Homebuilt Question

**Mark IV[_6_]** · January 3rd 13, 03:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

On Jan 2, 11:07*am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:34:24 PM UTC-5, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article

,

*Mark IV wrote:

On Jan 1, 5:20 pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

The answer is simple: It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. It

does not have to meet any certification standards. It only has to have

the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built

for "education or recreation". The unusual control system is moot, as

is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. The FAA

doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.

What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test

area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before

the plane can be flown outside the area.

Ron Wanttaja

On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:

I'm wonder how this would play

out:

a. Person designs a unique plane,

one of a kind, no other ones to

compare it to.

b. It is a single-seater.

c. It has unique control surfaces,

and only someone "trained" can

fly it.

d. Gear is retractable.

e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".

Now, how would this plane be certified?

No one else can fly it. Much of the

technology is sealed beneath carbon

fiber. No one knows how fast it goes.

It is homebuilt. Builder is willing to

concede that it isn't lightsport.

Thank you all for your input, as amateur-built

is new to me. *Interesting note: *Shortly after

posting my question I ran into a very nice fellow

(Joe) who was wearing a "Reno Air Races" ball

cap and we struck up a conversation. *It wasn't

long before he was pulling photos out of his

wallet of the planes he built over the years, including

entries for Reno. *His specialty now is Zenair STOL's.

Anyway, Joe's dad (who is in his 90's) has

served in some capacity with Flight Certification

over the years and much information was shared

with me. *Seems the main thing is, they will need

entry ports of observation to check for safety wires,

and other such basic requirements. The time will

have to be flown off the plane, and technically,

being experimental, it isn't supposed to be flown

over population centers.

So... you all are right.

Thanks.

---

Mark

My question:

Why does it have to have a unique, nonstandard control system that

nobody else can fly without special training?

It seem to me that it violates a very important principle that has cost

dearly -- namely the KISS Principle, or: Keep It Simple, Stupid!

It's a little complicated, and goes all
the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
Mr. Northrop. *Coming forward in time, look
at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
as well as the X47B and others like it depend
on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
software from the Moog corporation.

To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
limited moments at high g's.

---
Mark

It is Edwards AFB, named after Maj. Glen Edwards, who was kille in a
crash of the YB-49, not Andrews AFB.

Correct. (also I should have spelled it Horten)

If you have a FBW system, it is best to set up the manual controls so
that they emulate standard control systems -- a-la F-16, rather than
introduce a lot of specialty controls that you have to learn, and which
can get you into trouble in high workload situations.

It is semi-standard, but involves electromechanical
actuators and glass panel unique to this craft.

The above-cited aircraft have controls which resemble standard controls
and respond in a similar fashion.

**Mark IV[_6_]** · January 3rd 13, 03:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

On Jan 2, 12:48*pm, wrote:
wrote:
It's a little complicated, and goes all
the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
Mr. Northrop. *Coming forward in time, look
at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
as well as the X47B and others like it depend
on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
software from the Moog corporation.

Mostly because the airplanes are basically unstable as hell and absent
computer stabilizaton they would likely fall out of the air.

They're extremely stable 95% of the time, and superior
to a "flying tube with wings". The only drawback was in
that other 5% of the time, in which you die.

That is one of the big reasons why Mr. Northrop's original flying wings
were a failure; there were no computer stabilizaton systems back then.

Well, the Hortens, Northrop, the Davis Wing, and
many more never really had an adequate design for
their trailing edges and CG's. This has all been
worked out now.

To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
limited moments at high g's.

More to keep the top side up and the front end pointed ahead.

Nah, Mostly yawing.

---
Mark

**[email protected]** · January 3rd 13, 04:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

Mark IV wrote:
On Jan 2, 12:48Â*pm, wrote:
wrote:
It's a little complicated, and goes all
the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
Mr. Northrop. Â*Coming forward in time, look
at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
as well as the X47B and others like it depend
on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
software from the Moog corporation.

Mostly because the airplanes are basically unstable as hell and absent
computer stabilizaton they would likely fall out of the air.

They're extremely stable 95% of the time, and superior
to a "flying tube with wings". The only drawback was in
that other 5% of the time, in which you die.

That is one of the big reasons why Mr. Northrop's original flying wings
were a failure; there were no computer stabilizaton systems back then.

Well, the Hortens, Northrop, the Davis Wing, and
many more never really had an adequate design for
their trailing edges and CG's. This has all been
worked out now.

To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
limited moments at high g's.

More to keep the top side up and the front end pointed ahead.

Nah, Mostly yawing.

What planet do you live on?

**Mark IV[_6_]** · January 3rd 13, 11:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

On Jan 2, 11:48*pm, wrote:
Mark IV wrote:
On Jan 2, 12:48*pm, wrote:
wrote:
It's a little complicated, and goes all
the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
Mr. Northrop. *Coming forward in time, look
at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
as well as the X47B and others like it depend
on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
software from the Moog corporation.

Mostly because the airplanes are basically unstable as hell and absent
computer stabilizaton they would likely fall out of the air.

They're extremely stable 95% of the time, and superior
to a "flying tube with wings". *The only drawback was in
that other 5% of the time, in which you die.

That is one of the big reasons why Mr. Northrop's original flying wings
were a failure; there were no computer stabilizaton systems back then.

Well, the Hortens, Northrop, the Davis Wing, and
many more never really had an adequate design for
their trailing edges and CG's. *This has all been
worked out now.

To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
limited moments at high g's.

More to keep the top side up and the front end pointed ahead.

Nah, Mostly yawing.

What planet do you live on?

Er... well, have you researched the B2 spirit
in detail ever? Or the X47B? Do you know what
the designers at Boeing are leaning towards
these days?

Ok, here's another tip about future flight
besides electric:

Within 20 years ALL AIRPLANES will be some
derivative of the "blended body" or "lifting body"
or "flying wing". All of them. They're way more
efficient. The days of the flying tube are soon
coming to an end, except for historical novelty flights.

---
Mark

**[email protected]** · January 4th 13, 12:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

Mark IV wrote:

Er... well, have you researched the B2 spirit
in detail ever? Or the X47B? Do you know what
the designers at Boeing are leaning towards
these days?

What is your point?

Flying wings are intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer
control no matter how much you babble about leading edges.

Both of those airplanes are high specialized as to purpose and immensely
expensive.

Ok, here's another tip about future flight
besides electric:

Within 20 years ALL AIRPLANES will be some
derivative of the "blended body" or "lifting body"
or "flying wing". All of them. They're way more
efficient. The days of the flying tube are soon
coming to an end, except for historical novelty flights.

Nonsense.

Efficiency is but one criteria for an airplane and may matter a lot to
airliners but not so much for anything else.

Cost is also a criteria for many airplanes and an airplane that has to
have a computer control to fly at all is not cheap.

Other conciderations beyond efficiency; low speed characteristics,
short field characteristics, high speed characteristics, stability.

Yeah, there will likely be variations on the blended body concept for
airliners and aircraft that haul freight, and maybe another flying wing,
but not likely.

Note that neither the F-22 or F-35 are flying wings and are not that
much different in form than the F-102 designed in 1950.

**Dylan Smith[_2_]** · January 9th 13, 02:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

On 2013-01-04, wrote:
Flying wings are intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer
control no matter how much you babble about leading edges.

The Facetmobile was reputedly not difficult to fly and "departure
resistant" (says the website). It doesn't classify itself as a
"flying wing" but it certainly falls into the category of lifting
body type aircraft.

http://www.facetmobile.com/

It was damaged in an off-airport landing after an engine failure
and subsequent collision with a barbed wire fence, so hasn't flown
in a while.

**george152** · January 9th 13, 07:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

On 10/01/13 03:08, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2013-01-04, wrote:
Flying wings are intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer
control no matter how much you babble about leading edges.

The Facetmobile was reputedly not difficult to fly and "departure
resistant" (says the website). It doesn't classify itself as a
"flying wing" but it certainly falls into the category of lifting
body type aircraft.

http://www.facetmobile.com/

It was damaged in an off-airport landing after an engine failure
and subsequent collision with a barbed wire fence, so hasn't flown
in a while.

Is it flying nose high or is that some sort of perspective fault with
the camera ?

**[email protected]** · January 10th 13, 04:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

**Mark IV[_6_]** · January 10th 13, 04:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

On Jan 3, 7:11*pm, wrote:
Mark IV wrote:
Er... well, have you researched the B2 spirit
in detail ever? *Or the X47B? *Do you know what
the designers at Boeing are leaning towards
these days?

What is your point?

It's self-evident.

Flying wings are intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer
control no matter how much you babble about leading edges.

That's not what the people who fly them say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuIFvNA1UgU

If flying wings are "intrinsically unstable", then why
did millions of years of evolution not produce birds
with vertical stabilizers.

And that was "trailing edge", not leading.

--
Mark

**Bob Moore** · January 10th 13, 05:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

Mark IV wrote
If flying wings are "intrinsically unstable", then why
did millions of years of evolution not produce birds
with vertical stabilizers.

Probably because nature has provided them with built-in
computer controled stability provided by the brain.

As humans, we also have brain controlled stability. If
not, we would not be able to stand nor walk.

Bob

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
History question: homebuilt pushers	[email protected]	Home Built	7	May 3rd 07 03:51 PM
FSBO Question - rec.aviation.homebuilt	Gary T. Ciampa	Home Built	2	August 2nd 06 10:37 PM
homebuilt glider question	Stealth Pilot	Soaring	9	July 10th 06 09:40 PM
Electrical Question for Experimental Homebuilt	Dick	Home Built	1	March 30th 05 01:52 AM
question on intercoms for my new homebuilt	w b evans	Home Built	1	July 23rd 03 12:57 AM