Cheap 2 seater anyone?

[David Isaac]

Yeah I know mate, I was just having fun with you. I love that out in breeze feeling.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Which you get every day with landcruiser firewalls.....

 

 

[Deskpilot]

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Celeste

[Teckair]

Yeah I know mate, I was just having fun with you. I love that out in breeze feeling.

All good David, I didn't want to appear to be against 95.10s.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So after five months of good discussion has a consensus specification emerged?

 

 

[slartibartfast]

There are a couple of other Dragonflys you missed:

 

Aircraft [edit]

 

• Boeing X-50 Dragonfly, an unmanned aerial surveillance vehicle designed by the U.S. military
   
   
  
• Cessna A-37 Dragonfly, a US attack aircraft
   
   
  
• DF Helicopters DF334 (Dragon Fly 334), an Italian helicopter
   
   
  
• De Havilland Dragonfly, a British aircraft
   
   
  
• Dornier Do 12 Libelle III (Dragonfly III), a German flying boat
   
   
  
• FlyTech Dragonfly, a remote-controlled flying toy ornithopter
   
   
  
• Moyes Dragonfly, an Australian ultralight aircraft
   
   
  
• Sikorsky H-5, a US helicopter sometimes called Dragonfly
   
  Westland Dragonfly, the UK version of the Sikorsky H-5
   
   
  

 

 

[*]Trek Aerospace Dragonfly, a VTOL aircraft

 

[*]Viking Dragonfly, an experimental equal-area canard airplane

 

Spacecraft [edit]

 

• DragonFly (spacecraft), an asteroid material-sampling spacecraft proposed by Deep Space Industries
   
   
  

 

 

 

There's a Cessna Dragonfly at Temora.

 

How about Ladybird or Ladybug?

 

Or Damselfly is closely related to Dragonfly.

 

 

[Teckair]

So after five months of good discussion has a consensus specification emerged?

Yep the Clarke C2S is the way to go and all the crappy LSA imports are not.

 

 

[turboplanner]

C2S sounds good, nice schematics.

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

Celeste.................Heavenly. Didn't know that Deskpilot . What do you reckon HITC? Do I at least get a ride in this heavenly little plane?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

So after five months of good discussion has a consensus specification emerged?

I don't know about consensus but I know what's actually underway. See Post #240 for images from the CAD model showing the appearance, and Post #250 shows CAD images of it in folded form in a legal-sized road-trailer as well as images of the development of the primary structure so far.

 

Here is an extract from recent correspondence between me and an 'interested party' -

 

• Might well end up being the cheapest two seater on the market
   
   
  
• Would be the only very quick fold aircraft (about 2 minutes, no controls to disconnect)
   
   
  
• Folds to a trailerable/container size
   
   
  
• Seating is side by side which is preferred by spouses as well as for training
   
   
  
• Very easy even for the inexperienced to assemble the kit
   
   
  
• Has an enclosed cabin
   
   
  
• Tri-gear, which is more popular by far
   
   
  
• Should fit the European category of 450kg MTOW whereas all other country's LSAs are 600kg
   
   
  

 

 

Considering the above I do think this little plane has the potential to fill a very evident gaping hole in the lower priced end of the market.

 

However - unfortunately we've hit a speed bump, the other party has a manufacturing facility looking to get started right now and so quite understandably wants the prototype built by his staff on his home turf but I know that I have to build it myself here and also conduct the flight and structural testing before releasing anything to the manufacturing stage.

 

So unfortunately it's a stalemate for now and I'll just go on with the design work until it's finished and then get the prototype built and tested. I doubt the other party will have lost interest by then but I have to accept they may well be getting on with something else instead, in which case I'm sure it will be easier for me to find another joint venture partner then, by having a fully proven product.

 

As far as names are concerned, thanks everyone, great input and please keep it up, I don't think we've got there yet, yes Pete of course you get a ride and so does anyone else who puts their hand up.

 

Celeste is nice, C2S is kind of modern but only means something to those in the know and is difficult for others to recall, I like the Aussie Emperor but then we'd go from a Monarchy to a Dictatorship, AussieMozzie is my other project which is already 3/4 built but I don't propose to manufacture it, it's way too complex, so if everyone thought it was the best name I could 'transfer' it. I really do want to get this one mass produced if possible because early costings indicate that if we can look at hundreds a year rather than tens, and market world-wide, and considering that there are very few aircraft grade bits in it, it's designed for commercial and some marine grade throughout, then I think the kit price can be very considerably less than any other comparable kit. So - if it does end up getting manufactured in high numbers and marketed globally would we be better having a non-national name?

 

 

[paulh]

Car manufactures mostly seem to use names rather than letters or numbers for their various models, seems to be easier to remember after seeing their latest offering on the tv, a name can also evoke an image.

 

A name that is too Aussie may not gel with overseas buyers, and need to avoid being kitsch and calling it the goanna or something else slow moving and not real smart.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Hi Alan,

 

You used the term yourself above. How about the "Monarch" or perhaps the "Monarch C2S" as a name or designator? It means sole and absolute ruler and amongst cheap 2 seaters, it could be the monarch.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

.....and need to avoid being kitsch and calling it the goanna or something else slow moving and not real smart.

Damn, Sloth is out then ...

 

Hi Alan,You used the term yourself above. How about the "Monarch" or perhaps the "Monarch C2S" as a name or designator? It means sole and absolute ruler and amongst cheap 2 seaters, it could be the monarch.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Hi Dave, mmmm, good point, but doesn't it sound a bit arrogant for what's quite a basic plane? Mind you the Monarch butterfly is very attractive, split wings looks a bit like four of them and would be a good image. BTW, hope the tailwheel arrived?

 

Folks, I forgot to mention my registered business and domain name is Airstralia so something that goes well with that would be a benefit. Also that gives enough nationality to it.

 

There used to be a successful racing yacht that I think was called Australian Maid, a play on words like that would be good - a challenge for the lexicographers and scrabble players among you.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Thanks Alan, the tailwheel is safely back with me, waiting for its next adventure. Perhaps on a delta...

 

What about the Airstralia Budgie? An iconic Aussie bird and a play on the word "budget" which is the aim of the aircraft.

 

 

[M61A1]

need to avoid being kitsch and calling it the goanna or something else slow moving and not real smart.

I dunno about that.........have you ever tried to catch a goanna? they're bloody quick, and climb fast too.

How about "Defiant"..... defy gravity and those who insist that aircraft must be expensive?

 

Fly it first....name it later. When you know more about it's characteristics.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Fly it first....name it later....

Ordinarily that would be my approach too. If only I had a tenner (inflation) for every discussion I'd heard about naming something during the dreaming stage and which never got built ...

 

But you have to provide the Manufacturer and Model names on the Registration Application, and with the way Regos are at the moment getting that underway and in the system might be a smart move.

 

Other considerations are having a name to refer to it by in discussions like this one, and throughout the hundred thousand words that have been exchanged between me and the 'other party' in the last few months.

 

And - as has been discussed during those negotiations, a well established product name is one of the few things available to offset the complete lack of protection for the designer's IP when offering kits. In earlier years, and still with 95.10, you have a Kit Approval which is registered to a particular person and so that person might be able to have imports of un-Approved copies blocked from being imported, at least to ICAO member-nations. Now there is no Kit Approval process for 95.55 (only a NKET 51% compliance evaluation if you want to have it done) so the best way to protect your IP is to get the name known and build manufacturer/product loyalty and publicity from as early in the design and testing phase as possible so that at least people in the industry and future customers will know who built the Original, and who is doing the copying. So having a good and easily recalled product name is necessary, even at this early stage.

 

 

[ruffasguts]

Ordinarily that would be my approach too. If only I had a tenner (inflation) for every discussion I'd heard about naming something during the dreaming stage and which never got built ...But you have to provide the Manufacturer and Model names on the Registration Application, and with the way Regos are at the moment getting that underway and in the system might be a smart move.

 

Other considerations are having a name to refer to it by in discussions like this one, and throughout the hundred thousand words that have been exchanged between me and the 'other party' in the last few months.

 

And - as has been discussed during those negotiations, a well established product name is one of the few things available to offset the complete lack of protection for the designer's IP when offering kits. In earlier years, and still with 95.10, you have a Kit Approval which is registered to a particular person and so that person might be able to have imports of un-Approved copies blocked from being imported, at least to ICAO member-nations. Now there is no Kit Approval process for 95.55 (only a NKET 51% compliance evaluation if you want to have it done) so the best way to protect your IP is to get the name known and build manufacturer/product loyalty and publicity from as early in the design and testing phase as possible so that at least people in the industry and future customers will know who built the Original, and who is doing the copying. So having a good and easily recalled product name is necessary, even at this early stage.

if the product is good the name don't matter eg Thatcher CX4, name means nothing to most people but over 500 sets of plans sold in 6 years

 

Mick W

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

if the product is good the name don't matter eg Thatcher CX4, name means nothing to most people but over 500 sets of plans sold in 6 yearsMick W

The trouble is, it's an intangible Mick. How many plans would they have sold if they had a name that was emotive, provoked imagery and everyone related to? If you were trying to sell off war surplus to enthusiasts would you sell more Spitfires or Jodhpurs? I'm no expert but it's probably a good indicator that Multi-Nationals spend as much on their marketing release as they do on their product development.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This would not be sold into the mass consumer market, so a name is not so critical. The truck Industry uses designations like T600, FSR 900 LONG, CT610 etc so C2S would be market appropriate.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I think it should be called "Altocumulus Lenticularis"..

 

Or "Bob".

 

 

[turboplanner]

Re your post HITC, you may already have these things in hand but its worth mentioning them:

 

1. The vertical stabiliser is shown at various heights in different sketches. After being terrorised with no rudder or directional stability in one RA around the flare point as the tail sinks, I'd like to see the vertical stabiliser as high as possible to minimise blanking by the wings.I think rudder authority is more critical in RA than a GA aircraft because of the lower critical mass.

 

2. Have you done any serious mass distribution calculations? I can see what you are getting at with the configuration, but the engine CoG moves quite a way back compared to conventional side by side aircraft.

 

3. I've done a lot of work designing and building space frames, and usually find I've forgotten triangulation in some areas, and other areas need supplementary strength, such as the leg area. I'd recommend an early balsa matchstick type modelling of the frame where you can instantly feel any flex and see the concept in three dimensions without the hours of CAD work.

 

I think we're seeing the cost limitations of trying to build cross country aircraft with prices climbing towards new Cessna costs, hangarage escalating etc, so trailerable is beginning to look like a strong market possibility. When you can do the long legs to a point of interest in any weather/headwind in a car and trailer everything becomes simpler, and under those circumstances the high cost of 80 < 100 hp is also not essential for many people who want to look at scenery, or just fly.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

This would not be sold into the mass consumer market, so a name is not so critical. The truck Industry uses designations like T600, FSR 900 LONG, CT610 etc so C2S would be market appropriate.

Yes, though I'll probably never remember those names but I'll certainly never forget the magnificent old 1970s SuperSpace Longliner 69er with twin Gobsmackers

Seriously though, I do see your point Turbs, if the meaning of C2S was publicised it would become very easy to recall.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I think it should be called "Altocumulus Lenticularis"..Or "Bob".

Reminds me of way back when Charles Ligetti was working on a name for the Stratos. We were at Essendon Airport having just visited Ross Nolan at Slipstream Aviation. Charles suddenly ejaculated (verbally OK?) "Stratos!". Sander Veenstra said "No bloody way, if you do I'll call my next one Alto-Stratos" but Charles did and in the end Sander called his Farm Mate instead.

 

Re your post HITC, you may already have these things in hand but its worth mentioning them:1. The vertical stabiliser is shown at various heights in different sketches. After being terrorised with no rudder or directional stability in one RA around the flare point as the tail sinks, I'd like to see the vertical stabiliser as high as possible to minimise blanking by the wings.I think rudder authority is more critical in RA than a GA aircraft because of the lower critical mass.

 

2. Have you done any serious mass distribution calculations? I can see what you are getting at with the configuration, but the engine CoG moves quite a way back compared to conventional side by side aircraft.

 

3. I've done a lot of work designing and building space frames, and usually find I've forgotten triangulation in some areas, and other areas need supplementary strength, such as the leg area. I'd recommend an early balsa matchstick type modelling of the frame where you can instantly feel any flex and see the concept in three dimensions without the hours of CAD work.

 

I think we're seeing the cost limitations of trying to build cross country aircraft with prices climbing towards new Cessna costs, hangarage escalating etc, so trailerable is beginning to look like a strong market possibility. When you can do the long legs to a point of interest in any weather/headwind in a car and trailer everything becomes simpler, and under those circumstances the high cost of 80 < 100 hp is also not essential for many people who want to look at scenery, or just fly.

Valuable feedback Turbs, thanks.

 

Using your order -

 

1. I hadn't noticed the different heights but the fin will be as high as the engine (max height for getting it into a shipping container, to allow them to be used as cheap hangars) and that gives a VS volume of 0.6 which is about 12% higher than what Raymer considers quite acceptable. Even so I love crosswinds and I consider the rudder to be my most important control surface (yes, I had very early days primary training) so if there's any lack of authority in any part of the envelope revealed during testing there'll be changes made to fix it.

 

2. Not yet, only basic ones until I've finalised all the structural members and run the numbers on the weights. The weight distribution is tricky, it being so short and with such a high CG, which is necessary to get it short enough when folded, for container or trailer.

 

Having that high CG has been a bugbear all along because during the landing, or at any time at high alpha, the CG moves back just when the CP is moving forward, so I'm trying a bit of trickery with the decalage to keep the pitching moment change reasonable or I'll be limited to a fairly forward CG requirement, or there would be a risk of pitch instability at high alpha. I'm going to test with a Clark Y due to its good lift co-efficient and progressive stall but may have to go for a semi-symmetrical if the CP proves to be too mobile.

 

If the stall speed at MTOW is low enough (I can't calculate it accurately due to unknowns about the biplane interference) then I may consider having two settings for the elevator. The more limited one would suit the less experienced and make the plane stall-proof and spin resistant by having insufficient authority to bring the mainplanes to a progressive stall (the Ercoupe principle) and the second setting for experienced flyers who can make good use of, and manage, minor instability.

 

The high CG has also given me strife with the main gear placement. I allowed it to tease me into believing I could use the strong point of the rear spar attach to run the gear leg through which was perfect structurally and saved some weight. So I got a fixation about that for a while but have now accepted it'd be too far aft and make the nosewheel weight too high and likely to dig in, not to mention the ka-slap potential for landings ...

 

3. Yes, it's virtually impossible to fully triangulate everywhere if you also want to fit a human or two inside. The younger generation don't seem to object to things through their belly-buttons but most of the flyers I know would take exception. In some places the triangulation has to be replaced with good moment connections instead.

 

4. Yes, that's so right, we fought so hard back in the early 80s for a cheap way to get into 2 seat flying and of course we ended up wanting little rocket machines. Should have been more careful what we wished for. The plastic fantastics are damn nice machines and just what you need for the annual fly-away or an occasional Tropical Delight or Round Oz. For the rest of the time they're a very costly liability and nothing like the fun we used to have in the trailerable 95.10 heydays. I think progressively more people are coming to that realisation now they've had their Skyrocket fix and give it a couple of years and there could well be hoards looking to put the 'fun' and 'cheap' back into flying. I still think the best days I ever had were when bunches of us used to have big box trailers and take our planes to different airfields most weekends, camp-over in the trailers, yarn around the fire and fly our hearts out. It meant we could go where the weather was going to be good too! And a bit more fuel running cost is quite acceptable when you can drop a brand new 2T engine in for between $6-10K, or get started in flying with a used one for half that.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Headwind C2S?

 

 

[Garfly]

I don't know if the name of this magnificent wee bird is settled yet, but if not ...

 

making the Aussie connection I'd be tempted to suggest 'The Girtby C' but that wouldn't fly.

 

So my official suggestion is 'Mudskipper'.

 

I mean no insult, mind, to either plane or beast when I note that there is something of a family resemblance.

 

(Whilst more practical than gorgeous, both are placed high on the cute scale.)

 

And the name would be more apt still when the amphibious version comes along.

 

Plus, you could sort of say that mudskippers have two sets of 'wings' when they 'fly' (and fold 'em when they don't).

 

And they specialise in short hops out of soft fields. They certainly look to be having fun.

 

(Funny enough Maule Aircraft Co. had a naming competition for one of its new models years ago and I actually offered this suggestion to them, then. Never heard back. Go figure!)

 

Anyway, HITC, whatever it's called I wish you well with, what I reckon's a really viable venture.

 

It has what it takes to capture young (as well as older) imaginations and may give sport aviation the kick along it needs.

 

And I'll be angling for a free ride anyway ... a consolation prize!

 

Gary.