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

Attachments:
Download 'draft.jpg' (43 KB)

Preview of image 'draft.jpg'

"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.

I like it.  I especially like the canopy, although I'm speaking of the 3D CG
aspect of how it looks more than the CAD aspect.  I just can't help but to
enjoy things that look the way that canopy does.  Guess because of the scale
model prototype appearance.
Do you have MegaPov?  Would be very good for that propeller to use motion
blur instead of just a disc there.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

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

GrimDude wrote:

> 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

Don't worry, son !  ;-)
My calculations show it works.
Maybe it looks a little bit nose-heavy
due to the view angle...
Greetings !  -  Jens

Post a reply to this message

ryan constantine wrote:

> 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]

The nose gear rectracts rearward into the nose
(who would have expected that ? *grin*)
while the main gear rectracts partly forward into
the tailbooms (similar to the A-10 Thunderbolt).
This is to keep a rather long wheelbase and track
and to protect the propeller.
Engine exhaust is not shown in the picture, it will be
to the rear (two pipes on each side of the fuselage
little below wing level).
Engine compartment is not too small as i use a
"Wankel" rotary-piston engine. It has little weight
and small dimensions related to high power output.
Canopy opens forward and upward, like in some
modern sailplanes. The pilot sits in it much the same way.
Anything forgotten ?  Oh, yes, the wingtips.
Right, they should be aerodynamically improved.
Rounded wingtips make sense and I already thought
about it, but if you take a closer look at some
aerobatic competition planes (e.g. Extra 300),
you dont see rounded tips.
However, I was too busy with other aspects but too
include it into the image.
Thanks for questions and comments !
Greetings !  - Jens

Post a reply to this message

Oh, I know it'll fly! :) I wouldn't hesitate to fly such a plane.
My comment was directed mostly to its similarity to early P-38 mockups. The
38 was a much heavier plane, of course (and flew at greater speeds then you
probably had in mind), so Kelly wisely choose to put the pilot near the CG.
I don't see anything in your design that would indicate problems.

Grim

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote:

> Oh, I know it'll fly! :) I wouldn't hesitate to fly such a plane.
> My comment was directed mostly to its similarity to early P-38 mockups. The
> 38 was a much heavier plane, of course (and flew at greater speeds then you
> probably had in mind), so Kelly wisely choose to put the pilot near the CG.
> I don't see anything in your design that would indicate problems.
>
> Grim

So do I !  :))
Thx for your comments.
Of course I know about the P-38,
and my own design has been influenced by it a little bit
because I do like it very much.
Nevertheless, the design concept is straight technical.
Jens

Post a reply to this message

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.)

I like it. Sort of P-38-ish. Looks like it would fly just fine. Have you
calculated any theoretical moments of inertia or stability derivatives? It
might be interesting to try it out in a flight simulator.

Jon (Aero Engr, too)


--
------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
JSBSim Project
www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/flightsim.html
------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Jon Berndt wrote:

> 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.)
>
> I like it. Sort of P-38-ish. Looks like it would fly just fine. Have you
> calculated any theoretical moments of inertia or stability derivatives? It
> might be interesting to try it out in a flight simulator.
>
> Jon (Aero Engr, too)
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Jon S. Berndt
> JSBSim Project
> www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/flightsim.html
> ------------------------------------------------------

Hello Jon !
Of course I have.
But so far, I havent had the possibility of testing it in a simulator
because I dont have a flight simulator aircraft construction tool. :(
It would be great to test it that way, I already thought about it.
I have read some info about FLIGHT GEAR quite a while ago.
Do you think it will be sufficient for that task ?
I don't know about the current development stage though.
Thx for  your comments/ideas !
Jens

Post a reply to this message

> > Jon Berndt wrote:
> >
> > I like it. Sort of P-38-ish. Looks like it would fly just fine. Have you
> > calculated any theoretical moments of inertia or stability derivatives?
It
> > might be interesting to try it out in a flight simulator.

Jens Strohmeyer <j.s### [at] tu-bsde> wrote in message

> Hello Jon !
> Of course I have.
> But so far, I havent had the possibility of testing it in a simulator
> because I dont have a flight simulator aircraft construction tool. :(
> It would be great to test it that way, I already thought about it.
> I have read some info about FLIGHT GEAR quite a while ago.
> Do you think it will be sufficient for that task ?

I am biased. ;-)  I am the coordinator for JSBSim, an open source flight
dynamics model (FDM) that is used for FlightGear, along with the NASA
Langley LaRCsim FDM. For the past two years I have been writing a C++ FDM,
with the cooperation of a couple other guys. If you can give me the mass
properties and stability derivatives I can model it. See the link below in
my signature. FlightGear/JSBSim currently models the C-172 and the X-15. I'd
like to create a movie using the data output from FlightGear/JSBSim and use
POV-Ray to render the approach and landing.

> I don't know about the current development stage though.

(see www.flightgear.org) We are at version 0.7.4 and just finished showing
at the San Jose Linux World show. There is one Linux distribution that is
now including FlightGear (Debian? Mandrake? SUSE? - it's not RedHat).

Jon

------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
JSBSim Project
www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/flightsim.html
------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Jon Berndt wrote:

> > > Jon Berndt wrote:
> > >
> > > I like it. Sort of P-38-ish. Looks like it would fly just fine. Have you
> > > calculated any theoretical moments of inertia or stability derivatives?
> It
> > > might be interesting to try it out in a flight simulator.
>
> Jens Strohmeyer <j.s### [at] tu-bsde> wrote in message
>
> > Hello Jon !
> > Of course I have.
> > But so far, I havent had the possibility of testing it in a simulator
> > because I dont have a flight simulator aircraft construction tool. :(
> > It would be great to test it that way, I already thought about it.
> > I have read some info about FLIGHT GEAR quite a while ago.
> > Do you think it will be sufficient for that task ?
>
> I am biased. ;-)  I am the coordinator for JSBSim, an open source flight
> dynamics model (FDM) that is used for FlightGear, along with the NASA
> Langley LaRCsim FDM. For the past two years I have been writing a C++ FDM,
> with the cooperation of a couple other guys. If you can give me the mass
> properties and stability derivatives I can model it. See the link below in
> my signature. FlightGear/JSBSim currently models the C-172 and the X-15. I'd
> like to create a movie using the data output from FlightGear/JSBSim and use
> POV-Ray to render the approach and landing.
>
> > I don't know about the current development stage though.
>
> (see www.flightgear.org) We are at version 0.7.4 and just finished showing
> at the San Jose Linux World show. There is one Linux distribution that is
> now including FlightGear (Debian? Mandrake? SUSE? - it's not RedHat).
>
> Jon
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Jon S. Berndt
> JSBSim Project
> www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/flightsim.html
> ------------------------------------------------------

Well, I thank you very much for the offer !  :-)
But to my regrets I am not allowed to send
you any detailed data of the aircraft because
I have signed a contract with an aircraft
production company.
The aircraft design is part of the contract
and also contents of my thesis (diploma).
I hope you understand my situation.... sorry !

I have downloaded FlightGear to my Win98 system
and tested it, but it seems still to have some stability problems.
Sometimes it runs without any problems, sometimes not.
If you show me how to integrate a new aircraft
into FlightGear, I could model it by myself, I think.
It would be nice to stay in contact !

Best regards,
Jens

Post a reply to this message

"Jens Strohmeyer" <j.s### [at] tu-bsde> wrote in message
news:399### [at] tu-bsde...
>
> I have signed a contract with an aircraft
> production company.

Do you plan on selling this plane pre-built or in kit form?  Years ago I
built a Falcon XP (2 seat pusher canard, for those who've never heard of it
http://www.datasync.com/~ericfree/falcon_xp_1.jpg ).  Had to sell it because
the wife hated it.  The wife is gone and now I'm looking for another plane
to build.

Eric
--------------------
http://www.datasync.com/~ericfree
--------------------
"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
- Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Mechanics.

Post a reply to this message

Eric Freeman wrote:

> "Jens Strohmeyer" <j.s### [at] tu-bsde> wrote in message
> news:399### [at] tu-bsde...
> >
> > I have signed a contract with an aircraft
> > production company.
>
> Do you plan on selling this plane pre-built or in kit form?  Years ago I
> built a Falcon XP (2 seat pusher canard, for those who've never heard of it
> http://www.datasync.com/~ericfree/falcon_xp_1.jpg ).  Had to sell it because
> the wife hated it.  The wife is gone and now I'm looking for another plane
> to build.
>
> Eric
> --------------------
> http://www.datasync.com/~ericfree
> --------------------
> "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
> - Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Mechanics.

Well, please remind the fact that even a prototype has not yet flown.
It will take quite a long time until production starts (if at all !).
Thank you for your interest !
Best regards,
Jens

Post a reply to this message