If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Homebuilt Question
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Homebuilt Question
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Homebuilt Question
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? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Homebuilt Question
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Homebuilt Question
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Homebuilt Question
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Homebuilt Question
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 ? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Homebuilt Question
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Homebuilt Question
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 | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |