Roadable Aircraft ... What about this?

I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.

I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:

http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm

Thanks
-Adam

On 5 Mar 2006 08:49:17 -0800, wrote:

I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.

I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:

http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

"To invent an airplane is nothing. To build an airplane is something. But to
fly is everything."

- Otto Lilienthal

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


"To invent an airplane is nothing. To build an airplane is something. But to
fly is everything."

- Otto Lilienthal

Ron Wanttaja

picky. picky. picky...

http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/sm-j-01.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/sm-j-02.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/sm-j-04.jpg

Sonny Mosel's Fisher Jungster
(with extruded aluminum angle fuselage construction )

In article ,
says...

On 5 Mar 2006 08:49:17 -0800, wrote:

I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.

I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:

http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

"To invent an airplane is nothing. To build an airplane is something.
But to
fly is everything."

- Otto Lilienthal

Ron Wanttaja

I stayed quiet for a couple of days so he could get the feedback that
he wanted. Ron summed it up the best.

This guy did pretty much the same thing on the sport_pilot Yahoo list.
During the discussion it came out that all they have is an idea (that
isn't even orginial), a web site and a lot of guts. No one associated
with it has any aviation experience at all and he refuses to name the
so called "designer" that he hopes will get involved.

He is actually accepting deposits at this stage. Does this remind you
of any other companies

"sleepy6" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On 5 Mar 2006 08:49:17 -0800, wrote:

I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.

I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:

http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

It states "Target price $49,300 (including fight motor and motorcycle)"

Air to air fighting I presume?

The exposed bike and rider are going to create considerable drag. To
get to reasonable cruise speeds - I'm guessing 100-120 mph or so, to be
enough faster than a bike to make it worthwhile - it's going to take a
bigger engine than you think.

It's going to be difficult to adequately belt the pilot down (in?) if
he's sitting on a bike.

No IFR, of course, no space for a panel

Dealing with 100+ mph wind blast for an extended period is going to be
taxing.

No reason you can't have a conventional side stick for aileron and
elevator. Yes, you have enough degrees of freedom in handlebars, 2
twist grips and 2 grip levers. But it would mean a lot of training to
unlearn regular aircraft controls.

It comes down to defining your mission. If your goal is to ride your
motorcycle through the air, you may have a reasonable answer. If it's
to fly somewhere with your motorcycle, I'd lean toward a more
conventional airplane that can hoist or ramp a motorcycle inside, and
unload at the other end.

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
oups.com...
Snip-------


If it's
to fly somewhere with your motorcycle, I'd lean toward a more
conventional airplane that can hoist or ramp a motorcycle inside, and
unload at the other end.


A single engine airplane specifically designed to haul a medium weight
motorcycle at good cruise speeds seems a very worthwhile thing. I wonder
why someone hasn't done it.

Bill Daniels

I seem to recall a homebuilt that didn't succeed in the market. 4
landing gear, V8 engine, swing away tail, fuselage made to haul 1000
pounds of 4x8 plywood. Not ideal for this mission, but a good start.
Can't remember the name.

Or, there's this - http://www.coastcomp.com/av/fltline2/avion.htm

On 8 Mar 2006 17:22:52 -0800, "Richard Riley" wrote:

I seem to recall a homebuilt that didn't succeed in the market. 4
landing gear, V8 engine, swing away tail, fuselage made to haul 1000
pounds of 4x8 plywood. Not ideal for this mission, but a good start.
Can't remember the name.

O'Neill Magnum.

And you a fellow Irishman.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Well, you know what all that whisky does to one's memory.... But I
think that's the one.