I have been thinking the ways to achieve a design and implementation of a dream aircraft, and have concluded that it has to go in more than one step, so I was thinking the following milestones:
1. Unpressurized version, with a single turbo and fuel injection kit per engine. Possibly with a cabin similar to seen in Orka, avoid the manufacture of the doors. Woodcomp CS propellers. Target cruise altitude = 25000-30000 ft with supplemental oxygen. Corners cut where necessary to just get it done. No active boundary layer control, no wing tip propellers etc., rely on natural laminar flow to achieve efficiency. Unstable release of plans, calculations etc. Version A.
2. Open source plans stable release for the version A (CNC code, 3D models, 2D drawings, construction plans, layup schedules). Flight testing gives the final specifications for version B and ideas what to change to version B. Version A prototype is in use.
3. Optimized version of the above, version B. Modifications to version A prototype, version A becomes version B.
4. Stable release of version B plans (CNC code, 3D models, 2D drawings, construction plans, layup schedules). Version B might be alternative for a basis of a kit.
5. Pressurized version with doors, twin turbos per engine, intercooler and aftercooler per engine, computer controlled waste gates, and hybrid turbo compounding with two electric motors where one is functioning as generator and the the other runs the compounding. Possibly longer wings for high altitude flight. MT propeller or other higher end propellers. Possibly aerodynamic design changes, based on issues found in versions A and B and other improvements. Version C.
6. Open source plans stable release for the version C (CNC code, 3D models, 2D drawings, construction plans, layup schedules). Version C is a completely new aircraft and thus version B and version C coexists.
There are at least two milestones before 1.
-1 = concepting and collecting information, and creating needed softwares (present)
0 = initial concepting freezes, and version control repository (e.g. svn) exists for all data and there is a web page for the project.
2 comments:
Well, the Orka plane looks very much like one of my designs. I have a tandem 2 seater design with mid wing and single turbo engine with "tail through pusher propeller spinner" .. yes.
Fokker had once one similar design. My version should be faster and have better range than the Orka due to design differences. Also the whole wing is clean to have lot of flaps, so the cruise wing should be smaller than Orka's. I like my "tail through the spinner" idea.
It has also several other great features, which I am not going to put public yet.. :)
I have seen such propeller configuration in some German WW2 design. I think it is not very easy to implement, so that is why I haven't kept that as a viable alternative. If you can make it work, I would love to see your plane being successful with it.
Midwing is aerodynamically best position, though it depends. I have been thinking between low, mid and high wing positions, and the issue with low wing and mid wing positions are that the engine clearance to the ground gets low. On the other hand, with high wing position, if the landing gear sticks out of the engine pod, has to be very long, which is undesirable (read: heavy). Low wing position would be most practical for use of space, however, it is not very practical position with the pusher engine, so at least midwing it has to be it seems.
The problem of putting engine pods in wings is in twin design quite unavoidable, and using the pusher prop, may interrupt the flaps badly. In the tractor prop in the DA42, they have made a choice to use split flaps on the wings instead of the more efficient slotted type flaps found in other Diamond models possibly because of this (otherwise the engine pod would have blocked too much out of the flap area).
With high aspect ratio though, the available wing length for the flap, relative to the engine pod size, is quite high even if the engine pod interrupts the flap.
Post a Comment