New plane will get 40MPG

V-tail bonanzas tried the consolidation of control surfaces at the expense of structural integrity. Perhaps with the advent of composite materials these geometrical surface area consolidations can prove viable. It really isn't a major aerodynamic breakthrough. What it is is a continual improvement on the advent of advanced materials. Just like skyscrapers and steel. The concept was thought of long before the unobtanium became obtainable to build them.

The kryptic sales pitch to donate creeps me out a little. Perhaps because Im an aerospace engineer by formal education I don't get amused by the pitch angle. Either way, anything to give GA a kick in the behind and out of the 1930s spam cans would be a plus in my book.
 
Will DeltaHawk ever get certified?:dunno:
 
John Baker said:
A weird looking new airplane concept will seat five, burns diesel, gets 40 MPG looking for investors, or just donations to get a prototype built.

Interesting.
Click to expand...

Swell. Once it's been built and has carried five people forty miles on one gallon of fuel I'll consider investing.
 
That's a nice RC model, but I'm holding out for my Moller SkyCar.
 
It will use bio-diesel. Does any FBO sell that? Could regular diesel or Jet-A be used?
 
spiderweb said:
Then I guess their advertising the fact that it uses bio-fuel is just a gimmick, really.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's marketing speak for "this thing will run in the future with no gasoline or fossil fuels" which every piston engine on the planet has been able to do since the first. I used to run an Onan generator on used oil change oil run through a filter.
 
Henning said:
Yep, it's marketing speak for "this thing will run in the future with no gasoline or fossil fuels" which every piston engine on the planet has been able to do since the first. I used to run an Onan generator on used oil change oil run through a filter.
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
This is one of those projects that makes me say "Whaaa?"

They could probably go moldless composite (ala Rutan) and build a proof of concept airframe for $30k, and get it in the air for another $30k using a lycoming and basic instrumentation and avionics. Why go to all the trouble of fundraising and applying for grants when you only need $60k to prove if the "magic" aerodyamics work or not?

The new engine is a different issue entirely. Why hold up the <supposedly> revolutionary airframe for want of the end-all, be-all engine?

Heck, Rutan built and flew the Voyager with bargain basement stuff for power and instrumentation. Once it flew, industry suppliers lined up to provide engines, avionics, etc.
 
kyleb said:
This is one of those projects that makes me say "Whaaa?"

They could probably go moldless composite (ala Rutan) and build a proof of concept airframe for $30k, and get it in the air for another $30k using a lycoming and basic instrumentation and avionics. Why go to all the trouble of fundraising and applying for grants when you only need $60k to prove if the "magic" aerodyamics work or not?

The new engine is a different issue entirely. Why hold up the <supposedly> revolutionary airframe for want of the end-all, be-all engine?

Heck, Rutan built and flew the Voyager with bargain basement stuff for power and instrumentation. Once it flew, industry suppliers lined up to provide engines, avionics, etc.
Click to expand...


The engine already exists.
 
Henning said:
The engine already exists.
Click to expand...

And is substantially more expensive than a $10k lycoming you could find on Barnstormers. The lycoming would allow them to prove their aerodynamic theories without spending the big bucks for the engine.

It seems like they are taking an all or nothing approach, where the only thing they really need to prove is whether their aerodynamic theories are valid.
 
Henning said:
Nearly any hydrocarbon of similar viscosity will burn in a Diesel engine.
Click to expand...

True, but lubricity is lacking in jet fuel. May need to add an additive to increase lubricity. I have no info on this engine, just diesels in general.
 
kyleb said:
And is substantially more expensive than a $10k lycoming you could find on Barnstormers. The lycoming would allow them to prove their aerodynamic theories without spending the big bucks for the engine.

It seems like they are taking an all or nothing approach, where the only thing they really need to prove is whether their aerodynamic theories are valid.
Click to expand...

The aerodynamics were proven years ago and engines are way cheaper than that, these guys aren't looking for a proof of concept, these guys are trying to make some money.
 
Thirty six years ago, I started my business with a total of $250.00 to my name. Scrounging money to start any business is next to impossible, especially during these Booming Obama years.

The concept may not be new, the engine to power a prototype might be found in a junk yard, the plastic to build it might come from water bottles, who knows? None of this actually means squat when it is yourself trying to get the thing off the ground.

You will do anything it takes to get it going. Hell, I cut a few lawns just so I could buy something to eat. I went door to door selling my picture frames, all I knew I had to do was try and survive. I wasn't a kid, I was 34 years old.

I had rented a 1920s era one car garage that faced a busy street. There was a traffic light a few doors down at the corner. All I had for a sign was one I painted myself on Kraft paper. (Brown wrapping paper) Cars waiting for the light to change would look at my little shop, shake their heads and laugh. I don't know how many of my friends told me I would not last six months.

Len Aaron, the owner (at that time) of Aaron Brothers Art Marts, a chain of around five hundred stores, and a personal friend, came in. He looked around my little joke of a shop and said; "Son, there are two ways to make money in retail, be either really big, or be really small, G-d help you if you get caught in between."

He never laughed, he said I would do fine, just don't give up.

Why am I relating this story? Many on this thread remind me of the occupants of those cars who were waiting for the light to change.

I hope the guy/s who are giving this a shot pull it off. It does not matter if they win or lose, what matters is that they tried. More better if they win though.

-John
 
I always wish new airplane manufacturers the best. It is certainly easy to say that it can be done on the cheap, but every aerospace manufacturer introducing a new product has had to jump through a mountain of hoops, both business and regulatory. Some are certainly vapor wear, and we can probably think of a handful based on recent history. But certainly not all.
 
Exactly, if you can't get interest, especially a project like this, why bother?

While you can 'one off' on the cheap, one offing is pretty much a complete loss of money. Making tooling for production is considerably greater in cost. If I wasn't making tooling for production, I wouldn't bother advertising for funds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top