another design concept

[Brad[_2_]]

Just got this link from a buddy of mine.

http://www.lisa-airplanes.com/index-uk.php

Not sure I understand the "landing gear" concept!

Brad

[Bob Kuykendall]

It's Rhino-tastic!

Bob K.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Brad wrote:
>Just got this link from a buddy of mine.
>Not sure I understand the "landing gear" concept!
>
>Brad

I s'pect its a seaplane.

gots no wheels

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[sisu1a]

On Aug 4, 11:03 am, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> Brad wrote:
> >Just got this link from a buddy of mine.
> >Not sure I understand the "landing gear" concept!
>
> >Brad
>
> I s'pect its a seaplane.
>
> gots no wheels
>
> --
> Message posted viahttp://www.aviationkb.com

It's an amphib, it DOES has wheels. They just fully retract and leave
the dolphin fins protruding (watch the video on the site). Pretty neat
looking new plane (although to me it kinda looks like an
aerodynamically cleaned up Icon A5 that was rearranged to pull instead
of push http://www.iconaircraft.com/news-gallery.html)

Wait a minute...this thing has Hydrogen on board...let the hating
begin!

-Paul

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 4, 11:44*am, sisu1a > wrote:
> It's an amphib, it DOES has wheels. They just fully retract and leave
> the dolphin fins protruding (watch the video on the site)...

Well, yeah. It also has no step. And whenever I see a fantastic new
amphib or seaplane design without a step, I wonder, "have these guys
ever actually had to unstick an airplane from water?" And too nearly
always, the answer is, no, they haven't.

Bob K.

[Mike the Strike]

On Aug 4, 12:22*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Aug 4, 11:44*am, sisu1a > wrote:
>
> > It's an amphib, it DOES has wheels. They just fully retract and leave
> > the dolphin fins protruding (watch the video on the site)...
>
> Well, yeah. It also has no step. And whenever I see a fantastic new
> amphib or seaplane design without a step, I wonder, "have these guys
> ever actually had to unstick an airplane from water?" And too nearly
> always, the answer is, no, they haven't.
>
> Bob K.

I suspect the hydrofoils lift the fuselage out of the water, removing
the need for a step. They did do testing with scale models, so it
might actually work.

Did you note that the canopy was equipped with a yaw string? One of
the benefits of sticking the engine behind you.

Mike

[Andy[_1_]]

On Aug 4, 10:17*am, Brad > wrote:
> Just got this link from a buddy of mine.
>
> http://www.lisa-airplanes.com/index-uk.php
>
> Not sure I understand the "landing gear" concept!
>
> Brad

If you watch the video you'll see the concept airplane has retractable
gear with wheels and, according to commentary, also selectable snow
skis. The video also shows the airplane flying but, based on the
absence of any gear doors being visible, I'd assume that the flying
model is a fixed gear prototype.

I'd like to see video of the first water landing to see if the foils
work as intended.


Andy

[noel.wade]

....Uhhh, does anyone else think this plane looks an AWFUL lot like a
Seawind?

And if so, does anyone else realize how LONG and nasty the Seawind
development/certification process has been? And these guys want to
add foils and other complications on top of the structural and
aerodynamic concerns of a high-mounted engine on the tail? Oof!

I don't care what a concept or prototype version can do, if you're
aiming for a production aircraft... See the Adam Aircraft A700
problems, or any one of a number of other aircraft in recent years
that had great flying prototypes but utterly failed when it came to a
production run. Making a single flyable aircraft is a totally
_different_ challenge from making an aircraft that can be serially
manufactured. There are many (sometimes competing) complications when
you have to take manufacturing processes and labor into account!

--Noel

[bagmaker]

Uhhh, does anyone else think this plane looks an AWFUL lot like a
Seawind?

And if so, does anyone else realize how LONG and nasty the Seawind
development/certification process has been? And these guys want to
add foils and other complications on top of the structural and
aerodynamic concerns of a high-mounted engine on the tail? Oof!

I don't care what a concept or prototype version can do, if you're
aiming for a production aircraft... See the Adam Aircraft A700
problems, or any one of a number of other aircraft in recent years
that had great flying prototypes but utterly failed when it came to a
production run. Making a single flyable aircraft is a totally
_different_ challenge from making an aircraft that can be serially
manufactured. There are many (sometimes competing) complications when
you have to take manufacturing processes and labor into account!

--Noel



The difference may well be that the Adam and the Seawind are produced by people in the land of litigation, USA.

It do look similar to a Seawind, thats fur shur!

Bagger

[noel.wade]

On Aug 5, 2:28*am, bagmaker >
wrote:

> The difference may well be that the Adam and the Seawind are produced
> by people in the land of litigation, USA.

While I don't disagree with your statement, litigation has NOTHING to
do with the failure of those companies. Design problems do. Both
companies produced exellent concepts and prototype vehicles. But they
severely underestimated the design and manufacturing requirements of a
production vehicle. This led to serious delays and cost overruns as
they had to re-design the aircraft multiple times, and tweak their
production processes to get something that could actually be
manufactured in a reasonable manner.

Take care,

--Noel

[Gary Emerson]

Here's another cool looking 2 place. Looks very similar to a BD-5, but
better!

http://www.lhaviation.com/site_frame/bases_marges/index.htm