Folding wings

"mindenpilot" wrote

OK, you have to humor me on this.
I'm not talking about anything unrealistic (like Moller's skycar, etc).

***Unfortunately, it is unrealistic.

But what would prevent a design (even low performance/ultra light to
start)
that would allow a pilot to fly into an airport, then fold up his wings
and
cruise down surface streets at 45mph?

***Weight.

It doesn't sound that complex. I bet a homebuilder could do it with parts
laying around his garage.

***If it was not complex, it would have been done by now, by someone much
more brilliant than you and me.

The only serious issue I can think of is having a spinning prop on a city
street.
Even so, couldn't you "disengage" the prop and then couple the engine to
the
mains somehow?
I realize that is a bit more complex and would mean some kind of
transmission.

***Weight AND complexity, and lots of it.

I'm just throwing out ideas here.

It sure would be nice not to rent a car or get a taxi!
It also seems that there would be a MUCH larger interest in GA if people
could potentially commute this way.
For example, I would consider working in Reno and living in Minden if I
could fly into Reno, then commute to my work.

I'm serious about this, but I'm ready for the flames ;-)

Adam

No flames from me, but the problems are great, and the solutions are few.
In a world of building airplanes, you work to save ounces, and all the
things needed for your idea adds tens and fifties of pounds, for each extra
item needed.

A plane is said to be a system of compromises, flying in loose formation.
When you add all the extra stuff needed for an airplane car, it is way *too
* much of a compromise, and likely not be a good airplane, or car.
--
Jim in NC

***If it was not complex, it would have been done by now, by someone much
more brilliant than you and me.

I understand the point you're making, but I'm an optimist.
It doesn't take a genious to be an entrepreneur (thank goodness), otherwise
there would be a lot fewer businesses!
There are all kinds of high-tech approaches out there (as have been pointed
out to me).
While admirable, they may be making the problem (my specific application)
more complicated than it needs to be.


I propose a simple airframe, like a C-152, or heck, even a mini-MAX, whose
wings come off quickly.
For ground transportation, remove the wings, and add a cage around the prop
(like on powered parachutes).
Add some turn signals, brake lights, etc, and that's it.
Nothing more.
What more do you need?
Then you just taxi it.
It doesn't need to go on the freeway, just surface streets.



No flames from me, but the problems are great, and the solutions are few.
In a world of building airplanes, you work to save ounces, and all the
things needed for your idea adds tens and fifties of pounds, for each
extra
item needed.


For the added weight, is the solution as simple as adding power?
In the example I listed above, couldn't you put a 200HP engine (as an
example) onto the smaller airframe to make up for any added weight?



A plane is said to be a system of compromises, flying in loose formation.
When you add all the extra stuff needed for an airplane car, it is way
*too
* much of a compromise, and likely not be a good airplane, or car.
--
Jim in NC


Again, I don't think (at first), the design needs to be particularly good at
either flying or driving.
Proof of concept is all I would be looking for initially.
If it flew reasonably well for short commuter trips, and was able to
negotiate the surface streets, that would be great.

I bet more than one reader of this group (maybe the homebuilt group) could
hack something together in no time.
It would then be reasonably easy to get it certified as experimental.
What about certified to drive on the road?
Keep in mind the golf carts that are road legal...

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

"mindenpilot" wrote

For the added weight, is the solution as simple as adding power?
In the example I listed above, couldn't you put a 200HP engine (as an
example) onto the smaller airframe to make up for any added weight?

Now I have to flame.

For you to ask a question, like the one above, shows you have little
understanding of engineering or design. You are clueless. You don't have
a chance of making your proposal working, or even a chance of understanding
enough to discuss it in a rational manner.

Stick to flying, and forget the designing. Bye.
--
Jim in NC

I wonder how many times the Wright Brothers heard this statement or
something like it.

I agree the challenges are great and his statement ignores many
engineering issues that are required for adding additional weight to
the airplane (i.e. Additional wing area required, Addtional structure
required, the Addtional weight of these additional structures) I can
come up with many well reasoned and logical reasons why it won't work.

I think the Wright brothers were probably in the same boat when they
started, But their greatest acheivement was their ability to solve
difficult problems and question and attempt to prove or disprove all
the known issues. They started off with little understanding of
engineering and design (related to aircraft) and were clueless as to
the what it would take to acheive flight, So they taught themselves in
a way that no one else had and as result were successful.

I remember when the Rubik's cube 1st came out I had no Idea how it
could do what they it did. After I had disassembled it it seemed easy.

I am careful to tell people what the can't do, while most will fail. A
few are just clueless and crazy enought to be succesfull.

Brian

"Brian" wrote in message
oups.com...
I wonder how many times the Wright Brothers heard this statement or
something like it.

I agree the challenges are great and his statement ignores many
engineering issues that are required for adding additional weight to
the airplane (i.e. Additional wing area required, Addtional structure
required, the Addtional weight of these additional structures) I can
come up with many well reasoned and logical reasons why it won't work.

I think the Wright brothers were probably in the same boat when they
started, But their greatest acheivement was their ability to solve
difficult problems and question and attempt to prove or disprove all
the known issues. They started off with little understanding of
engineering and design (related to aircraft) and were clueless as to
the what it would take to acheive flight, So they taught themselves in
a way that no one else had and as result were successful.

I remember when the Rubik's cube 1st came out I had no Idea how it
could do what they it did. After I had disassembled it it seemed easy.

I am careful to tell people what the can't do, while most will fail. A
few are just clueless and crazy enought to be succesfull.

Brian


My thoughts exactly. I was prepared for the flames, but this was my
underlying belief.
BTW, I am an exceptionally accomplished engineer, which is perhaps why some
things seem more possible to me than to others.

Once more, I am not proposing anything pretty or elegant at first, just
something that will work.
Hell, a mini-MAX will work right now (aside from street-legal issues).
It will fly, the wings come off in 10 minutes, then you could taxi it.

Let's make it more elegant from there...

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:14:33 -0800, "mindenpilot"
wrote:

Once more, I am not proposing anything pretty or elegant at first, just
something that will work.
Hell, a mini-MAX will work right now (aside from street-legal issues).
It will fly, the wings come off in 10 minutes, then you could taxi it.

Let's make it more elegant from there...

Motivation wise, you might consider an electric motor. Electric motors
have great torque all the way from the bottom so you could effectively
do away with a gearbox which would have been extra weight. For very
short distances, you could run it from the battery. Since you can't
afford the weight of a big battery pack, if you want to go a little
further, you would need to run the engine to keep it charged which
would mean you would need to be able to disconnect the prop. That
would either mean a clutch or perhaps removing the prop when you
remove the wings.

Something else that occurs to me is that the triangular arrangement of
the landing gear is (presumably) to somewhat absorb the impact of the
landing. Since this is not required on the road, you might want to be
able to widen the triangle to provide extra stability from a broader
wheelbase and a lower center of gravity. It might be possible to add
this without too much extra weight...

Rich

--
An animal so poor in spirit that he won't even fight on his own behalf
is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed
is crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes.
--R.A.Heinlein

...Add some turn signals, brake lights, etc, and that's it...

Whatever the contraption, could you take it around an obstacle course?
To my knowledge there's only one tricycle CAR in the world (it's
British). There's a reason.

For the added weight, is the solution as simple as adding power?

We did this with model rockets - took a little one designed for a 1/4A
engine and put a C6-5 in it. The engine went higher than we could
track, the fins remained on the launch pad.

For the added weight, is the solution as simple as adding power?

I'm pretty sure it's already been done. But there's a bit more to it
than just taxiing on the street. It needs to be safe on the street.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:13:56 GMT, Jose
wrote:

...Add some turn signals, brake lights, etc, and that's it...

Whatever the contraption, could you take it around an obstacle course?
To my knowledge there's only one tricycle CAR in the world (it's
British). There's a reason.

Hmmm, a small ATV with a detachable powered chute? You won't get
anywhere fast but a big enough chute might carry the thing.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:13:56 GMT, Jose
wrote:

...Add some turn signals, brake lights, etc, and that's it...

Whatever the contraption, could you take it around an obstacle course?
To my knowledge there's only one tricycle CAR in the world (it's
British). There's a reason.

Hmmm, a small ATV with a detachable powered chute? You won't get
anywhere fast but a big enough chute might carry the thing.

Corky Scott

Not quite what I had in mind, but check this out:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...sPageName=WDVW

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

"mindenpilot" wrote

Not quite what I had in mind, but check this out:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...sPageName=WDVW

Just curious, but did you notice the cruise speed, and the maximum wind
speed at launch time?
--
Jim in NC