Single Seat Design

[niquenaque]

One night whilst burning some midnight oil I came up with this...

Concept:

Gyro or fixed wing design - take off which ever you don't want or fly with both.
Rear engine
Tractor prop
Fully enclosed
Monocoque construction

Want one??

Delivery guaranteed - 5th Nevermber, 2007

Cheers,

Nick.

[niquenaque]

but wait,

there's more!

[niquenaque]

and more!

[Frantic]

Why don't you just wait for one of these

[niquenaque]

Ah, yes, I thought the delivery date was unacceptable - the 6th Nevermeber 2007, which is a day after mine was due.

Cheers,

Nick.

[bones]

And all of that for 1 seat hmmm must have missed some of the finer detail there somewhere. :poke:

[niquenaque]

Pass..

Sorry, no bites today.

Cheers,

Nick.

[Mitch]

Excellent Nick.

The whatever of neveremberbe..Ha Ha Ha! Bones stop picking on Nick, he only missed one seat.

Hey Nick,

Tractor gyro configuration seems different from yours, mast set ect.

What's happening there and why?

Mitch.

[niquenaque]

Mitch,

It is just a dream, if it stays on paper it shouldn't turn into a nightmare...

There is a two seater but I'm not showing it here 'coz bones might put 5hit on it.

You might note the name of the jpg files as being 'stemme' - that is where I got the idea for the rear engine arrangement, same as Tervmaki.

The stemme [glider] has a rear engine which drives via a long shaft to a prop at the front, which I think will be more efficient than a pusher prop. It started out as and was going to be a tail dragger but I thought the prospect of rolling it over nose first was too great a risk to justify when making a tricycle undercarriage is a far better bet and likely in the long run to to be less costly in props - single seat pushers in *my* experience are bad enough [40 hrs odd flying and already two props buggered, it might improve with experience but the birdman has shown 'it aint necessarily so' ] It would only take another tussock of grass with a tail dragger to come unglued again, without nose wheel failure.

I have derived the mast location and RTV from the CAD program using the centre of mass program it has to generate the COG for the craft shown. The design is near perfect CLT, COD and all the rest of it, a very nice little lawn dart. The faired sections on the mains are static, the nose wheel would work as a rudder cannard in association with the rear rudder [anybody seen this before?] so it works like a skateboard - front and rear yaw control with the obvious rear rudder advantage, though the effect of the nose rudder in the slip-stream may prove disconcerting but maybe not so different from a cannard based aircraft such as the long-ezy [john denver's coffin]. One concern is that the thrust centre on the front rudder will tend to roll the aircraft opposite to how it should go in a bank, aileron control would be used to offset this effect.

The idea of the wings is to make it identifiable as an aircraft to the general public and some of those less educated fixed wing pilots. They will work as wings should though some design is required on them to make them work effectively. The idea is to get them flying and over time they learn how to really gyrocopter it and then take the wings off themselves - fly on the rotor only.

The two seat [side by side] version is still on the drawing board and looks the same from the side but is fatter for obvious reasons from the front / rear view. The rotor vector would be a little further forward and the mast may overhang the cabin - no big deal, and I might set it so the mast reclines to take advantage of single seat operation. The two seater is actually a better arrangement as the drive shaft for the prop fits between the PIC and passenger, the height profile is better.

If you would like to build one we can talk about plans if you wish.

Cheers,

Nick.

[bones]

There is a two seater but I'm not showing it here 'coz bones might put 5hit on it.
Now that is just not nice Nic


The stemme [glider] has a rear engine which drives via a long shaft to a prop at the front, which I think will be more efficient than a pusher prop.
Nic, after getting some omre info on this and seeing you are actually serious, have a look at pic 101, and tell me how the devil are you going to get a prop shaft through the middle of the craft, without having it surgically implanting it each time you wanted to go flying.


The two seat [side by side] version is still on the drawing board and looks the same from the side but is fatter for obvious reasons from the front / rear view. The rotor vector would be a little further forward and the mast may overhang the cabin - no big deal, and I might set it so the mast reclines to take advantage of single seat operation. The two seater is actually a better arrangement as the drive shaft for the prop fits between the PIC and passenger, the height profile is better.

The 2 seater will probably work better for you on the for sure


If you would like to build one we can talk about plans if you wish.

One other question if i may, what are you going to build it out of??? seriously

You need to talk to that guy on the yakny forum,,,, umm cant remember his name, but i can find it for you if you need, he has basically what you are starting out with, but with a lot problems/situations near solved

[Mitch]

Cheers Nick,

It certainly looks sleek.

Mitch.

[niquenaque]

Mitch,

Your mum should be congratulated, and you must be a good learner because you know rule #1:

"If you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all."

Sleek was the intent, along with energy efficiency. You may note the full shrouding of the engine and rear exhaust for all engine products - all the heat of the engine goes into producing thrust, how much more efficient it would be could be marginal, but it is worth a look.

Thanks.

Bonesmeister,

I'm far from serious, as they say in aviation, how do you make a small fortune? A - start out with a large one, a man could go broke screwing around making up one of these, the only thing to offset the costs would be to sell plenty of them, hence the design so it 'looks' like a plane, more public acceptability, though it would have to be sold on the caveat that it *is a gyro*, not a FW aircraft.

Construction is monocoque composite - ie, carbon / kevlar / glass fibre / epoxy [or polyester] structural. I know a bloke at boat building factory who has this laminating machine and resin injection system... the absolute best fibreglass lay up I have ever seen without any doubt, very light, very strong and free of any porosity. If, repeat if I got around to it I'd make up the moulds and get him to laminate it for me.

As to the surgical implants, nothing is impossible, we could set a ferrule through your abdomen at about 2" below your kidneys and just push the small intestine aside, that should be about COG and give us a nice CTL machine... you'd have to keep it clean around the edges though [like a colostomy bag] and not crash, it'd rip you to shreds.

Actually the intent is to do a double offset and reduction on the drive shaft - it goes under the pilot and there is a control tube which forms the drive tunnel for the shaft. I suppose it wouldn't matter if I raked the nose down so the shaft was only a single offset, but that would not be as streamlined, though the view might be better - hmmm.. thrust line would be very ltl.

Yes, the two seater is the go as far as the drive assy is concerned, I just threw this on here for a conversation piece. What makes designing these interesting is the rotor at all times, it is amazing how restrictive it is when you consider that if you wish to restrict the height of the mast you most certainly begin to restrict the length of the tail, and then have to compensate with an increasingly larger tail the shorter your tail boom becomes. The problem is the teetering 'reach' of the rotors down at the back and you have to assume that the rotor will at some time try to chop off the tail [especially with newby pilots - like me].

Hope this enlightens you,

Cheers,

Nick.