What’s wrong with this design?

Triple the wake turbulence?
 
angle of attack disturbing airflow over 2nd and 3rd wing.
 
Reduced cargo capacity? With those thin wings I'd imagine all of the fuel goes in the belly.

Edit: Fuel bladder in the ceiling? Aw hell no, raining death of fire in an otherwise survivable accident.
 
Looks like a good idea to me, no energy wasted with force going the opposite direction of gravity to keep the main wing flying.
 
"The super-thin wings are no longer doubling up as fuel storage. Instead, fuel is stored in a bladder atop the fuselage. This, the company says, will make the plane capable of floating for long periods in the event of an emergency water landing."

Hmm... what could go wrong there?
 
The sales pitch seems Raptor-esque. Brand new company, promising efficiency gains that basic physics can't explain, doing things that no one else has ever bothered to do because it doesn't make sense. Yeah, lets put the fuel tanks right over the passenger's heads. :thumbsup:
 
Sac Arrow said:
"The super-thin wings are no longer doubling up as fuel storage. Instead, fuel is stored in a bladder atop the fuselage. This, the company says, will make the plane capable of floating for long periods in the event of an emergency water landing."
Click to expand...

yabut look at how it floats! With the passenger cabin submerged!

-Skip
 
I wonder if the public will enjoy flight on what appears to be a giant kerosene-filled insect?

...wait, $3 less per seat in coach? They'll be 100% capacity forever.
 
PaulS said:
Looks like a good idea to me, no energy wasted with force going the opposite direction of gravity to keep the main wing flying.
Click to expand...
Wings would have to move way forward from where they are shown in the picture for that to work. Plus you have 6 wingtips for lots of induced drag.

I think someone released this two weeks ahead of time.
 
Rear main spacing looks kinda narrow, xwind landings would be fun.
 
Evidently it's so efficient that retracting the landing gear in cruise flight is optional.

Tim
 
One has to wonder sometimes when such proposals appear. Does anyone at this company have any aeronautical or piloting experience? The same sort of skepticism arose over the Eviation Alice:

proxy-image
 
Winglets are on upside down in the last photo of the link.

I'd rather have a redundant engine that a bunch of redundant wings. Nevermind, text says there are two engines. In that case, I'll just say it looks too much like a Venetian blind.

Fuel bladder over everyone's heads is such a bad idea that I don't mind being the 5th or 6th person to point it out.
 
Last edited:
The question of what's wrong with it I can't answer except to say it pretty ugly looking.

If they wanted more wings they should have stacked them like a biplane!
 
Should be painted blood red and have a machine gun mounted just ahead of the cockpit window...
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
That looks a lot more feasible...
Click to expand...
It might fly. Or maybe it would have flown, except it caught fire and was was heavily damaged.

But props on the wingtips? Especially on a taildragger? How does one slip for a crosswind landing? You sure can't land a taildragger in a crab. And that rear prop right aft of the tailwheel which will fling stones up into it?

What happens if one of the wingtip motors fails on takeoff?
 
Dan Thomas said:
It might fly. Or maybe it would have flown, except it caught fire and was was heavily damaged.

But props on the wingtips? Especially on a taildragger? How does one slip for a crosswind landing? You sure can't land a taildragger in a crab. And that rear prop right aft of the tailwheel which will fling stones up into it?

What happens if one of the wingtip motors fails on takeoff?
Click to expand...

If it were an RC model, I imagine you’d have a gyro controlling yaw. Probably would work well right up until it didn’t. Then you’d get out the CA glue and some new plastic props.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top