Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1346558
Wot Sooty said.

The glider and turbine things is not breathtakingly innovative and should be fairly easy to deliver.

To get the required take-off performance by using the wheel thrust is a different matter. Especially on non paved runways.
By Bob_pipedream
#1346563
Here in lies the problem of being in innovation or creation...

You come up with an idea that needs research and development. To do development you need money. You do a bit of publicity to attract initial backers... A whole ton of people then come out to criticize and demand what your finished price, spec will be and ask where the flying prototype is...

I would hate to try and have some of the people on this forum around me when I cook, you would get the pasta in and they would start demanding when it will be ready, how much will they get and some would even try to taste the pasta and then say its too hot and not cooked enough...

Do any of you recall Harry Enfield's character 'You don't want to do it like that...' Now imagine being on the receiving end of it.

Patience - allow the R&D to run. You should not be little children shouting 'are we there yet?'

Publicity is necessary to gain funding for R&D, it is not a call for every man, jack and child to come out and throw eggs.
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1346574
You come up with an idea that needs research and development. To do development you need money.


It's a product, not an idea. And investors might well ask these sorts of questions!
By Bob_pipedream
#1346581
Its not a product until it is completed and ready for market. True canny investors (rather than British...) will recognize and balance risk and reward and understand that risk management is not about managing risk down to nil, but managing it to a level that they, individually, can tolerate.

If investors want a certain guaranteed return on their money - then they should go stick it in a very safe bank, not play at R&D projects whilst expecting no risk and the Earth in return.
By Maxthelion
#1346584
I'm with Bob and the other supporters on this. This example of innovation (and it is innovation, unless you can point out another electric-wheeled jet powered motor glider) should be allowed to be developed without all this sniping.

Ghengis, I didn't expect this kind of sniping from you especially. Your posts are normally the voice of reason on a forum where people often get above themselves. How about holding fire until there's a working prototype, or at least limiting your criticism to that of published facts rather than extending it to supposition about unpublished information? I'll bet Eyesoar hasn't published all the design data on his website, and why should he? Would you?

And Nallen, if you can't say anything nice..
To anybody that says 'I think the idea is **** but I'll be overjoyed to be proved wrong.' This is not encouragement. Its the opposite.

As an ex-glider pilot and a fan of the SSDR category, I really do think this idea has legs. Even if it turns out not to be workable for some reason, I still think it warrants a working prototype to find out.
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1346587
What did I say that was not nice?
By Maxthelion
#1346594
Sorry Nallen, I apologise. I was unjustified to highlight you when you've actually been pretty neutral on the subject. Some others' comments would have been better highlighted than mentioning you.

I just think we should be encouraging this as a community much more than we are. I want my choice of flying machine to extend further than the established manufacturers' offerings(good though many of them are).
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1346597
Thank you, Max. I was just trying to ask what I thought were reasonable, pertinent questions. Socratic method, and all that.

I don't care if the people behind this project have no track record. After all, René Fournier was, I believe, a ceramic artist before he designed motorgliders, and his were rather good. (Though let us also not forget that his was not a story of unqualified financial success.)
User avatar
By Flying_john
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1346601
The small Jet possibilities have been explored before:-

Image

but I can only guess there was not the demand for a small 2 seat GA jet.

The e-go SSDR seems to have a lot of enthusiasm in the project and some financial backers and Its great that the issue of lots of moving parts in a convential aero engine has been addressed with a rotary wankel engine. But will there be a mass market for a £60k single seat v.light aeroplane. I'm sure there will be some early adopters who have big piles of cash to play with, but if I had that sort of money to spend on aviating, I think I would want an alternative flying machine.

I'm just wating for teleporting technology to mature ... :lol: :lol: :lol:
By cockney steve
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1346604
As all you power-pilots know, you run up your engine to full power, yet poxy little glorified go-cart brakes can hold your aircraft stationary...Why, even a push-bike is better braked.

Now, Haven't you ever asked yourself just how these pathetic retarders can hold back an engine capable of propelling the whole caboodle at~100MPH ?

The answer , is the coupling of the propulsion-system to the surrounding air-mass.
ISTR some talk (perhaps it's reality?) of airliners having motorised Gear wheels to allow taxiing without all that expensive and inefficient air-stirring from the Donks which are only efficient with a greater differential between airspeed of engine anhd ambient.

You release your brakes and as the prop/jetblast get a more effective "grip2 on the ambient air, power-transfer becomes more efficient....the process is exponential...the faster you go, the faster you accelerate (until drag becomes a major issue.....
So, why not use a lightweight motorised wheel to save that initial huge gollop of fuel needed to taxi and get to a speed where a conventional engine is starting to get a bit efficient (coincidentally, I see Lift/drag rising to the point where the wheels' traction becomes marginal at about the same speed, so a symbiotic relationship )
I seem to recall a certain Scandinavian Airline pilot who was quite happy to bung a couple of model jet-turbines on his boots and cross the channel in his wing-suit.

My only reservation is the fuel-consumption V thrust usable....I have a gut feeling that a sailplane is not going to make better use of a pound of fuel, as will a propellor.
By Maxthelion
#1346610
Cockney Steve has summarised why it could work quite well. The point about fuel consumption vs thrust is slightly missing the point though. Self-sustaining jet gliders are becoming commonplace. Remember that this SSDR is a glider rather than a sit and cruise at a constant altitude type of tourer.

The engine's high consumption and consequent need to carry fuel, and the weight of the battery means that the overall weight of the combined power units and fuel is probably comparable to a foldaway self-launcher prop & piston job. This innovation isn't intended to be lighter/faster, its intended to be simpler and cheaper. The jet uses fuel that is dirt cheap and easily available (domestic kerosene @ 45p a litre) and is far more reliable than a foldaway two-stroke. The electric wheel system will also be very simple. And no, simple + simple does not equal complex!
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1346611
Powered wheels have already been done, of course: http://www.gizmag.com/e-fan-airbus-electric-plane/31823/
By Maxthelion
#1346612
That's very interesting, I didn't know that machine had a powered wheel. This is still the first aircraft to combine the two power methods that's not an airliner though. In that way it still ticks the innovation box.
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1346614
This E-fan is hardly an airliner, Max: it's a single-seat test-bed.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7