Aero Ex - Valkyrie 1 Design

[skippydiesel]

Could be an ATEC Faeta NG.

 

Check out the  lower stall , same cruise of the high HS of the original Faeta

[T510]

2 hours ago, Peasant_Pilot said:

currently working on the lower intake and landing gear for retracts and fixed. you can see in one of the pics iv incorporated landing gear

Hope you are going to offer a tail dragger option

[Peasant_Pilot]

17 minutes ago, T510 said:

Hope you are going to offer a tail dragger option

Iv been looking at doing a taildragger version too

[Peasant_Pilot]

[Peasant_Pilot]

Have been burning through getting some renders done to see what looks good and so on, if you have any colour or pattern requests let me know and ill do one up and see how it looks

[Peasant_Pilot]

Pretty much all the external shaping and dimensions are done, few little jobs before undercarriage and interior, currently working through the internal structure, spars, riba and bulkheads etc. 

 

If you have anything that youd like to see in an 600mtow aircraft, let me know, always open to it

[rgmwa]

It looks very sleek but I'm curious as to how you are doing the structural and aerodynamic design and what materials you plan on using?

[Peasant_Pilot]

Main fuse and wing skins will be S-Glass and some carbon where needed, spars I'm looking at testing some composite ideas and a laminated hoop pine spar, xps foam and hoop pine for some of the core, wing ribs, bulkheads etc. 

 

Using fusion 360 for the design and simscale for stress and flow analysis and will be doing physical testing on the spar and wing components etc

[RFguy]

My 2c worth is

1) that common areas that might need repairs try and keep as fibreglass, or at least replaceable whole regions--- as structural carbon fibre repairs are not a beginner's pasttime....

2) consider what metal or wood ablative charing layer or  fire retard on the fibreglass etc / resin     you want up front such  that an engine fire is survivable......

glen.

Edited December 24, 2024 by RFguy

[Peasant_Pilot]

I

26 minutes ago, RFguy said:

My 2c worth is

1) that common areas that might need repairs try and keep as fibreglass, or at least replaceable whole regions--- as structural carbon fibre repairs are not a beginner's pasttime....

2) consider what metal or wood ablative charing layer or  fire retard on the fibreglass etc / resin     you want up front such  that an engine fire is survivable......

glen.

Yeah I agree 100%

 

While I find the cfd and stress simulation handy as a guide, there is no substitute for actual testing, I plan on having a couple of sacrificial airframes and parts for load and crash testing, fire etc etc. Gotta build the buck for the molds and then onto that

[rgmwa]

3 hours ago, Peasant_Pilot said:

Main fuse and wing skins will be S-Glass and some carbon where needed, spars I'm looking at testing some composite ideas and a laminated hoop pine spar, xps foam and hoop pine for some of the core, wing ribs, bulkheads etc. 

 

Using fusion 360 for the design and simscale for stress and flow analysis and will be doing physical testing on the spar and wing components etc

I'm not familiar with Fusion 360 other than reading Autodesk's description of what it can do. I know it can do stress analysis for example, but how are you determining the flight loads to feed into the stress analysis. Having the software work out stresses once you've entered the loads is one thing, but how are you then deciding what are acceptable stress/deflection limits etc. What about flutter analysis? What sort of performance do you expect the aircraft to have? I'm asking because I'm curious, not because I want to come across as critical. You've spent a lot of time and effort to get the external shape looking great, but I'm just wondering about the engineering design behind it.

 

Edited December 24, 2024 by rgmwa

[Peasant_Pilot]

Appreciate the interest honestly,

 

The stress analysis I've only been able to test on componentry, bulkheads, firewall, landing gear. as far as the airframe goes that's something I think that will have to be done and tested/experimented with once i have a test airframe built, same as for CG and so on, i can only do so much in CAD and CFD and it will be something when it comes down to vibration, flutter and twist load tests will need to get further expertise on. as far as the design goes, wing position, airfoil, aspect ratio angle of incidence, dihedral, pilot position, control surfaces, washout i have based that all of various existing aircraft I've studied and what I was wanting to achieve, I've spent countless hours going through many plans sets, talking to Engineers and trying to get everything where it needs to be but really there is a lot to be tested outside the CAD Programs

 

I looked at a lot of aircraft of similar size that I was wanting to design, took a bunch of measurements off aircraft like the SportStar, TL Sting, Pulsar XP, Falco, Lancair 320 etc. and have tried to work within similar bounds. started with a sketch how I wanted it to look then altered it to suit the important things 

 

As far as performance goes, looking realistically at 120kn cruise on a tricycle config, 45kn stall all originally to run on a Rotax 912uls. wing has 1.8 degrees angle of incidence, 4 degrees on the dihedral, seating is at 35 degrees, washout is 2 degrees, around 290-310kg empty with a 912ULS, wingspan is 8.77mtr

 

I'm in no way an expert and am very much learning as I go and have altered the design many times to correct issues as I've developed more knowledge around it. Obviously a safe and stable aircraft is priority, but I also wanted a nice looking aircraft. I started with some reference points and designed around that. 

 

Really, I wanted something that was a little quicker than a Sporty but still stable and easy to fly, something fitting for RAAUS 600mtow

End of the day, I'll keep changing the design until its where it needs to be structurally and aerodynamically so it's a safe and stable aircraft, but I feel it's pretty close, I think I need to actually build an airframe and refine from there, I have a few design ideas I want to try and experiment with and for me I can only really do that with a physical part/airframe.

 

It's pretty overwhelming sometimes but it's been educational that's for sure....and frustrating at times

 

Cheers

 

Rob

[rgmwa]

OK thanks. It’s quite an undertaking. Sounds like it might be an idea to have an experienced aeronautical engineer do a detailed design review and provide some technical guidance. It might save a lot of expensive prototype development and testing. Looking at the streamlined shape and weight, 120 kt cruise seems realistic as does 45 kt stall. The devil will be in the detail and effort required to turn a computer model into a functioning aircraft with all the fuel systems, flight controls, electrical and avionics components, engine installation, etc designed, documented and flight tested. Good luck with it.

[Underwood]

The Rotax powered Hotship market is getting quite saturated and certainly very competitive.

I wish you well, but fear you have set yourself a huge task.

 

Good luck

[Peasant_Pilot]

It's definitely a massive undertaking, and the idea might never get off the ground(no pun intended).....but the process is extremely enjoyable developing it from the ground up. learning CAD design and understanding aerodynamics and seeing the quality improvement in my work makes the effort enjoyable and worth while. 

 

Honestly never thought I'd be capable of getting this far but I'll keep sharing progress on it. 

 

 

[Underwood]

Sometimes the journey is an end in itself, I wish you well.

[spacesailor]

You could make a half or quarter scale madel .let an RC enthusiast take over !

then see how it performs . hopefully your outlay should be in scale with your model. 

spacesailor

 

PS :

14 ft for 1/2 scale  or 7 ' ( 2,2 mtres ) foot for the smaller .

 

Edited December 25, 2024 by spacesailor
PS added

[Peasant_Pilot]

That's actually something iv wanted to do, I started out back in the day building my own rc stuff from scratch and I still very much have a soft spot for it. 

 

I like your thinking though.....that's something I could start on pretty quickly I think. 

 

Good to see other RC enthusiasts still kicking about

[onetrack]

I'm sure you'll be able to produce a full-size working prototype in a short time frame - as long as you find a backer with deep pockets, and a loose $50M that he would never miss.

 

After all, it only took Clessie Cummins 25 years, and the unfailing backing of a friendly bank owner, who was prepared to sink endless amounts of money into Clessies dream, for Clessie to finally produce a commercially viable, diesel truck engine. The rest of us can only hope to win Lotto.

 

Good luck with your project goal - as Calvin Coolidges famous quote goes, "Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent".

[skippydiesel]

On 03/12/2024 at 9:22 AM, T510 said:

Hope you are going to offer a tail dragger option

ATEC are supposed to have made one, special order, tailwheel variant of the Faeta (original T tail). Last I heard, a few years back, it was for sale in Greece. ATEC were very disappointed in the ground handling characteristics of the aircraft & are said to have vowed never to build another.

 

No expert; I have been told that a tail wheel varent, of the same nose wheel aircraft, may have a small cruise speed advantage, for a significant ground handling penalty. Further; A well faired fixed undercarriage, will usually come close to the same cruise speed, as an equivalent retractable, without the weight and complexity penalty of the latter.

[Thruster88]

The difference in cruise speed can be seen in Van's aircraft. The first RV to have a nosewheel was the RV6a, it is only 2 miles per hour slower than the otherwise identical RV6. And this is a fairly fast aircraft. 

 

This also shows why retractable undercarriage can be not worth the complexity, loss of useful load, cost, cost to maintain, cost to insure and cost to repair after a gear up. The RV6 in hypothetical RG form would be 4 mph faster, the RV6a would be 6 mph faster.

 

RV-6 / 6A - Van's Aircraft Total Performance RV Kit Planes

WWW.VANSAIRCRAFT.COM

 

Edited December 25, 2024 by Thruster88

[RFguy]

My 2c: *** Ideally the aircraft should have PLENTY of elevator authority in hand at stall / low speeds, this will enable better flare control in the landing, to keep the pressure off the nosewheel during run out and taxi.  I've flown a couple of aircraft that had nothing left in the tail when they got slow in the landing phase, seems not ideal.

 

tailwheel has quite a bit of rough strip advantage. although, I dont see many (any?) damaged Cherokee nose gear due to rough strips as it is built like a brick sh1thouse ( PIO / porpoising  excluded)  

 

There is alot you can do to look after a nose wheel on rough terriain.  Good landing technique will go a long way, (slow , keeping nosewheel away from the ground as long as possible) cherokee has heaps of H-stab authority before it even flys.

 

As Yenn said in 2010:

"Posted November 17, 2010

The reason the taildraggers have safer landings than nose wheel types, may be more to do with pilot inputs than aircraft configuration."

 

I'd like to see the RV6A have a bit more authority in the rear to keep that fragile nosewheel away from the ground for longer.  But that probably depends on how nose heavy that particular RV is. Stuart, on paper, your's is a bit heavy in the nose I thought from the W&B with the CS compared to some POH I have looked at (online) with fixed pitch O320s engined machines which are likely to be 'just right'.

 

Edited December 25, 2024 by RFguy

[Moneybox]

I've enjoyed a quick read through the development of the project. It's a great idea that I'd love o see come to fruit but.....

 

I've spent a lifetime in design, engineering, drawing and building. I'm still enjoy building things, rarely following others and usually come out with a successful article in the end. At 71 years of age now I've learned a few things along the way that would have be advantageous had I known about them before starting out but I'm not a person to easily accept advice.

 

Just to add my two bobs worth, some people have a great brain for concept, others design, some people are masters of fabrication and too many get carried away with technical know-it-all. Very few people can take a successful marketable project from concept to completion in a reasonable time.

 

I believe if you have a fabulous concept such as this you would most likely get to the climax a lot easier, cheaper and better to have various good capable people working together. One difficulty is keeping it under control if several minds wander off on their own agender but building something as complex as an aircraft needs specialists in a range of fields and very few people have to ability to achieve it alone.

 

A lot of good ideas die with the passage of time. If you want to get it in the air do it NOW. Pool a bit of money, get some great minds together and use people with good trade skills to build the components. Too many try to go it alone, me included, and we are usually stifled by lack of experience, time and money. 

[spacesailor]

AND

BUREAUCRACY . 

Red tape should only wrap Christmas presents. 

spacesailor

[Peasant_Pilot]

Quote

1 hour ago, Moneybox said:

I've enjoyed a quick read through the development of the project. It's a great idea that I'd love o see come to fruit but.....

 

I've spent a lifetime in design, engineering, drawing and building. I'm still enjoy building things, rarely following others and usually come out with a successful article in the end. At 71 years of age now I've learned a few things along the way that would have be advantageous had I known about them before starting out but I'm not a person to easily accept advice.

 

Just to add my two bobs worth, some people have a great brain for concept, others design, some people are masters of fabrication and too many get carried away with technical know-it-all. Very few people can take a successful marketable project from concept to completion in a reasonable time.

 

I believe if you have a fabulous concept such as this you would most likely get to the climax a lot easier, cheaper and better to have various good capable people working together. One difficulty is keeping it under control if several minds wander off on their own agender but building something as complex as an aircraft needs specialists in a range of fields and very few people have to ability to achieve it alone.

 

A lot of good ideas die with the passage of time. If you want to get it in the air do it NOW. Pool a bit of money, get some great minds together and use people with good trade skills to build the components. Too many try to go it alone, me included, and we are usually stifled by lack of experience, time and money. 

 

I really appreciate that, very wise words and unfortunately im a bit of a sucker for trying to do everything on my own as well , I'm actually a fabricator but have learnt design the last 2 years and very much enjoy both aspects of it. I'm going to take your advice and reach out to some people as far as development and production goes and get a few of the right people on board, i have a bit of money there to spend and i think you are absolutely right in what you have said. Probably the best advice i have had and really appreciate the informative and positive response

 

will keep you updated with how everything is developing