Help Design and Airplane!

[Fly More]

I'm a professional aerospace design engineer by trade and a GA pilot for fun. I spent the last 4 years building a Glasair SII. It was a heck of a project and I'm glad to have it finished & flying.

Over the course of building this airplane, I learned a lot. It got me thinking - maybe I could design and build an airplane too?

The project starts with you- the aviation community. I'd like you to have the opportunity to weigh in on what's important to you in an airplane.

You can do this by completing this very simple, 30 second, 10 question survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LCRNW59

I plan to publish the results assuming I get a statistically significant response. So - if you are interested in what the survey says - please fill it out!

Thanks,

Fly More

 

[Jim Logajan]

I filled the survey out - but I'd rather have VTOL capabilities - not something a traditional airplane can do. The kit plane closest to what I'd be interested in would be the CH-750 STOL.

Good luck on your endeavor, but in my humble opinion there is a greater need for inexpensive engines rather than yet another airplane design.

 

[stratobee]

For me, the future is this:

Hybrid (electrically propulsed, recharged either plug in for shorter flights or with gas engine APU for longer flights)

All weather.
Pressurised.
Needs a toilet.
Twin engine.
Long range.
Jet A1, not avgas.
Able to use unpaved strips.

Cost 100-150K new.

Totally doable. We just haven't tried hard enough.

 

[RJM62]

For me, the future is this:

Hybrid (electrically propulsed, recharged either plug in for shorter flights or with gas engine APU for longer flights)

All weather.
Pressurised.
Needs a toilet.
Twin engine.
Long range.
Jet A1, not avgas.
Able to use unpaved strips.

Cost 100-150K new.

Totally doable. We just haven't tried hard enough.

I doubt there would be any energy advantage to a hybrid drivetrain in an aircraft. The phenomena that make them efficient in cars (such as recovering energy during deceleration and braking) simply don't exist in the air.

-Rich

 

[flyingriki]

I'm a professional aerospace design engineer by trade and a GA pilot for fun. I spent the last 4 years building a Glasair SII. It was a heck of a project and I'm glad to have it finished & flying.

Over the course of building this airplane, I learned a lot. It got me thinking - maybe I could design and build an airplane too?

The project starts with you- the aviation community. I'd like you to have the opportunity to weigh in on what's important to you in an airplane.

You can do this by completing this very simple, 30 second, 10 question survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LCRNW59

I plan to publish the results assuming I get a statistically significant response. So - if you are interested in what the survey says - please fill it out!

Thanks,

Fly More

You're gonna get really dumb stuff.....

 

[Fly More]

66 responses now!

I'd like to get to at least 100. If you haven't taken it already, please take this very simple airplane design survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LCRNW59

Some interesting results so far.

- Not a whole lot of people want aerobatic capability
- Not a whole lot of people want water landing capability
- Purchase price is #1 most important item.
- Looks are more important than speed & range

Keep 'em coming folks.

Fly More

 

[Henning]

I doubt there would be any energy advantage to a hybrid drivetrain in an aircraft. The phenomena that make them efficient in cars (such as recovering energy during deceleration and braking) simply don't exist in the air.

-Rich

Regenerative braking would most certainly apply in the air on descent and slowing. What doesn't apply is burst acceleration and being able to replace a lot of engine with a bit of motor and battery for when you need those bursts of >20% power to get away from a light. Planes have much longer heavy acceleration requirements.

 

[Henning]

66 responses now!

I'd like to get to at least 100. If you haven't taken it already, please take this very simple airplane design survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LCRNW59

Some interesting results so far.

- Not a whole lot of people want aerobatic capability
- Not a whole lot of people want water landing capability
- Purchase price is #1 most important item.
- Looks are more important than speed & range

Keep 'em coming folks.

Fly More

Interesting? I'd think all but the last would be a given. As for the last, that's debatable, look at the old Mooneys, they are ugly but sell on speed and range, but they also play off the 'cheap' not just purchase but operating cost as well.

 

[frfly172]

Took the survey on the eaa board.

 

[Fly More]

THE RESULTS

Thank you to the 100 people that responded. Here is a summary of the results

% Pilots 91%
% Have/want an airplane 96%

Approximate geographical location
US Northwest 17%
US Southwest 18%
US Central 24%
US Northeast 14%
US Southeast 18%
Other location 9%

Average Age 47.5

Ranking of most important Airplane Features
1 Purchase Price
2 Fuel Economy
3 Payload
4 Speed
5 Take off/landing distance
6 Simple to build
7 Range
8 Looks
9 Baggage Capacity
10 Aerobatic capability
11 Water landing
(some of these were very close)

Please indicate how often you do or would carry the following number of passengers:

% Often/always
One 61%
Two 20%
Three 8%
Three+ 2%

- A large majority of pilots do not need an LSA

- About half of pilots do not require folding wings

- The vast majority of pilots would like some form of ground transport


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



So what's next?

I'm going to feed these results back into my design requirements. Fortunately they align pretty well with what I had in mind.

Watch this space.

Fly More

 

[Dav8or]

I took your survey although too late I guess. Anyhow, a suggestion-

I assume that if you design a plane and pursue trying to make money with it, it will most likely end up being a kit. One area of the kit market that is not represented really at all is the aluminum, 2 place, retractable gear plane that also has a reasonably low landing speed. Something that might fall between the Glasair you built and a Vans RV-9. Perhaps you can have both high cruise speed and a low landing speed using something like the LAM Aileron.

It looks promising too me and nobody is using it yet.

 

[frfly172]

Thanks for posting the results,keep us informed on your progress.

 

[TUPilot]

I took your survey although too late I guess. Anyhow, a suggestion-

I assume that if you design a plane and pursue trying to make money with it, it will most likely end up being a kit. One area of the kit market that is not represented really at all is the aluminum, 2 place, retractable gear plane that also has a reasonably low landing speed. Something that might fall between the Glasair you built and a Vans RV-9. Perhaps you can have both high cruise speed and a low landing speed using something like the LAM Aileron.

It looks promising too me and nobody is using it yet.

Don't want to hijack the thread, but what benefit does the LAM aileron provide over a flaperon/drooping flap?

 

[Ted]

You also forgot to include number of engines. The correct answer should be two.

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

I'd rather have an airplane that performs over looks. Kinda like the Piaggio Avanti..

But looks over function? I guess most pilots on here are women in disguise.

 

[Dav8or]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but what benefit does the LAM aileron provide over a flaperon/drooping flap?

The flaperon is a compromise. It can only droop so far and still be used as an aileron. The Lam aileron can be fully deployed at say 30 degrees, full span of the wing and still steer as normal through use of a outer spoiler, or upper aileron. This allows a much lower stall speed on a wing that traditionally has a high stall speed.

Basically a fast wing can have a low stall speed and be fully controllable at slow speeds. In the case of a plane that is currently fast, it can be made even faster by decreasing wing size and therefore weight and drag. Alternately the same size wing can be made to fly slower without stall. The downside (there always is) is some increase in weight for more machinery and complexity of construction. It seems to be a great idea though.

Here are some performance charts of a Columbia 300 that was modified with a whole new wing that incorporated the Lam aileron.

Anyhow, it may be all smoke and mirrors and a venture capital swindle, but it seems legit. The reason no one is using it I think may be that the Lam family wants to be paid. They have a patent on it.

 

[Dav8or]

You also forgot to include number of engines. The correct answer should be two.

Ummm... Number one on the survey was purchase price and number two was fuel economy. A twin is out for the regular folk. Wealthier guys maybe, but they seem to love the smell of kerosene these days.

 

[Lawreston]

The collective suggestions are interesting input but I'm curious about what's missing in your thread title. "Help Design and"(something's missing here) "Airplane"
Clarification?

HR

 

[jhausch]

Anyhow, it may be all smoke and mirrors and a venture capital swindle, but it seems legit. The reason no one is using it I think may be that the Lam family wants to be paid. They have a patent on it.

I think someone had an STC for Bonanzas with this approach. Very rare...
...full span flaps and spoilers. Maybe there are some control operation differences with the LAM

 

[Henning]

THE RESULTS

Thank you to the 100 people that responded. Here is a summary of the results

% Pilots 91%
% Have/want an airplane 96%

Approximate geographical location
US Northwest 17%
US Southwest 18%
US Central 24%
US Northeast 14%
US Southeast 18%
Other location 9%

Average Age 47.5

Ranking of most important Airplane Features
1 Purchase Price
2 Fuel Economy
3 Payload
4 Speed
5 Take off/landing distance
6 Simple to build
7 Range
8 Looks
9 Baggage Capacity
10 Aerobatic capability
11 Water landing
(some of these were very close)

Please indicate how often you do or would carry the following number of passengers:

% Often/always
One 61%
Two 20%
Three 8%
Three+ 2%

- A large majority of pilots do not need an LSA

- About half of pilots do not require folding wings

- The vast majority of pilots would like some form of ground transport


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



So what's next?

I'm going to feed these results back into my design requirements. Fortunately they align pretty well with what I had in mind.

Watch this space.

Fly More

Interesting, now let me skew your mind a moment. Most of the people who have Pre orders on the Icon are multi millionaire/billionaire yacht owners who want one for their yacht. Many owners I talk to have deposits down. The water landing and swing wing are what make it possible.

If you have to cater to a market, it pays to cater to a market that wastes huge volumes of cash on toys, transportation, and entertainment.

 

[Ted]

Ummm... Number one on the survey was purchase price and number two was fuel economy. A twin is out for the regular folk. Wealthier guys maybe, but they seem to love the smell of kerosene these days.

Of course I posted that somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, piston twins still have a market, especially if the price went down. Reality is most of us on this board can't afford a new 172 anyway.

 

[Dr. O]

A Cri-Cri fits the group design the best

For the budding entrepreneur who started this thread to consider:
Go back to the original Jim Bede 'aha' moment and glue aluminum/plywood skin to the formers and ribs. Riveting is a tedious process.

The time consuming part of building is not the airframe, it is the myriad internal components that have to have mountings fabricated, bell cranks mounted, filters and pumps mounted, lines snaked through the airframe as an after thought, etc.
Instead of designing the airframe (to look sexy) and then tearing your hair out figuring how to put the hundreds of internal components inside ripping your skin while attempting to fit hoses, hard lines, and electrical bundles into the airframe, reverse the process.
Use U shape troughs on a strong back to lay out the wiring harness, and fuel lines, etc. into an airplane shape, then the airframe is assembled around it using the strong back as the jig. Same idea for the instrument panel; it needs to be preassembled/wired/plumbed while attached to the strong back and then the cockpit assembled around it. Huge time savings this way.
Consider using plastic hydraulic tubing and aluminum cylinders for flight controls in place of rod or cables. This will eliminate the mechanical nightmare of conventional controls.
I could go on and on . . bit I won't.

 

[Henning]

A Cri-Cri fits the group design the best

For the budding entrepreneur who started this thread to consider:
Go back to the original Jim Bede 'aha' moment and glue aluminum/plywood skin to the formers and ribs. Riveting is a tedious process.

The time consuming part of building is not the airframe, it is the myriad internal components that have to have mountings fabricated, bell cranks mounted, filters and pumps mounted, lines snaked through the airframe as an after thought, etc.
Instead of designing the airframe (to look sexy) and then tearing your hair out figuring how to put the hundreds of internal components inside ripping your skin while attempting to fit hoses, hard lines, and electrical bundles into the airframe, reverse the process.
Use U shape troughs on a strong back to lay out the wiring harness, and fuel lines, etc. into an airplane shape, then the airframe is assembled around it using the strong back as the jig. Same idea for the instrument panel; it needs to be preassembled/wired/plumbed while attached to the strong back and then the cockpit assembled around it. Huge time savings this way.
Consider using plastic hydraulic tubing and aluminum cylinders for flight controls in place of rod or cables. This will eliminate the mechanical nightmare of conventional controls.
I could go on and on . . bit I won't.

Yep, build system sub assemblies, then assemblies around them, into components and then put those together with service connections.

For hydraulic controls would you use a petroleum or glycol based hydraulic fluid? Thing about hydraulic controls is natural force feedback is greatly reduced/eliminated.

 

[Dav8or]

Consider using plastic hydraulic tubing and aluminum cylinders for flight controls in place of rod or cables. This will eliminate the mechanical nightmare of conventional controls.

No thanks. A hydraulically controlled airplane sounds like a nightmare. I'd like my flight controls to be more reliable with less maintenance than that. The push pull rods in the Mooney are about as reliable, maintenance free and simple as it can get. They don't look like a mechanical nightmare too me.

If you really did want to abandon this great, proven system, I would go fly by wire before hydraulic. It's lighter and even more flexible from a design perspective. Of course either hydraulic, or electric has to be backed up by redundant systems because we are talking about flight controls. Redundancy adds weight and expense.

Eventually, that mechanical nightmare will look like an absolute dream.

 

[BigBadLou]

Be careful asking the community for input. It has been done. And it has been scrapped.
Proof: The Homer [car]