Roadable Aircraft ... What about this?

[[email protected]]

I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.

I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:

http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm

Thanks
-Adam

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 5 Mar 2006 08:49:17 -0800, wrote:

>I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
>with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
>limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.
>
>I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:
>
>http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

"To invent an airplane is nothing. To build an airplane is something. But to
fly is everything."

- Otto Lilienthal

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Lamb]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>
> "To invent an airplane is nothing. To build an airplane is something. But to
> fly is everything."
>
> - Otto Lilienthal
>
> Ron Wanttaja

picky. picky. picky...

http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/sm-j-01.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/sm-j-02.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/sm-j-04.jpg

Sonny Mosel's Fisher Jungster
(with extruded aluminum angle fuselage construction :) )

[Richard Riley]

The exposed bike and rider are going to create considerable drag. To
get to reasonable cruise speeds - I'm guessing 100-120 mph or so, to be
enough faster than a bike to make it worthwhile - it's going to take a
bigger engine than you think.

It's going to be difficult to adequately belt the pilot down (in?) if
he's sitting on a bike.

No IFR, of course, no space for a panel

Dealing with 100+ mph wind blast for an extended period is going to be
taxing.

No reason you can't have a conventional side stick for aileron and
elevator. Yes, you have enough degrees of freedom in handlebars, 2
twist grips and 2 grip levers. But it would mean a lot of training to
unlearn regular aircraft controls.

It comes down to defining your mission. If your goal is to ride your
motorcycle through the air, you may have a reasonable answer. If it's
to fly somewhere with your motorcycle, I'd lean toward a more
conventional airplane that can hoist or ramp a motorcycle inside, and
unload at the other end.

[Montblack]

wrote)
> I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:
>
> http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/
>
> And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
> http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm


Why not revisit the Wright Brothers design - a fitted belt, around the rear
tire, up to a big slow turning pusher prop?

Just a thought...


Montblack
I wonder if gyroscopic(?) forces (with the rear spinning tire) would make
banking difficult? :-)

[Montblack]

("Montblack" wrote)
>> And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
>> http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm

> Why not revisit the Wright Brothers design - a fitted belt, around the
> rear tire, up to a big slow turning pusher prop?


Or:
....a second sprocket or hub - don't use the rear tire.
....a belt/pulley setup, off the engine - like an old tractor.

Just a thought...


Montblack

[Kyle Boatright]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
> with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
> limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.
>
> I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:
>
> http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/
>
> And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
> http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm
>
> Thanks
> -Adam

Usually, the flying car concept is offered as a new, improved way to
commute. Wouldn't it be easier to have an airplane that isn't compromised
with the unnecessary weight of a motorcycle and position a motorcycle at
each end of the commute?

The compromises of a flying car (or motorcycle) tend to more or less ruin
the craft's utility in one or both roles.

[Bill Daniels]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
oups.com...
Snip-------


If it's
> to fly somewhere with your motorcycle, I'd lean toward a more
> conventional airplane that can hoist or ramp a motorcycle inside, and
> unload at the other end.
>

A single engine airplane specifically designed to haul a medium weight
motorcycle at good cruise speeds seems a very worthwhile thing. I wonder
why someone hasn't done it.

Bill Daniels

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Montblack wrote:
> > wrote)
> > > I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:
> > >
> > > http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/
> > >
> > > And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
> > > http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm
> >
> >
> > Why not revisit the Wright Brothers design - a fitted belt, around the rear
> > tire, up to a big slow turning pusher prop?
> >
> > Just a thought...
> >
>
> BMW had (has?) a shaft driven motorcycle. You could
> have a PTO and clutch that would select between the
> drive shaft and a belt or chain drive for the prop.

Ever seen a shaft-driven bicycle? There were some about 100 years ago.

[Montblack]

("Kyle Boatright" wrote)
[snip]
>> http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/
>>
>> http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm

> Wouldn't it be easier to have an airplane that isn't compromised with the
> unnecessary weight of a motorcycle and position a motorcycle at each end
> of the commute?


That's great for Point (A) to Point (B) travel ...forgetting, for a moment,
about the other (24) letters in the alphabet.


Montblack

[Mike Gaskins]

They still make them actually.

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>On 5 Mar 2006 08:49:17 -0800, wrote:
>
>>I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
>>with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
>>limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.
>>
>>I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:
>>
>>http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/
>
>"To invent an airplane is nothing. To build an airplane is something.
> But to
>fly is everything."
>
> - Otto Lilienthal
>
>Ron Wanttaja

I stayed quiet for a couple of days so he could get the feedback that
he wanted. Ron summed it up the best.

This guy did pretty much the same thing on the sport_pilot Yahoo list.
During the discussion it came out that all they have is an idea (that
isn't even orginial), a web site and a lot of guts. No one associated
with it has any aviation experience at all and he refuses to name the
so called "designer" that he hopes will get involved.

He is actually accepting deposits at this stage. Does this remind you
of any other companies:)

[ngreader]

"sleepy6" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >On 5 Mar 2006 08:49:17 -0800, wrote:
> >
> >>I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
> >>with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
> >>limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.
> >>
> >>I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:
> >>
> >>http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

It states "Target price $49,300 (including fight motor and motorcycle)"

Air to air fighting I presume?

[Dan]

Montblack wrote:
> wrote)
>> I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:
>>
>> http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/
>>
>> And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
>> http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm
>
>
> Why not revisit the Wright Brothers design - a fitted belt, around the
> rear tire, up to a big slow turning pusher prop?
>
> Just a thought...
>
>
> Montblack
> I wonder if gyroscopic(?) forces (with the rear spinning tire) would
> make banking difficult? :-)

Heading hold?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Montblack wrote:

> That's great for Point (A) to Point (B) travel ...forgetting, for a moment,
> about the other (24) letters in the alphabet.

I'll bet that if you bought a Cezzna 150, and then five times a year
paid $1000 to buy a beater bike in whatever town you're visiting, you'd
have better speed and better handling at a lower overall cost. You
could also recoup a bunch of that by donating the bikes to charity and
claiming the deduction.

[AINut]

Nearly $50K??? Too danged expensive. Maybe $10k.

David M.


wrote:

> I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
> with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
> limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.
>
> I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:
>
> http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/
>
> And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
> http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm
>
> Thanks
> -Adam
>

[Smitty Two]

In article om>,
wrote:

> I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
> with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
> limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.
>
> I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:
>
> http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/
>
> And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
> http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm
>
> Thanks
> -Adam

Yeah, well, I'll try to keep it polite, Mr. Wolff, since I'm always
asking others to do so. I'm hardly in a position to evaluate a product
that doesn't exist, so I can't comment on its merits or faults. But,
morally, I don't think you ought to be taking deposits for a product
that doesn't exist, nor selling dealerships for it.

[[email protected]]

I understand your concerns, and I've taken some heat for this. The web
site and our agreements state clearly that we will take deposits in
escrow -- our account or yours, however you may want to set it up --
and we would do the same for dealers.

Our goal with this is two-fold: 1) to offer early adopters and others
as excited about the concept as we are first dibs, and 2) to have
something concrete to show investors with a product for which the
market is somewhat nebulous.

I know that people have gotten burned in similar situations, and we
have done our best to protect both ourselves and any potential
customers.

Thanks
-Adam

Smitty Two wrote:
> In article om>,
> wrote:
>
> > I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
> > with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
> > limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.
> >
> > I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:
> >
> > http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/
> >
> > And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
> > http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Adam
>
> Yeah, well, I'll try to keep it polite, Mr. Wolff, since I'm always
> asking others to do so. I'm hardly in a position to evaluate a product
> that doesn't exist, so I can't comment on its merits or faults. But,
> morally, I don't think you ought to be taking deposits for a product
> that doesn't exist, nor selling dealerships for it.

[Rory]

said the following on 3/8/2006 1:52 PM:

> I understand your concerns, and I've taken some heat for this. The web
> site and our agreements state clearly that we will take deposits in
> escrow -- our account or yours, however you may want to set it up --
> and we would do the same for dealers.
>
> Our goal with this is two-fold: 1) to offer early adopters and others
> as excited about the concept as we are first dibs, and 2) to have
> something concrete to show investors with a product for which the
> market is somewhat nebulous.
>
> I know that people have gotten burned in similar situations, and we
> have done our best to protect both ourselves and any potential
> customers.
>
> Thanks
> -Adam
>

Twin engine cannot be operated under LSA. Read the reg. Single engine only.

[Richard Lamb]

Rory wrote:

snipped adam's goals

>>
>
> Twin engine cannot be operated under LSA. Read the reg. Single engine only.
>
>

That's what the man said.

So this one would have to be experimental.

http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/262-side.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/262-top.jpg
and -front.

Richard

[Richard Riley]

I seem to recall a homebuilt that didn't succeed in the market. 4
landing gear, V8 engine, swing away tail, fuselage made to haul 1000
pounds of 4x8 plywood. Not ideal for this mission, but a good start.
Can't remember the name.

Or, there's this - http://www.coastcomp.com/av/fltline2/avion.htm

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 8 Mar 2006 17:22:52 -0800, "Richard Riley" > wrote:

>I seem to recall a homebuilt that didn't succeed in the market. 4
>landing gear, V8 engine, swing away tail, fuselage made to haul 1000
>pounds of 4x8 plywood. Not ideal for this mission, but a good start.
>Can't remember the name.

O'Neill Magnum.

And you a fellow Irishman.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Riley]

Well, you know what all that whisky does to one's memory.... But I
think that's the one.

[Montblack]

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
> O'Neill Magnum.


Not much info...
http://www.aerofiles.com/_o.html
Scroll down to O'Neil


MontblackIrish

[Montblack]

("Rory" wrote)
> Twin engine cannot be operated under LSA. Read the reg. Single engine
> only.


Part 103 doesn't have such a burdensome reg ...or that LSA turbine
prohabition, either. :-)


http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1E4215CC
CriCri (twin) at airliners.net

http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
Turbine powered CriCri
(170 Kg is Gross Weight)


Montblack
"Heck, I'M not 103 legal."

[Richard Lamb]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Rory" wrote)
>
>> Twin engine cannot be operated under LSA. Read the reg. Single engine
>> only.
>
>
>
> Part 103 doesn't have such a burdensome reg ...or that LSA turbine
> prohabition, either. :-)
>
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1E4215CC
> CriCri (twin) at airliners.net
>
> http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
> Turbine powered CriCri
> (170 Kg is Gross Weight)
>
>
> Montblack
> "Heck, I'M not 103 legal."

more than five gallons of gas, Monty?
or over stall speed?

cri-cri is cute, but at 360 pounds and 36 pounds thrust
I bet acceleration is a bit underwhelming...

[Richard Lamb]

Montblack wrote:

> ("Rory" wrote)
>
>> Twin engine cannot be operated under LSA. Read the reg. Single engine
>> only.
>
>
>
> Part 103 doesn't have such a burdensome reg ...or that LSA turbine
> prohabition, either. :-)
>
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1E4215CC
> CriCri (twin) at airliners.net
>
> http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
> Turbine powered CriCri
> (170 Kg is Gross Weight)
>
>
> Montblack
> "Heck, I'M not 103 legal."

doh!
360 pounds and 36 KILOS thrust!

That night be more fun after all.

[Montblack]

("Richard Lamb" wrote)
>> Montblack
>> "Heck, I'M not 103 legal."

> more than five gallons of gas, Monty?


Yeah... that's it. Sure, that gas thing. Yup, too much gas.

No other 103 references here folks. Move along now...


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Montblack" wrote)
> Not much info...
> http://www.aerofiles.com/_o.html
> Scroll down to O'Neil


I just noticed something on this page:
http://www.aerofiles.com/_o.html

The bottom of the page is clever and, and, and ...kind of cute

....in a manly airplane kind of way. :-)


Montblack
Hadn't seen that design employed before.