It's a nice image, well displayed. 

I'd think that the length and shape of the glass would cause a considerable
increase in production costs compared to a more conservative design in
that particular area.    

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  1:58pm  up 30 days, 12:25,  2 users,  load average: 1.03, 1.08, 1.06

Post a reply to this message

Steve wrote:

> It's a nice image, well displayed.
>
> I'd think that the length and shape of the glass would cause a considerable
> increase in production costs compared to a more conservative design in
> that particular area.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
>
> %HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps.
>
> web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
>
> or  http://start.at/zero-pps
>
>   1:58pm  up 30 days, 12:25,  2 users,  load average: 1.03, 1.08, 1.06

No, not at all.
Just think of the modern soaring planes.
Canopy is about the same,
I already thought about adapting one from there.
Greetings ! - Jens

Post a reply to this message

Looks fun! What, no wingtip static dischargers or plates to prevent airflow
around the tip? ;-)

--
David Fontaine     <dav### [at] faricynet>     ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

Post a reply to this message

Look like it would be a little nose heavy. Where is the center of gravity?

Regards,
C.J. - POV User
www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy

Jens Strohmeyer <j.s### [at] tu-bsde> wrote in message
news:3997DD26.6A2CDC13@tu-bs.de...
> This is a general aviation sports aircraft I designed in my spare time.
> It is a single-seater, has limited aerobatic capabilites (-/+ 6 g)
> and uses a pusher engine and rectractable main landing gear.
> MTOW is about 500 kg, top speed is 450 km per hour. Wing span is 6 m.
> (You must know that I am a post-graduate aerospace engineering student.)
>
> "Designed" does not mean "paint" with POVRAY in this case.
> What you see is the result of months of hard work and lots
> of calculations and sketches and "what-if's", so there is a reason why
> the
> plane looks like this and not any other way.
> I used POVRAY for design visualization because I had
> no other CAD-Tool at hand.
> I send you this not to judge the image, but the plane !
> Any comments on the aircraft would be nice.
> Thanks !
> Jens
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

I do like it though....

Regards again.....
C.J. - POV User

C.J. <hou### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:39983a4c@news.povray.org...
> Look like it would be a little nose heavy. Where is the center of gravity?
>
> Regards,
> C.J. - POV User
> www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy
>
> Jens Strohmeyer <j.s### [at] tu-bsde> wrote in message
> news:3997DD26.6A2CDC13@tu-bs.de...
> > This is a general aviation sports aircraft I designed in my spare time.
> > It is a single-seater, has limited aerobatic capabilites (-/+ 6 g)
> > and uses a pusher engine and rectractable main landing gear.
> > MTOW is about 500 kg, top speed is 450 km per hour. Wing span is 6 m.
> > (You must know that I am a post-graduate aerospace engineering student.)
> >
> > "Designed" does not mean "paint" with POVRAY in this case.
> > What you see is the result of months of hard work and lots
> > of calculations and sketches and "what-if's", so there is a reason why
> > the
> > plane looks like this and not any other way.
> > I used POVRAY for design visualization because I had
> > no other CAD-Tool at hand.
> > I send you this not to judge the image, but the plane !
> > Any comments on the aircraft would be nice.
> > Thanks !
> > Jens
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
>
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:51:02 +0200, Jens Strohmeyer <j.s### [at] tu-bsde>
wrote:

>I send you this not to judge the image, but the plane !
>Any comments on the aircraft would be nice.

Jens this is most appropriate.  We have just been trying to answer the question
"What use is POV"  in p.newusers - you have provided an excellent example.

I like the look of your plane.  The concept is interesting and it looks if it
would handle in a sporty way.  It appears to have zero dihedral so I suppose you
designed it to be flown by an experienced pilot.  The junction of the booms with
the tailpane seems rather slender for a high stress region.  Is the construction
mainly fibreglass?

BTW I like the image :-)
 
dav### [at] hamiltonitecom
http://hamiltonite.com/

Post a reply to this message

"Jens Strohmeyer" <j.s### [at] tu-bsde> wrote :
>
> I used POVRAY for design visualization because I had
> no other CAD-Tool at hand.

    I have the full version of AutoCAD 12 but I use POV for all my work that
does not need wireframe or dimensions. Actually I will often do it in POV
and then once I am satisfied, translate it over to AC by typing in the
proportions and use AC to mark the dimensions.

> I send you this not to judge the image, but the plane !

    I doubt that there are many here that can actually judge the plane on
anything other than aesthetics. I certainly cannot. But as an image of a
work in progress, it looks quite promising. Details and textures are all it
really needs.

Post a reply to this message

where do the landing gear go? doesn't look like there is room.  and how
about engine exhaust?  is that under the wings?  which direction does
the canopy open?  does the pilot lay down?  why are the wing tips
'cut'?  i only recall seeing rounded wing tips.  does the pilot get to
sit on something and use controls or just flop around inside the
cockpit?  just kidding with that last one. considering the wingspan is 6
meters, it looks like the fuselage is about a meter wide and the canopy
would be 2 meters long.  and the engine compartment seems a bit small
maybe.  a friend of mine had a push plane called a cozy.  it had canards
in the front, wings that swept back and had the tails at the wingtips. 
it was a three seater and very aerobatic although i'm not sure of how
many g's it could handle.  they sold it to get a 5-seater twin engine
boring plane and shortly after that, the new owner crashed on landing. 
it was deemed unrepairable.  i must say, your design is visually
appealling.  i like it.

Jens Strohmeyer wrote:
> 
> This is a general aviation sports aircraft I designed in my spare time.
> It is a single-seater, has limited aerobatic capabilites (-/+ 6 g)
> and uses a pusher engine and rectractable main landing gear.
> MTOW is about 500 kg, top speed is 450 km per hour. Wing span is 6 m.
> (You must know that I am a post-graduate aerospace engineering student.)
> 
> "Designed" does not mean "paint" with POVRAY in this case.
> What you see is the result of months of hard work and lots
> of calculations and sketches and "what-if's", so there is a reason why
> the
> plane looks like this and not any other way.
> I used POVRAY for design visualization because I had
> no other CAD-Tool at hand.
> I send you this not to judge the image, but the plane !
> Any comments on the aircraft would be nice.
> Thanks !
> Jens
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

With the pilot so far forward of the center-of-gravity it probably won't be
seeing anything like 6g's. Maybe, if you gave the nose more glass and set
the pilot on his belly, you could get 4-6g's, but somehow I doubt it. :)

This appears to be a nice sport design. :)

Grim

Post a reply to this message

David Wilkinson wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:51:02 +0200, Jens Strohmeyer <j.s### [at] tu-bsde>
> wrote:
>
> >I send you this not to judge the image, but the plane !
> >Any comments on the aircraft would be nice.
>
> Jens this is most appropriate.  We have just been trying to answer the question
> "What use is POV"  in p.newusers - you have provided an excellent example.
>
> I like the look of your plane.  The concept is interesting and it looks if it
> would handle in a sporty way.  It appears to have zero dihedral so I suppose you
> designed it to be flown by an experienced pilot.  The junction of the booms with
> the tailpane seems rather slender for a high stress region.  Is the construction
> mainly fibreglass?
>
> BTW I like the image :-)
>
> dav### [at] hamiltonitecom
> http://hamiltonite.com/

Well, ALMOST right. ;-)
The construction will be mainly of carbon fiber structure.
You cannot see it from this angle, but the wing has a slight
dihedral angle of 3.0 degrees to make handling easier
in level flight.
"Pure" aerobatic competition planes have no dihedral in
most cases, but this one is NOT for competition
(the moment of inertia around the longitudinal axis
is high because of the booms and the rectractable gear
which rectracts into the booms) but for the average private
pilot who wants to have some fun !
Greetings !  - Jens

Post a reply to this message