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 )

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.

wrote)
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


Why not revisit the Wright Brothers design - a fitted belt, around the rear
tire, up to a big slow turning pusher prop?

Just a thought...


Montblack
I wonder if gyroscopic(?) forces (with the rear spinning tire) would make
banking difficult? :-)

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

Why not revisit the Wright Brothers design - a fitted belt, around the
rear tire, up to a big slow turning pusher prop?


Or:
....a second sprocket or hub - don't use the rear tire.
....a belt/pulley setup, off the engine - like an old tractor.

Just a thought...


Montblack

wrote in message
ups.com...
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

Usually, the flying car concept is offered as a new, improved way to
commute. Wouldn't it be easier to have an airplane that isn't compromised
with the unnecessary weight of a motorcycle and position a motorcycle at
each end of the commute?

The compromises of a flying car (or motorcycle) tend to more or less ruin
the craft's utility in one or both roles.

"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

In article .com,
wrote:

Montblack wrote:
wrote)
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


Why not revisit the Wright Brothers design - a fitted belt, around the rear
tire, up to a big slow turning pusher prop?

Just a thought...


BMW had (has?) a shaft driven motorcycle. You could
have a PTO and clutch that would select between the
drive shaft and a belt or chain drive for the prop.

Ever seen a shaft-driven bicycle? There were some about 100 years ago.

("Kyle Boatright" wrote)
[snip]
http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm

Wouldn't it be easier to have an airplane that isn't compromised with the
unnecessary weight of a motorcycle and position a motorcycle at each end
of the commute?


That's great for Point (A) to Point (B) travel ...forgetting, for a moment,
about the other (24) letters in the alphabet.


Montblack