Dark Aero 1

Other than vans, have any of them come up with a new design in the last decade? I think even the twin velocity is older than that now and It’s not exactly a new design.

None that I know of but not sure what you’re getting at by not having a design in the last decade. They don’t have a need to come up with a new design anyway. The wheel has already been reinvented many times over.

My point is, these were all start ups and their designs at the time were just as cutting edge and complex (for the time)as Dark Aero. They managed to have a flying product is far less time than any of these new EABs today.
 
None that I know of but not sure what you’re getting at by not having a design in the last decade. They don’t have a need to come up with a new design anyway. The wheel has already been reinvented many times over.

My point is, these were all start ups and their designs at the time were just as cutting edge and complex (for the time)as Dark Aero. They managed to have a flying product is far less time than any of these new EABs today.
I'm not sure what I'm saying either. I guess I'm saying it isn't necessarily Dark Aero's lack of ability. It seems to be across the board.
 
None that I know of but not sure what you’re getting at by not having a design in the last decade. They don’t have a need to come up with a new design anyway. The wheel has already been reinvented many times over.

My point is, these were all start ups and their designs at the time were just as cutting edge and complex (for the time)as Dark Aero. They managed to have a flying product is far less time than any of these new EABs today.

Yeah, but these guys are engineers with lots of experience in CAD and other advanced manufacturing tools/techniques so... um...

Nevermind.
 
Man, four years in the making and no flight yet. What is it with EAB these days?

Completely different approach. Vans started with selling plans, then slowly added parts. Velocity, Glassair and the others went with mold-less construction which is very fast to get to concept.
These guys are going for production molds, which ups the complexity requirements for the initial step significantly. Especially when you consider that they have many custom design aspects which need to be tested.

Tim
 
My point is, these were all start ups and their designs at the time were just as cutting edge and complex (for the time)as Dark Aero. They managed to have a flying product is far less time than any of these new EABs today.
Out of curiosity, what other E/AB's went from clean sheet design to flying in less time. And I'm referring to equivalent aircraft (i.e. constant speed prop, retractable). I'll even forego the split rudder.

I think one of the things these guys are doing that costing them time is looking at production while building. I'm guessing that most everyone else built the plane first and then tried to figure out how to start producing kits.

And I just checked their website. Total cost $150,000-$200,000. Their honesty may come back and bite them. Seems like everyone else glosses over the "actual" cost. :D
 
Out of curiosity, what other E/AB's went from clean sheet design to flying in less time. And I'm referring to equivalent aircraft (i.e. constant speed prop, retractable). I'll even forego the split rudder.

I think one of the things these guys are doing that costing them time is looking at production while building. I'm guessing that most everyone else built the plane first and then tried to figure out how to start producing kits.

And I just checked their website. Total cost $150,000-$200,000. Their honesty may come back and bite them. Seems like everyone else glosses over the "actual" cost. :D

Well what is clean sheet anyway? This is a two place that closely resembles a Lancair 360 with a hint of Nemesis NXT. Even a Raptor really wasn’t clean sheet. Pete copied off of a basic canard design…mostly Velocity. In both cases, while the engineering is different, the overall designs are very similar. As far as constant speed prop and retracts, that tech that’s already established. They didn’t develop it. They’re not designing a CS prop. That’s produced by someone else such as Sensenich’s CS prop that mates with the 520Ulis.

Dan Maher wasn’t even an aerospace engineer. He built boats. Had a flying prototype within 7 months in 1984 and kits shipping the following year.

Lance Neibuer was an artist. Designed the Lancair 200 in about a year in 83, prototype flying the next year and kits shipping in 85’. Began work on the Lancair IV in 1990 and had kits shipping the following year.

Glasair founded in 1979 and had Glasair 1TD kits shipping in 1980. By 1986, 700 kits of various versions had already been sent out.

Vans RV3 while no definitive time of design start date(late 60s), Dick had a flying prototype in 1972 and kits manufactured by him personally the following year. We all know how that company turned out.

If it took someone like a Burt Rutan 4 years to make a prototype, he would have been bankrupt long ago.
 
A clean sheet meaning you don't have an existing version that you're modifying. i.e. A Velocity SE into a Velocity XL. An RV-7 into an RV-8.

I thought Lance Neibuer started working on the Lancair in '81 and it didn't fly until December of '84?

And it's not like you can take the retract mechanism from a Mooney and stick it in your new design. You may be able to take the idea but you still got to produce the version for your plane.

IIRC, it took Duane and Scott Swing over a year to get the retract mechanism for the Velocity ready. And that's just the retract system.
 
I don't think comparing an aviation startups in the 80's to those today is particularly useful. The physics of flight are about the *only* things that are consistent between the two. That and in pretty much any startup the gray hairs in the incumbent industry are going to tell you you're doing it all wrong...

It does seem like the industry wisdom is shifting to think harder about production line consistency/cost/scalability than "first flight" prototypes.
 
Folks of yesterday did whatever blah blah blah. You guys are pathetic. They did the easy stuff in yesteryear. As time goes on it gets harder. Less was expected in days of yore, more is now. I bet these guys wind up with a kick-ass airplane.

I won't deny the difficulty of what the designers and builders of today are doing. But being the first to do something that can kill you if you get it wrong scores a whole lotta difficulty points in my book.

I give a lot of credit to the early pioneers in any field of endeavor, no matter how easy their accomplishment looks today.
 
Give me a break. The aero designers today have learned from the mistakes of the past…at least they should have. They also didn’t have the computing power in the 70s, 80s like today. Assembly processes have improved as well. No reason to take this long on a project unless it’s a staffing issue or there isn’t any real dedication being made to the project.
 
People said the same thing about Peter. Can’t critique him because at least he designed and flew his own aircraft and we didn’t.

Velocity173,
Who doesn’t believe in giving out trophies for hard work alone.
 
People said the same thing about Peter. Can’t critique him because at least he designed and flew his own aircraft and we didn’t.
Who said that? There's a difference between "Can't critique because you haven't designed and flown..." and "You don't know what you're talking about."

Nauga,
who hasn't and does
 
Who said that? There's a difference between "Can't critique because you haven't designed and flown..." and "You don't know what you're talking about."

Nauga,
who hasn't and does

Who said designing and building a kit plane was easy?
 
One of my wrestling coaches used to say. "there's no such thing as can't, just hasn't been done yet"
 
About Dark Aero, some of you have may have followed the project a lot closer than the rest of us, so does anyone know if it will have a temperature limitation?

Asking because I recently flew a DA20, and there is a big 55c temperature gauge between the seats to measure the superstructure temps. If it hits that you are not supposed to fly.
Here in south Texas it has gotten close a few times.

It is a lot of carbon fiber like Dark Aero.
 
About Dark Aero, some of you have may have followed the project a lot closer than the rest of us, so does anyone know if it will have a temperature limitation?

Asking because I recently flew a DA20, and there is a big 55c temperature gauge between the seats to measure the superstructure temps. If it hits that you are not supposed to fly.
Here in south Texas it has gotten close a few times.

It is a lot of carbon fiber like Dark Aero.

The issue is the resin. The DA40/42/62 do not have the same issue. The DA20 dates back to the days when Diamond was transitioning from a glider company to a powered glider company with most customers in northern climates.

Tim
 
I've held my tongue for a long time because I really hope these guys make it. But I've also put in a long career in composite tooling. My resume includes tool strings (master models, layup molds, ply and core templates, trim fixtures, drill fixtures, check tools on up to some very expensive match metal dies - all of it) for open wheel race cars, truck bodies, commercial planes, GA planes (Cirrus, Lancair and the jet that became the Cirrus jet), tilt rotor, F-22, F-35, ICBMS and parts that went into space.

Here's the red flag for me. They're trying to make serial number 1 be perfect. Peter (raptor guy) made the same mistake of attempting to go straight to production tooling like there would never be any revisions. Let me tell you how it normally goes. You give it your best stab at how everything fits together and then you have temporary, short term tooling made. You will have your forehead slapper moments so you adapt and overcome. Your prototype will have some forehead slapper moments where things didn't go as planned. In assembly you'll find areas where you painted yourself into a corner and realize you need three elbows to do the build. Then you'll fly the thing and come to the conclusion you need to move the wing 2".
To assume that you're the first group of smart engineers to get to skip that step is naive. The plane we know as the P-51 went from bar napkin sketch to flying prototype in 102 days - and was a failure. Go crack the history books yourself but it took several modifications before it became the plane we remember. I worked for a company that made the tool string to do the intake ducts for the F-35 back when it was the JSF competition. We did a beautiful set of carbon fiber breakdown mandrels 18' long. I was sad to learn that they would only make 7 sets of ducts and then be scrapped because certainly there would be changes to the design. If Lockheed knew that in advance, well that says something a few dudes with CAD experience and epoxy floors might want to consider.

These guys have produced how many successful kits before?

We're almost to the point where history only knows Jim Bede didn't work out so well. For a few decades there people would have called him a crook. But what he was, was a great designer and a near genius when it came to manufacturing processes. He just had some flaws in his business model.

Peter? Bless his heart, he started out with a good (I didn't say great) idea. I know someone who held a low digit serial number for a Raptor (I also know someone with a low digit serial number for a Dark Aero) and it was going to be some kind of open source engineering grass roots project, with input from builders. We all know how it turned out. Where I come from we call it stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.

Make your master models, create some temporary tooling (PFPs, or Plastic Faced Plasters) are good for between 1 and 25 parts (depends on the shape and some luck). Trim them by hand. Expect your prototype to have some bumps in it and be overweight. Do not publish optimistic performance numbers until your prototype actually delivers. Take what you learned on the flying prototype and roll it back into your design.

I'll say it again, I hope they succeed and the plane flies well.

PS, want another example? Turbaero. A 200hp turbo prop. I'm at "shut up and take my money" with just the basic stats. But they've been to Oshkosh at least twice, Sun n Fun just recently and you can't swing a cat without hitting one of their advertisements. My issue is: No running prototype. "We're working on it".
 
Yea......but does it only cost $4,400.....Guaranteed! (like a fool, I bought 3 of them.......but only lost my $1,200 deposit)
 
I think Rutan deserves some of the credit regarding Bede's "genius". Rutan worked for Bede and resolved some of the issues with Bede's designs. I think part of Bede's problems was ADD. He'd come up with a not quite finished design and then move on to the next one. Without a guy like Rutan to fix the things that didn't work, he ended up with having to add 170 lbs to fix cg issues. Hmmm....sounds familiar...
 
We're almost to the point where history only knows Jim Bede didn't work out so well. For a few decades there people would have called him a crook. But what he was, was a great designer and a near genius when it came to manufacturing processes. He just had some flaws in his business model.

To be fair, the BD-4 was brilliant and gave folks confidence he knew what he was doing. The BD-5....umm, well. the opposite.
 
I've held my tongue for a long time because I really hope these guys make it. But I've also put in a long career in composite tooling. My resume includes tool strings (master models, layup molds, ply and core templates, trim fixtures, drill fixtures, check tools on up to some very expensive match metal dies - all of it) for open wheel race cars, truck bodies, commercial planes, GA planes (Cirrus, Lancair and the jet that became the Cirrus jet), tilt rotor, F-22, F-35, ICBMS and parts that went into space.

Here's the red flag for me. They're trying to make serial number 1 be perfect. Peter (raptor guy) made the same mistake of attempting to go straight to production tooling like there would never be any revisions. Let me tell you how it normally goes. You give it your best stab at how everything fits together and then you have temporary, short term tooling made. You will have your forehead slapper moments so you adapt and overcome. Your prototype will have some forehead slapper moments where things didn't go as planned. In assembly you'll find areas where you painted yourself into a corner and realize you need three elbows to do the build. Then you'll fly the thing and come to the conclusion you need to move the wing 2".
To assume that you're the first group of smart engineers to get to skip that step is naive. The plane we know as the P-51 went from bar napkin sketch to flying prototype in 102 days - and was a failure. Go crack the history books yourself but it took several modifications before it became the plane we remember. I worked for a company that made the tool string to do the intake ducts for the F-35 back when it was the JSF competition. We did a beautiful set of carbon fiber breakdown mandrels 18' long. I was sad to learn that they would only make 7 sets of ducts and then be scrapped because certainly there would be changes to the design. If Lockheed knew that in advance, well that says something a few dudes with CAD experience and epoxy floors might want to consider.

These guys have produced how many successful kits before?

We're almost to the point where history only knows Jim Bede didn't work out so well. For a few decades there people would have called him a crook. But what he was, was a great designer and a near genius when it came to manufacturing processes. He just had some flaws in his business model.

Peter? Bless his heart, he started out with a good (I didn't say great) idea. I know someone who held a low digit serial number for a Raptor (I also know someone with a low digit serial number for a Dark Aero) and it was going to be some kind of open source engineering grass roots project, with input from builders. We all know how it turned out. Where I come from we call it stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.

Make your master models, create some temporary tooling (PFPs, or Plastic Faced Plasters) are good for between 1 and 25 parts (depends on the shape and some luck). Trim them by hand. Expect your prototype to have some bumps in it and be overweight. Do not publish optimistic performance numbers until your prototype actually delivers. Take what you learned on the flying prototype and roll it back into your design.

I'll say it again, I hope they succeed and the plane flies well.

PS, want another example? Turbaero. A 200hp turbo prop. I'm at "shut up and take my money" with just the basic stats. But they've been to Oshkosh at least twice, Sun n Fun just recently and you can't swing a cat without hitting one of their advertisements. My issue is: No running prototype. "We're working on it".

About that idea of a 200 hp turbine. PBS has one, the TS100. The specific fuel consumption of small engines tends to be worse than larger ones, and the fuel specifics of turbine engines tends to be worse than that of recips. PBS lists the specific fuel consumption for the TS100 at cruise as 0.901 lb/HP/hr, double of what you'd get from an 0-360. No thanks.
 
I've been pretty impressed by their quality of work so far: https://www.facebook.com/darkaeroinc/

I just wish, like with Raptor, that they would have started with a conventional Lycoming / Continental engine.

The UL engine was designed from the ground up as a aircraft engine and so far has a excellent in service record. It’s also been installed in a lot of airframes. Comparing it to Raptor grabbing a auto engine out of a junkyard is a bit of a stretch.

https://ulpower.com/en/engines/installations
 
Last edited:
I've held my tongue for a long time because I really hope these guys make it. But I've also put in a long career in composite tooling. My resume includes tool strings (master models, layup molds, ply and core templates, trim fixtures, drill fixtures, check tools on up to some very expensive match metal dies - all of it) for open wheel race cars, truck bodies, commercial planes, GA planes (Cirrus, Lancair and the jet that became the Cirrus jet), tilt rotor, F-22, F-35, ICBMS and parts that went into space.

Here's the red flag for me. They're trying to make serial number 1 be perfect. Peter (raptor guy) made the same mistake of attempting to go straight to production tooling like there would never be any revisions. Let me tell you how it normally goes. You give it your best stab at how everything fits together and then you have temporary, short term tooling made. You will have your forehead slapper moments so you adapt and overcome. Your prototype will have some forehead slapper moments where things didn't go as planned. In assembly you'll find areas where you painted yourself into a corner and realize you need three elbows to do the build. Then you'll fly the thing and come to the conclusion you need to move the wing 2".
To assume that you're the first group of smart engineers to get to skip that step is naive. The plane we know as the P-51 went from bar napkin sketch to flying prototype in 102 days - and was a failure. Go crack the history books yourself but it took several modifications before it became the plane we remember. I worked for a company that made the tool string to do the intake ducts for the F-35 back when it was the JSF competition. We did a beautiful set of carbon fiber breakdown mandrels 18' long. I was sad to learn that they would only make 7 sets of ducts and then be scrapped because certainly there would be changes to the design. If Lockheed knew that in advance, well that says something a few dudes with CAD experience and epoxy floors might want to consider.

These guys have produced how many successful kits before?

We're almost to the point where history only knows Jim Bede didn't work out so well. For a few decades there people would have called him a crook. But what he was, was a great designer and a near genius when it came to manufacturing processes. He just had some flaws in his business model.

Peter? Bless his heart, he started out with a good (I didn't say great) idea. I know someone who held a low digit serial number for a Raptor (I also know someone with a low digit serial number for a Dark Aero) and it was going to be some kind of open source engineering grass roots project, with input from builders. We all know how it turned out. Where I come from we call it stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.

Make your master models, create some temporary tooling (PFPs, or Plastic Faced Plasters) are good for between 1 and 25 parts (depends on the shape and some luck). Trim them by hand. Expect your prototype to have some bumps in it and be overweight. Do not publish optimistic performance numbers until your prototype actually delivers. Take what you learned on the flying prototype and roll it back into your design.

I'll say it again, I hope they succeed and the plane flies well.

PS, want another example? Turbaero. A 200hp turbo prop. I'm at "shut up and take my money" with just the basic stats. But they've been to Oshkosh at least twice, Sun n Fun just recently and you can't swing a cat without hitting one of their advertisements. My issue is: No running prototype. "We're working on it".
your pretty much spot on. i will give them credit though for even thinking that far ahead. yes, think about tooling and production while working on the prototype, it helps some of the re-design when you realize that you can't mass produce that part because of the complexity or the time to produce it. however, you can't try to go straight to production tooling as you have stated, a lesson i'm sure you have learned the hard way over many years of experience.
 
One light aircraft that’s for sure. My little Glasair is a fat girl compared to this thing.

 
I just wanted to revisit what I last said in this thread a year ago. Everyone into experimental planes knows of the RV-15, which was first shown at Osh 2022.

Well it's back again after a quiet year (causing some speculation). And...
https://www.avweb.com/recent-updates/experimentals/vans-aircraft-update-on-the-rv-15/
My post pointed out how unrealistic it is to go straight to production tooling and expect your design to meet expectations. The RV-15 is back at Osh this year, and they're hardly changing anything. Er, except the stabilator, trim/servo tab, rudder, flaps, wing, fuselage and motor mount.
It must be because Van's doesn't have enough experience in aircraft design to get it right the first time.
 
I don't see where they're planning on going straight to production tooling, but perhaps I've missed something. All their hardcore "tooling" from what I can see are things like the custom built ovens, and solidifying the technique(s) for going from CNC cut molds to the carbon forms. My only complaints are that they

a) seem to be able to self-fund with their consulting business so the timeline is slow and
b) they aren't focused on a 165+knot stol six seater, the heartless bastards...
 
Their videos are great if you really like to nerd out of engineering. I do hope they are able to come up with a better mousetrap at a price that is affordable to a bigger audience. until they produce a saleable production model, my "if I win a small lottery" airplane would still be
 
Ah yes, another engineering major undergraduate capstone project yai. Looks like they might make some of your money back retailing homemade honeycomb panels. Who knows, maybe they'll end up with a parts and materials business with enough profit to net them the discretionary life to buy an A36 Bo and be done with it :rofl:.
Idk about that man. I've been following their content pretty closely. They aren't students, and their engineering is sound. I'm unsure if any of them have a PE overlooking drawings, which I would personally prefer--someone with more wisdom and something to lose.

I really appreciate their explanation into manufacturing choices and manuf cell development. This is something that often appears to be discounted with small EAB kit manufacturers.
 
Methinks he doth protest too much. I don’t know about you guys but I wish I had the skills and opportunity to design and build like these guys.
 
5 years since this thread started. Gotta wonder who's signing the checks.
I don't wonder, and I don't care. They are keeping the project "small" in terms of facilities and personnel.
Their work seems to be quite good.
And maybe they'll actually have a clean, light, fast, and relatively inexpensive plane to sell.
Well, except for that last part, unless the first digit in "inexpensive" is a 2, followed by five more figures.
 
I stopped holding my breath
 
5 years since this thread started. Gotta wonder who's signing the checks.
Previously disclosed early on. They are self funded. All were multiple years into their professional careers, living at home and saving every penny they could until they started on the project.
Based on a few other comments, I believe, but have no proof, they are now effectively funded by family.

Tim
 
Back
Top