:58:00.001-08:00

Insert from my comment in HBA ( homebuiltairplanes.com ):

Here is DA-100 2,5 kilos each..together 5 kilos; Desert Aircraft

Output is 20 hp ( 9,8 + 9,8 = 19,6 exactly ).

5+47 is 52 kilos..props, mounting..more wheels etc...and 60 kilos is reached quickly compared to Minibat.

It won't be really unlimited in aerobatics but similar to weak powered trainers.

-----------

FAF Valmet Vinka trainer has 200 hp engine and max flyweight is 1250 kg. This gives power to weight ratio 0,16 hp/kg or normally loaded 0,18 hp/kg.

Valmet L-70 Vinka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My design FNX II with 2 x 9,8 hp engines and typical 80 kilo pilot and 5 kg fuel would indicate 0,135 hp/kg.

So conclusion; the cheapest and weakest engines would make it moderatly aerobatic and slightly more powerful DA-150 would add 3 kilo in engine weight, but yield power to weight ratio of 0,22 hp/kg ( this is WW II fighter niveau ) ! At least in par with T-6 Texan/Harward; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-6_Texan and fighters of the -30ies like Hart; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hart

Desert Aircraft

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

Not even ZDZ210 J won't take it to the Spitfire MK 1 power to weight ratio; http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items...V-JENGINE.html

0,293 hp/kg OTOH is pretty close to some weaker fighter designs.

http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items...V-JENGINE.html

This engine has also electric starter option; http://www.zdz-modelmotor.cz/UserFil...%20ENG2010.pdf

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

Had to look for many WW II fighters to find 0,33 hp/kg and found one; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morane-Saulnier_M.S.406

60 kilo pilot with 2 x ZDZ210 J would have same p / w ratio !!!

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

Compared to aerobatic Fournier F4; http://www.cfiamerica.com/id4.html

Even the 9,8 hp engines are powerful since the Fournier power to weight ratio for aerobatics is 0,11 hp/kg and for cruise 0,1 hp/kg.

Unfortunately the links got corrupted.

Learning from others..HAIG Minibat

2011-02-11T05:10:00.000-08:00

http://www.rcsoaringdigest.com/OTW/on-the-wing3/157_Haig_Minibat.pdf

Only 2.9 meters long fuselage and 47 kg weight !

New bigger wheels ( 150 mm diameter )

2011-02-11T01:20:00.001-08:00

Click to enlarge !

I think these are cool !

Size vs. costs and flyability ?!

2011-02-09T05:41:00.000-08:00

I have to confess that the latest downsizing made the plane smaller and lighter, but something about it makes me feel uncomfortable. I bet it has gone too small..and dangerously so. Short coupled is the word..it does not look balanced as it used to.

I resize it to 3400 mm in length instead of the 3100 mm. More spann too...4800 mm => 5200 mm.

Downsizing..to operate with 2 x 10,5 hp engines !

2011-02-02T11:58:00.001-08:00

Comparison: CriCri, Bede-5B and FNX II

Some tuning has taken place.

Click on the image to enlarge it !

FNXII vs. BD5B

2011-01-31T02:58:00.000-08:00

Some bad vibes been inplanted into many flyers and they feel FNX II is dangerous for its "short coupled" appearance and CG.

I'd like to point out that the elevator starts in FNX II where the eleveator ends in BD5..so this is much less short coupled that BD5B for instance.

I like the wedge type aggressive looks of the BD 5B.

However the need for clear view and "area ruling" have influenced the certain forms in my design.

The length of the actual fuselage is a 1 metre more in a BD5B vs. FNXII ( that is 3,3 ft ). I hope this small or really small size brings also weight gain since the aerodynamics indicate at least same drag if not more than in a BD5B..luckily we are still less than ½ of the CriCri FPEA.

Air brake / CofG extender !

2011-01-26T04:49:00.000-08:00

This is the device to make this land with reduced speed..and trim the AC with different set-ups.

Very effective mean actually..as a brake and trim. Easy to incorporate and lite.

Jet version ?

2011-01-13T07:02:00.000-08:00

Yes there could be a jet version.

http://www.jetcatusa.com/p200.html

2 x 50 lbs is possibly enough ?

With Jetcat 200 this would be able to fly 45-60 minutes and 30 minutes a full power.

The hull houses a lot of fuel...if needed.

here 4 x Jetcat200 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Frc3-_64ns&feature=related

Here is a swedish AF new stealth design model with JetCAT engine; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_BvFadE7w

1/6 or 1/3 scale model...there is the question !

2011-01-12T07:44:00.000-08:00

I have engines for both. Maybe first the 1/6 scale model and then 1/3 with actual foil of the real one ?

More tuning...boring ?

2011-01-11T02:44:00.000-08:00

1-1,5 m2 more wing than in a Cri Cri to also fly a 110 kg people like me !