Proairsport. New ultra light glider/airplane

[GR8]

http://www.proairsport.com/

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 2:56:19 PM UTC+13, GR8 wrote:
> http://www.proairsport.com/

Those close-set main wheels aren't going to keep it level on rough ground.

Electric powered wheels to help get to flying speed is a very good idea though. Acceleration is not jets strong point.

[Bob Kuykendall]

3D modeling makes for such pretty paper airplanes!

Bob K.

[Dan Marotta]

I didn't see an intake for that jet...

On 3/16/2015 7:56 PM, GR8 wrote:
> http://www.proairsport.com/

--
Dan Marotta

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 8:46:24 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I didn't see an intake for that jet...

It's there, it just isn't big enough.

http://www.proairsport.com/assets/img/Design.jpg

Bob K.

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 8:46:24 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I didn't see an intake for that jet...
>
>
>
>
> On 3/16/2015 7:56 PM, GR8 wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.proairsport.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan Marotta

"Turning the engine on (and off) is a simple automated procedure. A small airscoop is all that opens (and closes), the engine itself remains inside the fuselage, so in flight the turbine can be turned on and off easily with glide performance little affeced."

It is kinda cute.

[Dan Marotta]

"...kinda cute" - It is!

Bob K. says the intake is too small and, from the looks of it, I'd
agree. Maybe they'll incorporate spring loaded plenum doors which suck
in at low airspeed to provided the necessary air for the engine. As
airspeed and plenum pressure increase the doors close and ram pressure
provides all the needed air. I am a bit concerned, however, at having a
jet engine with as much as 1,000 deg C tail pipe temperature imbedded in
a FRP structure. Or is it a turbofan with a lot of bypass air to keep
things moderately cool?

CGI makes for a pretty airplane, but I'm not convinced of its viability.

On 3/17/2015 9:57 AM, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 8:46:24 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> I didn't see an intake for that jet...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/16/2015 7:56 PM, GR8 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.proairsport.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dan Marotta
> "Turning the engine on (and off) is a simple automated procedure. A small airscoop is all that opens (and closes), the engine itself remains inside the fuselage, so in flight the turbine can be turned on and off easily with glide performance little affeced."
>
> It is kinda cute.

--
Dan Marotta

[son_of_flubber]

"ProAirsport is currently building two demonstration aircraft (one each for the UK and US markets) with inaugural flights expected in September/October of 2015."

http://www.gizmag.com/glow-glider-microlight-hybrid-proairsport/36549/

They're also talking about a soaring engine-off UAV version. Investors must like idea.

Other planes/developers have previously demonstratred XC soaring with autopilots in model size gliders.

They say that the wings are proven components off-the-shelf (COTS). Might that be the PW_5 wing? Best L/D is similar.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Curious what wings it's using. From the "airframe section" on their webpage, sorta sounds like they're using wings that are already "JAR certified", thus on an existing aircraft......

[Dan Marotta]

Oh, goodie!

I can buy one and sit at home while it flies and streams video to my
smart TV. Shucks, it'll probably post better cross country flights than
I've been doing...

On 3/17/2015 11:39 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> "ProAirsport is currently building two demonstration aircraft (one each for the UK and US markets) with inaugural flights expected in September/October of 2015."
>
> http://www.gizmag.com/glow-glider-microlight-hybrid-proairsport/36549/
>
> They're also talking about a soaring engine-off UAV version. Investors must like idea.
>
> Other planes/developers have previously demonstratred XC soaring with autopilots in model size gliders.
>
> They say that the wings are proven components off-the-shelf (COTS). Might that be the PW_5 wing? Best L/D is similar.

--
Dan Marotta

[ND]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 1:56:56 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Curious what wings it's using. From the "airframe section" on their webpage, sorta sounds like they're using wings that are already "JAR certified", thus on an existing aircraft......

isn't it obvious? they look suspiciously similar to PW5 wings, and have the same span....

[Bruce Hoult]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 8:23:02 AM UTC+13, ND wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 1:56:56 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> > Curious what wings it's using. From the "airframe section" on their webpage, sorta sounds like they're using wings that are already "JAR certified", thus on an existing aircraft......
>
> isn't it obvious? they look suspiciously similar to PW5 wings, and have the same span....

Pod and canopy look like PW5 (except for pointed nose). Undercarriage position is PW5. Only the boom and tail feathers are significantly different. Even the maximum weight is the same, though the empty weight is 10 kg less, despite the engine and funky powered dual mainwheel.

[George Haeh]

The PW-5 lawn darts over 50 kt. It takes a
bunch of work to go places, but the thing
has a nose for thermals.

Pulling up the wheels might flatten the
polar.

Finding space for the battery, jet and fuel
looks a challenge.

If the fuselage will accept PW-5 wings,
there's lots of PW-5s that might convert.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 2:00:05 PM UTC+13, George Haeh wrote:
> The PW-5 lawn darts over 50 kt. It takes a
> bunch of work to go places, but the thing
> has a nose for thermals.

I've flown one or two hours in PW5, and even a few 250 or 300 km flights. It's worth flying 60 or 65 knots between thermals, but yes serious lawn dart by 80 knots (500 fpm down, 16:1)


> Pulling up the wheels might flatten the polar.

Doubt it. It's the very thick wings hurt it at speed. Personal experience says Januses and DG1000 Clubs both go just fine at 100 knots with the wheel hanging out.

[PBA]

This thing looks awesome! I want one.

[Vaughn]

On 3/16/2015 10:39 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 2:56:19 PM UTC+13, GR8 wrote:
>> http://www.proairsport.com/
>
> Those close-set main wheels aren't going to keep it level on rough ground.
>
> Electric powered wheels to help get to flying speed is a very good idea though. Acceleration is not jets strong point.
>
Since most of the energy for the launch (until you break ground, anyhow)
would be coming from the wheels, would this qualify as a ground launch?

Inquiring minds want to know...

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:19:08 PM UTC-5, Vaughn wrote:
>
> Since most of the energy for the launch (until you break ground, anyhow)
> would be coming from the wheels, would this qualify as a ground launch?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know...

Sorry, Vaughn. It would be considered a self launch. But, just for special effect, it would be cool to put clorox on the tires, so you could do a burnout as you are taking off!

[George Haeh]

I wonder about the tire footprint on grass fields. We might be seeing the
tires digging little trenches.

At 22:23 18 March 2015, Steve Leonard wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:19:08 PM UTC-5, Vaughn wrote:
>>
>> Since most of the energy for the launch (until you break ground, anyhow)

>> would be coming from the wheels, would this qualify as a ground launch?
>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know...

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 10:30:05 PM UTC-5, George Haeh wrote:
> I wonder about the tire footprint on grass fields. We might be seeing the
> tires digging little trenches.
>
> At 22:23 18 March 2015, Steve Leonard wrote:
> >On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:19:08 PM UTC-5, Vaughn wrote:
> >>
> >> Since most of the energy for the launch (until you break ground, anyhow)
>
> >> would be coming from the wheels, would this qualify as a ground launch?
> >>
> >> Inquiring minds want to know...

I'm looking forward to the burnouts on asphalt! This is a silly idea. You're better off with a bungee cord to get to take-off speed.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 3:15:48 AM UTC+13, wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 10:30:05 PM UTC-5, George Haeh wrote:
> > I wonder about the tire footprint on grass fields. We might be seeing the
> > tires digging little trenches.
> >
> > At 22:23 18 March 2015, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > >On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:19:08 PM UTC-5, Vaughn wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Since most of the energy for the launch (until you break ground, anyhow)
> >
> > >> would be coming from the wheels, would this qualify as a ground launch?
> > >>
> > >> Inquiring minds want to know...
>
> I'm looking forward to the burnouts on asphalt! This is a silly idea. You're better off with a bungee cord to get to take-off speed.

Why, other than the weight of the electric motor and battery?

Car tow would be better than bungee. But either needs to have someone else around to help.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:22:27 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> Why, other than the weight of the electric motor and battery?
>
Wheelspin around the liftoff speed would kill acceleration and may
lengthen the takeoff run, especially on wet grass.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Roger Hurley[_2_]]

At 14:38 19 March 2015, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:22:27 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
>> Why, other than the weight of the electric motor and battery?
>>
>Wheelspin around the liftoff speed would kill acceleration and may
>lengthen the takeoff run, especially on wet grass.
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

The aircraft sits on its mainwheels and nosewheel - the wing has a negative
angle of attack, no lift produced. Throughout the acceleration this
condition is maintained, until rotation speed is reached.

Independence, Operational Convenience, Simplicity, Lower Cost.

Questions to me via website.

R

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 12:00:08 PM UTC-5, Roger Hurley wrote:

> The aircraft sits on its mainwheels and nosewheel - the wing has a negative
> angle of attack, no lift produced. Throughout the acceleration this
> condition is maintained, until rotation speed is reached.
>
> Independence, Operational Convenience, Simplicity, Lower Cost.
>
> Questions to me via website.

Actually, Roger, I really like the idea of drive wheels for acceleration. Maybe because I had the same thought for being able to self launch a very light sailplane from a ridge site 25+ years ago. At the time, my thought was for a simple 12 volt battery (like most sailplanes have) to drive a model airplane electric starter motor, belt driving the wheel on the glider. Never was too keen on the idea of trying to launch in light wind, running while carrying and controling a flying machine.

Hope you weren't offended by my "burnout" comment. Looks like you are working to resolve the issues that we all face. Now, if we can get the production volume up on the jets to get the cost down...

Steve Leonard

[kirk.stant]

Interesting concept - wondering how many takeoffs are planned per battery charge?

And unless the tires (tyres?) are a bit wider, it might have trouble at some of the rougher grass fields I've flown from.

But a more important question: What does GloW mean? C'mon, guys, if you use a cute acronym (and you Brits are worse than us 'Muricans - QinetiQ, really?) at least explain how it was derived!

Kirk

[[email protected]]

The electric powered wheel is such a bad idea that Airbus has been testing it on airliners. Using it for taxi and acceleration during take off reduces fuel consumption considerably and shortens takeoff distance. Newer electric motors can produce tremendous amounts of torque and are much lighter. Just what you need for initial acceleration.

Current self launchers are many times equipped with finicky engines and complicated mechanics to expose the prop. When you need the lowest sink rate to prevent a land out, deploying the motor decreases the glider's performance to it's lowest.

If our sport is to survive, we need innovation. A low maintenance, affordable self launch could go a long way toward that goal.

Charlie

[Roger Hurley[_2_]]

At 09:40 20 March 2015, wrote:
>The electric powered wheel is such a bad idea that Airbus has been
testing
>=
>it on airliners. Using it for taxi and acceleration during take off
>reduces=
> fuel consumption considerably and shortens takeoff distance. Newer
>electri=
>c motors can produce tremendous amounts of torque and are much lighter.
>Jus=
>t what you need for initial acceleration.=20
>
>Current self launchers are many times equipped with finicky engines and
>com=
>plicated mechanics to expose the prop. When you need the lowest sink rate
>t=
>o prevent a land out, deploying the motor decreases the glider's
>performanc=
>e to it's lowest.
>
>If our sport is to survive, we need innovation. A low maintenance,
>affordab=
>le self launch could go a long way toward that goal.=20
>
>Charlie

Launch price now on the website www.proairsport.com - hit the Priority
Price button or go to Contact/Order in the menus.

We think this fits with the themes in Charlie's last para.

Roger

[[email protected]]

Neat, but what I wanna know is if I can use the electric motor to spin the wheels up before landing so I don't have to hear that screech and smell burning rubber when touching down on asphalt runways;-)

Seriously though, I'm wondering if they're keeping the electric motor light by relying on the fact that it will be used only for short bursts with long periods of rest. Sort of like a starter motor, it seems to me they could get the power they need in a lighter motor by running it at much higher than it's rated continuous output because it will do so only for a short time and then have a long cool odd period.