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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 30 May 2004 18:44:20 +0000, Richard Lamb wrote:
Ok, enough abstract thinking. Let's see what you guys can dream up for a specific airframe. With your weight budget I guess it's useless to try to design a plane that you can nosedive in at Vne and walk away from... Probably better to concentrate on the low-hanging fruit (assuming there is some). My guess is that the best place to look for this, would be in injuries that are neither fatal nor insignificant - though I guess there may also be fatalities that have been prevented just as easily. I don't trust my intuitions on the subject - does anyone know of any sources that say what the most common non-fatal injuries are in GA accidents? My guess is that they'd need to be pretty specific - 'back injury' would not be much help; 'lower back injury due to high descent rate at landing' would be. I'm happy to browse a database if someone can point me in the right direction - I just don't know where to look. This is a proposed single seat all metal low wing sportster. Power is intended to be 2180 VW or Rotax 912. Figure 550 empty weight, 900 gross? I've got 33 pounds budgeted for payload. The hang-glider pilot in me says that's enough for a camera, some lunch and a flask with plenty to spare. The long-distance cyclist within me says that's not even enough for a tent, lunch, a stove, a toolkit, a coat and a bicycle pump. How much of that do you guys thing should be spent on crash protection? I guess the question is, 'how much of that can we persuade you to spend on crash protection?' And is there anything else you'd rather put in than 'structural protection'? - e.g. a ballistic 'chute (if you believe in them). http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/l-one.htm The CAD drawings look sweet... AC |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
With your weight budget I guess it's useless to try to design a plane
that you can nosedive in at Vne and walk away from... Probably better to concentrate on the low-hanging fruit (assuming there is some). Go buy an old cropduster -- they're far and away the most crashworthy aircraft out there Ed Wischmeyer |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 31 May 2004 06:58:35 -0700, Ed Wischmeyer
wrote: With your weight budget I guess it's useless to try to design a plane that you can nosedive in at Vne and walk away from... Probably better to concentrate on the low-hanging fruit (assuming there is some). Go buy an old cropduster -- How much is BOb going for? :-) Ron Wanttaja |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Nose in at Vne, you are gonna get what you deserve! Let's look at the things we CAN survive and try to improve our poor sucker's chances. I already have four compression fractured vertebra, so this is not just an academic exercise. (From my fun summer vacation in Viet Nam) Sitting on the main spar like that, there just isn't a lot of 'crumple space' between the warm pink bottom and the cold hard ground. So any landing that wipes out the gear could be pretty serious. BTW, that is one of the things we are looking at very carefully. In the event of a gear failure, where will all the big pieces go, and will they go thru anything soft and squishy on the way out(?). Beyond pilot comfort, I think this is a good place for a layer of Temperfoam (seat bottom). It's heavy stuff for its size, but Temperfoam will absorb quite a bit of energy in an impact situation. Anything that can slow down the energy transfer - even a few more milliseconds - will reduce back injuries significantly. It shouldn't take more than six pounds for the foam. After that, the most serious threat is smacking the head on something hard or pointy. This cockpit is close enough that a good shoulder harness should be mandatory. But that brings up the age old question of where to attach the harness so that it can actually take the impact load without failing the attach structure. I'm guessing 30 G's (eyeballs forward) for 50 milliseconds? Next, I worry about fires. Been there, singed holes in my T shirt. A big gas tank in front of the panel is the simplest lightest way to store gas, but it is also vulnerable in an accident. Cracks in the tank, broken out fittings, or fuel line torn loose? None of these are pleasant options when the gas is sitting in your lap. However, on this plane, there is no way to put 20 gallons (120 lbs) in a nose tank and still be within the CG range. For that one reason we have decided to put the tanks in the wings. Ok, so now, do we still want to have a header tank at the firewall (for a gravity feed), or feed directly from the wing tanks (gotta have fuel pumps anyway!)? Lastly, reducing the amount of commanded energy at touch down is probably the best way to improve survivability. Get the stall speed down as much as practical. My first wing estimates indicated stall speed about 65 mph. (I had some rather impressive fantasies about cruise speed) That's just way to very dam fast (for this old fart, any way). Another 12 sq ft of area, and a slightly different airfoil got it down to around 52 mph. Only way to improve on that is to add flaps. Flaps could cost as much as eight or ten pounds... But getting the landing speed down to 45 MPH or so? Hard call there. (compromise) I'm afraid a ballistic parachute is way over weight budget. It certainly won't help you get over the trees at the end of the runway... Richard Lamb http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/l-one.htm |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
How much does a parachute weigh?
"Richard Lamb" wrote in message ... I've got 33 pounds budgeted for payload. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 02:42:50 GMT, "Pete Schaefer"
wrote: How much does a parachute weigh? "Richard Lamb" wrote in message ... I've got 33 pounds budgeted for payload. Twice as much as one chute... Sorry, but I had to do that... John |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
I shall look forward to seeing how it all turns out.
Good luck, & keep us posted. AC On Mon, 31 May 2004 18:31:59 +0000, Richard Lamb wrote: I already have four compression fractured vertebra, so this is not just an academic exercise. (From my fun summer vacation in Viet Nam) Sitting on the main spar like that, there just isn't a lot of 'crumple space' between the warm pink bottom and the cold hard ground. So any landing that wipes out the gear could be pretty serious. BTW, that is one of the things we are looking at very carefully. In the event of a gear failure, where will all the big pieces go, and will they go thru anything soft and squishy on the way out(?). Beyond pilot comfort, I think this is a good place for a layer of Temperfoam (seat bottom). It's heavy stuff for its size, but Temperfoam will absorb quite a bit of energy in an impact situation. Anything that can slow down the energy transfer - even a few more milliseconds - will reduce back injuries significantly. It shouldn't take more than six pounds for the foam. I never heard of it before - but it looks just the ticket. After that, the most serious threat is smacking the head on something hard or pointy. This cockpit is close enough that a good shoulder harness should be mandatory. But that brings up the age old question of where to attach the harness so that it can actually take the impact load without failing the attach structure. I'm guessing 30 G's (eyeballs forward) for 50 milliseconds? Next, I worry about fires. Been there, singed holes in my T shirt. A big gas tank in front of the panel is the simplest lightest way to store gas, but it is also vulnerable in an accident. Cracks in the tank, broken out fittings, or fuel line torn loose? None of these are pleasant options when the gas is sitting in your lap. However, on this plane, there is no way to put 20 gallons (120 lbs) in a nose tank and still be within the CG range. For that one reason we have decided to put the tanks in the wings. Ok, so now, do we still want to have a header tank at the firewall (for a gravity feed), or feed directly from the wing tanks (gotta have fuel pumps anyway!)? Lastly, reducing the amount of commanded energy at touch down is probably the best way to improve survivability. Get the stall speed down as much as practical. My first wing estimates indicated stall speed about 65 mph. (I had some rather impressive fantasies about cruise speed) That's just way to very dam fast (for this old fart, any way). Another 12 sq ft of area, and a slightly different airfoil got it down to around 52 mph. Only way to improve on that is to add flaps. Flaps could cost as much as eight or ten pounds... But getting the landing speed down to 45 MPH or so? Hard call there. (compromise) I'm afraid a ballistic parachute is way over weight budget. It certainly won't help you get over the trees at the end of the runway... I loooked up BRS systems - 34lb lol. Richard Lamb http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/l-one.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 2nd 03 03:07 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |