Exciting, NEW, Amphibious Aircraft.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2022
- In this video I discuss how far we have come since the first pictures my CAD guy sent me in February 2020 up until today (July 2022).
Previous Video "Pontus: My Radical New Amphibious Design!" can been seen here: • My Radical New Amphibi...
If you like what we are doing please consider becoming a Patreon or PayPal supporter. All money received will go to my CAD guy who lives in a 3rd world with very low pay. Here is the links if you wish to support this project:
www.paypal.com/paypalme/brigh...
/ brightstarasstarassemb...
If you would like to contact me directly, you may do so by emailing me at: brightstarassemblies@yahoo.com
TAGS:
Danny Creech, Bright Start Assemblies, Experimental Aircraft, Pontus, Amphibious, Aircraft, Sea plane, Twin engine, experimental, CAD, Creech, Airplane, Solidworks, EAA, Experimental Aircraft, Home-built aircraft, Home-built airplane, DIY, DIY Airplane 
Наука
You absolutely CAN make a scale model that can simulate the handling of the full-scale aircraft. Look up "non-dimensional analysis". Definitely one of the most eye-opening courses in my BSME degree.
Thanks for the comment.
Yes dimensionless analysis is the key here. That's how they tested aircraft designs in WW2 and the Cold War in wind tunnels (i.e. the pre-CFD era)
I'm 15 years old and really love aviation. I'm trying to design my own aircraft, I'm such a creative person and when I have an idea I just have to try it out. You are inspiring me to continue. I'm an overthinker which makes me always full of ideas, I even have a few for your aircraft. I really love what you are doing and really like the design of the aircraft. Much love from Belgium 💪🇧🇪
Belgium, thank you so much for your comments. I am glad to see my video is getting all the way around the world. When I was 15 I was like you full of ideas. I guess I still am. Thanks for sharing and never let life or society steal your dreams to a better more interesting future.
I have a couple good ideas would love to share them with you
Same here from Cameroon 🇨🇲
@@samuelsnowdon2271 hello why don't we work together
@@luckybrainzcomedy4735 not a bad offer
Having worked as a drafter for an aluminum jet boat manufacturer, i can tell you a bit about hulls, which you can use to inform the pontoon design. Also, while you may think the building of a scale model may not help prove the aerodynamics, I think that it is quite applicable to to helping evaluate the hydrodynamics, and the weight and balance at various speeds, taking off and landing. The jet boats I worked on had angled vee-shaped hull bottoms (called the Deadrise angle) The river boats that had to run in shallow water had 8 or 10 degree angles from horizontal, each side. The lake boats had steeper angles up to 20 degrees, for dealing with larger waves. The larger the deadrise angle, the more the hull can pierce the waves. (less slap.) So I think you want a steep angle at the front, and flatter at the rear.. so when you are landing at 140 knts, you benefit from planing at the rear, and piercing at the front.. but your pontoon volume along the length must also be proportional to the weight distribution. Your design looks a bit skinny at the front, meaning that it will be pitched forward sitting in the water.. so I do recommend spending some time with a model in the water and adjusting the weight distribution. Then you can optimize the shape of the deadrise for the planing and wave piercing aspects.. again.. experiment as much as possible.. fail early fail fast, and challenge all of your assumptions..
Chris, than you very much for your incite and wisdom. I would love to have a conversation with you on the phone. Please email me at brightstarassemblies@yahoo.com I can give you my number there. Thanks
Hi, a fresh graduate and aeronautical engineer here. These are some ideas I can suggest that might be worthy.
1. The propeller being behind the wing (pusher propeller type) might not be the best idea for a seaplane or an aircraft that would be used on water. The propeller would go low when taking off and landing, and be exposed to water (it might corrode the engine and propeller). Pusher propellers also get damaged quickly by other debris from the ground. Another thing is that pusher propellers tend to be noisy as the disturbed air coming from the wing would hit the propeller. The fuselage might need to be higher in order to utilize a pusher propeller, but its center of gravity goes higher and its stability will be affected.
2. It is recommended on an aircraft design book that the clearance between the propeller and the water for a seaplane or amphibian is 18 inches or 1 prop diameter.
3. Reconsider the T-tail design as it could go into deep stall at high angles of attack.
4. I suggest you choose a symmetrical NACA airfoil for your horizontal and vertical tail to provide a symmetrical control on your tail's control surfaces.
5. The main landing gear tire diameter has a general formula D = 1.51*(Aircraft Weight*0.85)^0.349. The nose landing gear can be between 60-100% of the main landing gear's diameter. I'm sorry I cannot contribute to the mechanism of the nose landing gear since I mostly know theoretical on this.
6. The nose landing gear should have its strut in an offset angle from the tire to prevent it from the shimmying problem, or you can add a shimmy damper mechanism.
I would like to just add that the scale model of the aircraft is useful for testing on the wind tunnel. It will produce a more realistic picture of its performance but it would definitely cost more.
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Thanks for writing rainlamarte1630. I appreciate all input especially from those who are aeronautical engineers.
1. Propeller will remain in this location because I want great visibility and having them on the aft section of the CG allows for the front of the aircraft to sit further out. I do understand the losses in performance I will be getting but when designing an aircraft there are always trade offs. I chose this one for a reason. Performance wasn't the reason.
2. The tips of the propellers will be about four feet up from the water.
3. Funny you should mention this. Just yesterday I had my CAD guy move the horizontal stabilizer to the mid section of the vertical stabilizer.
4. The horizontal and vertical stabilizers both have symmetrical airfoils.
5. Please email me at brightstarassemblies@yahoo.com about this. To be honest I had not thought about the size of the tire until just now. I would like to know more about this.
6. Same with this point. email me. I am not 100% sure what you mean by offset angle. I do understand a lot about shimmying problems.
Thanks again for the input. All is welcome.
20 yr seaplane pilot. Interesting design. You will find that the sharp vertical inside edges of your floats will cause you grief when landing. It is not uncommon to have a little lateral drift as you land and that edge will cause large lateral force on the pontoon as it contacts the water.
Ken, thanks for your comment. The floats will be completely changed. They will look like all the rest of the floats on bottom by the time we finish this design. We have already made many changes to the shape of the aircraft and engines since my last video. There is a lot more to some. Thanks again
At 12:50 in the video, it shows the different compartments of the pontoon; I would recommend having flooded compartments (ballast tank) to balance out the aircraft while on water for a more comfortable ride. Which should be adjustable so when in flight it may be dumped to provide better flight control and filled in water.
Thanks for the idea.
This looks so awesome! I'm about to graduate and I'm thinking about studying mechanical engineering next year. Your channel is great!
MOLO 27 thank you so much for your kind words. It is just the beginning of a very long journey for me. Right now I only have the three videos up. But as we make progress there will be a LOT MORE videos coming. Soon, I will be going at this full time and I will be able to produce one video a week giving lots of people more aviation fun to view.
Nice to know there will be more videos. This has been an interesting series. Wouls love to make some various kinds of crafts
Looks awesome! Hope you get it in the Air successfully.
I am sure it will get there. I just hope to have it finished before I am too old to enjoy it. I am 58 year old as of now.
Glad you made another update about the project
Thanks, Sorry it has taken so long. Had lots going on in my life over the past year.
Just for simplicity. They make transom thrusters(trolling motors). You can partially shroud them in the pontoons and only lose a minor amount of thrust. Having work independent jets and operate reverse gates at the same time. With the trollers it would be a simple rotary to auto forward revers each side.
Thomas, thanks for the comment. Could you send me photos and links to what you are talking about to my email address: brightstarassemblies@yahoo.com I would like to see more of what you are talking about. Also, if you know a way to easily and simplistically interact with both motors at the same time, I would like to hear about that as well. Thanks
@@BrightStarAssemblies Burt Rutan had an amphib. aircraft as well...though it was a monohull...
On your design I think the back-end of the pontoons with the square ending will create much unnecessary drag...the top surface also needs some curve (at least on the front)...
The pontoon nose tips do not need to be that pointy...it is not a supersonic aircraft...
I love ur idea of electric jet thrusters.
Thank you. I thought that up on my own. I didn't want to use water rudders that have to be raised and lowered like most sea planes. I wanted something sleek and clean sheet design. At first it started off as a small troller motor that would extend out of the fuselage. But that idea felt cartoonish and maybe a bit hard to integrate. Then I ran across the idea of small water jets like they use on jet skis. But those are a bit to big for this. The idea isn't to go fast, it is just the maneuver the aircraft up to the dock with the engines shut down at maybe 3-5kts of speed.
It would be fun to run the CAD model as STL and use CFD to analyze aerodynamic data.
We do plan to do this once the design is complete. Right now we are still in the design process.
First time watching this with Zero aircraft experience.I have an idea for you, a center pontoon, used for balance, extra fuel, hide the center landing gear. Just a thought I wanted to share. Love the deign. One last idea, what is the weight limits? Most of the designs out there aren’t large person friendly, example of 300 lb. Per person passenger with the appropriate shoulder room. Just the limit, if passengers are smaller then more range and speed.
Thanks for sharing your idea. This aircraft for sure is large size friendly. In fact, in this video the distance from shoulder to shoulder of the two front pilots is 14 inches (normal 200lbs guys). Then the space from shoulder to the side of the aircraft was 12 inches. So, a LOT of room. We have however reduced the with of the fuselage since this video by one foot. Meaning there is now six inches from shoulder to inside edge of the aircraft and still 14 inches in between. We could always reduce the 14 inches by bringing the two seats closer together giving more shoulder to inside wall of the aircraft. Being the builder, you could move the seats to fit your needs. Thanks for watching my video.
I can't wait to see that aircraft come to fruition! It is absolutely gorgeous.
Thank you so much. I am excited about it as well.
Am looking forward to that time too friend!
Fingers crossed!
Great video Mike, the last one in the list is a steal!
Thanks but I go by Danny. ;-) Glad you enjoyed the video.
thank you
You are very welcome.
This is awesome!
Thank you Joseph!
One of the big problems (if not the biggest) of this design is deep stall. With this big area on the front of the aircraft, the overall CP will be too forward, specially during a stall. You'll get a vortex on the V groove between the floaters and the fuselage. It's possible that this vortex helps with a increased downwash, but just CFD and/or wind tunnel tests can confirm this. Combined with the messed up stream of the wings and a relatively small horizontal tail volume, it's possible that you'll get a very bad scenario on a stall. Maybe it will be impossible to recover. You gonna need a very big safety tail chute. Be care about it.
Thanks for the comment. Aa you know from the video this is still a work in progress. We have already increased the entire tail section and moved it back one foot. We have also gotten some direction on the hull of the floats. I have started the script for the next update video but then my computer crashed. So, I am having to start over on the next video. We do plan on inputting this into X-Plane to see how it will stall. Thanks for your comment.
Excellent concept
Thank you
Very cool!!!
Thank you. Thanks for watching also.
Awesome👏👏👏
Thank you for watching Marie. Hopefully my videos are getting better. I'm not sure but I am trying.
Question: why did u choose a pusher configuration?
With the propeller in front of the wing, you would get more lift at take-off and probably lower noise and vibration.
As someone who loves the pusher configuration, I would like to know why you chose it.
Several reasons for the pusher configuration. The first one is viability. Second one is safety. When the aircraft approaches a dock, having propellers spinning in front could injure someone. If the blade slung a chunk off then and the blades where spinning in front of the wing, it could go into the cockpit and strike someone inside. Also, if you look at a lot of amphibious aircraft, there is a good number of them with rearward facing engines. The final reason is that I just like the look.
I do agree with the tips of the propellers coming within 12 inches of the fuselage, it will add noise and vibration. We will be putting a section of Kevlar back there for both sound and safety. I hope my answer helps. Thanks for the comment.
great effort , i used to do Rc's when i find time but really like to make a 2 seater flying car in my lifetime .
That would be cool. There are a lot of them trying to be built now. Just put Safety as the main goal in your design. No parachute, just a good clean safe design.
@@BrightStarAssemblies what can be an added safety measure apart from a great safe design ...other than parachutes ....anything ???which i may not have exposure to! love to hear from you .
I like the design, and a 4 seat AMES with 1500 lbs useful load would be great. I am rooting for this to work out, but I believe you will have a major challenge hitting the wight/strength numbers at that target price. Just like in mountain bike parts - light weight, strong, cost effective - pick 2. Even the $1M DA50RG only has a useful load of 1200 lbs. Light and strong will be costly, even in a kit build. If you could build a certified ASEL, or even an AMEL, with those specs, I would be first in line.
Thanks, I am hopeful with the numbers. We will just have to see what the engineer says regarding the load. If I can't meet or exceed those numbers, then, it would be pointless to build it. Since we haven't set a target price yet, I am sure we will hit the price point. I am sure I can build this plane cheaper than the iCon A5 sells their aircraft for.
Great video and project! There are a number of people who have done electric jet-ski conversions on RUclips; those videos/individuals could be helpful resources in the jet thruster parts of your project.
Thanks for the information. Yeah I have seen some of the videos. I am hoping to find someone who knows how to control them remotely. I do not want long cables going from the cockpit to the thrusters. It will be all electric. Someone who is making electric RC Boats will have more knowledge on this than those converting a gas powered jet sky over to electric. Thank you for your comment. All the comments are helpful.
I’m not an aircraft designer and I have no experience in the field but the connection between the pontoons and the fuselage seems quite thin, and I could definitely see the connection cracking in rough water or with a hard landing, thats just my unprofessional opinion though.
Thanks. Yes as discussed in the video about the flat nose and the rounded nose, I took my design to a professional composite designer and he has confirmed that there is enough area between the pontoons and the fuselage. Something that is not shown in this are that we will be adding to the CAD files is a chamfer. This will help blend the bottom area of the fuselage into the pontoons.
@@BrightStarAssemblies ok thank you.
Scaled version would be tempting to buy though.
Maybe I will offer plans that someone could make one from that.
I think the main gear doors are going to be a challenge since water is very dense some step in front of the doors is a must so they aren’t grabbed by the water and ripped off, bilge pumps are a must and they add weight, location of the bilges for scavenging is important so water doesn’t pool and the composite doesn’t start creating bubbles, galvanic corrosion is important to take into consideration, i hope I can be of help and if I am wrong please let’s talk
I agree about the gear doors. I will do my best to design something that is strong enough to not get ripped off. Remember there are jets that have gear doors that hang out in the air going 250kts. That would be comparable pressure to about 20 or 30 kts in water. These doors would only be opened in the water at dead stop. Cursing in water with the gear hanging out will be a limitation of the aircraft. Anyone going faster than 5 kts in the water with the gear hanging out, gets what they deserve. There are things pilots should not do and this is why aircraft manufactures put limitations on the aircraft.
"bilge pumps are a must" There will not be any bilge pumps on this aircraft. This is because there isn't any place water can get into or settle into. The pontoons (floats) are not empty. All compartments that are hallow will be filled up completely with closed cell foam. Kind of like the inner and outer skins on a Bayliner boat. This way, if you hit a log or something and rip a hole in the pontoon, it will still float. "galvanic corrosion" This type of corrosion only happens between two dissimilar metals. This aircraft is all composite. There is no metal in the pontoons. You are thinking about metal sea planes.
" i hope I can be of help" Sure, we can use all the help you can offer. Email me at brightstarassemblies@yahoo.com
@@BrightStarAssemblies thanks so much for the insight, sure will do at the email!
Cant wait to order a kit!
I will be excited when that day comes as well. I will probably have the first five build by buyers in-house. We want to do this so that we can track the questions we are asked, create building instructions, and get photos for an assemblie manual. After those first five, we will start shipping to all buyers.
Very cool!! I wouldn't personally bother with the thrusters, just added weight and complication. The twin props will work perfectly for maneuverability. The pontoons, could be joined into a hydrofoil, creating both lift in the water and air, make for some smooth take offs!!! thanks for sharing!!! I'm subscribing :-)
Thank you for the comment. I agree with you on all aspects. Keep watching to find out where this design goes. I am in the process of making the next view but it will be months before it is out as I am presently training at an airline and can't focus on getting out a video yet. But it will come. We have made many changes already.
Wing area normally includes flaps, ailerons, and tips, I believe...
Yeap, but at the moment I was trying to figure out the square foot area, I didn't have that number at hand and couldn't figure out how to include the other items. So, I just went with what I had so I could get the video out. As it was it took months working on this video and I just couldn't delay it any further for that number. I listed what I had just to give people and idea of the size.
How do you plan on removing the transmission from the BMW bike motor? I've tried to find good videos on this type of conversation and haven't been able to do so...
I am not planing on doing the conversion myself. There is a company over in Europe that sells them already converted. Recently I had an engineer look at the design and he is telling me that at gross weight the two 120hp engines will just barely be enough. So, I may have to put something bigger on it from the very start of the build of the prototype. As we get closer to locking in the final design, I will have a different engineer look it over and we will make our decision at that time.
Did you solve the issue of your pontoons? You need to look at planing hulls for your pontoons, they're designed to raise the front of the boat out of the water, at a desired speed, thus creating less drag. I like the idea, the philosophy and the design you're going for. Just wondering whether you've considered using a blended hull body for your aircraft like the seaplanes used to have, for stability in water instead of pontoons, you might consider using stabilisers, for stability in water, which when flying can act as lifting surfaces too, if intended. I'm sure you've heard of the Icon A5, they have something similar, but not quite. You can even stow your landing gear in them, if needed. Blended hull body and stabilisers will reduce the overall size of the aircraft thus reducing drag. For engine, I've been looking at a Yamaha Apex engine with Skytrax gearbox, which provides around 150hp.
Yes, after this video a float company got in contact with me and gave me some great information. Yes I am familiar with the Icon A5. I love the aircraft but do not like that it is a day time only good weather (VFR) two place aircraft with a really high price tag of $300K. Thanks for watching.
Looking very forward to new video update.
Side note: pontoons … tried, proven and still very much in use by many aircraft!
Keep up the great work and please offer an alternative dual side stick option.
Thanks!!
Thanks for sharing. I am working on the script for the next video now. I also had a meeting with my CAD guy today asking him to give me more photos showing the changes we have made so far. As for the "Dual side sticks" we may offer that.
I would take this over an Icon A5 any day of the week!!
Wow, thank you. I consider this a very big complement. I really love the Icon A5. The only thing I hate about it is the price! The designers designed it as a fun flying two seat watercraft. I am designing my aircraft as a real IFR Cross Country Aircraft. I am not going to set the price so high that only millionaires can afford it like Icon did with their watercraft.
oh god thats huge, after i hear the wingspan i finally realize the size of this XD, nice one tho
Yes, it will be big. Although recently we made the fuselage one foot skinner and the tail section one foot longer. More about that in a future video.
Will their be a follow up video soon? Is the project going well? One more thing do you know any aviation design comunity and or have you got any aero dynamics resorces you know of. Im 16 and love aviation. Thanks for reading.
The project is still moving forward and we have made many changes to it. There is another video in the works right now. But it has been put on hold as I am presently starting a new job and going though a LOT of training. My CAD guy has moved to Canada and has gotten married. Just a lot going on in our lives and I don't have time to do all the editing of a new video. I am still new at editing videos and it takes me weeks to edit just one video. As for aviation design communities, I am in a couple of Homebuilt design groups on Face Book. You might want to check some of them out. Just do a search for these groups in FaceBook.
@@BrightStarAssemblies thanks!
I’m not an expert, but the sharp edge on the leading end of your fuselage may cause some separation. I’m also intrigued by your pusher prop idea, you need to be careful with that though and keeping it out of the water.
Thanks, check out the iCon A5 and Sea Bee. Both of them are in production with rear facing engines.
@@BrightStarAssemblies neither seem to be doing incredibly well but all I’m saying is just be really cautious
Thanks
YYEEEESSS, HOPE TO SEE THIS AND FLY THIIISSS
Thank you for the comment. Me too.
will you considering a ducted fan design ? i hear it improve thrust a lot
Honestly, I have not looked into it.
I want this little plane
Thanks. Me too. ;-)
Really enjoying these videos, you've convinced me with the sea plane idea I had forgot they even existed before watching your videos.
Had a few things I wanted to say about the plane. For context I am studying aerospace and am by no means an expert. I wanted to share my thoughts out of curiosity for what people would say back and also because theres not really any harm. From the designers perspective its beneficial almost to know youve done a good job and then be able to tell me to shut up so I thought I would give it a go.
1. Wanted to comment about the large section on the underside, this isnt neccesarily a problem to have but it does need extra thought. Such a large surface will definetly produce lift and therefore analysis must incorporate this. However after reading some of your comments I saw the X-Plane model you mentioned and think this is a good idea to understnad how it will perform as without it you would be lucky to find the neutral point.
2. One thing I did want to raise was how low the fuselage is to the water. For conventional take-off, that large bottom surface will 100% be within the ground effect and the pontoons will enhance that by a lot. This must be analysed as having the lower part in ground effect and potentially the wing out of it could cause a massively different neutral point than in cruise at altitude.
3. Also if youre taking off from water having that front lip (in front of the cockpit) so close to the water could be dangerous if it digs into the water? Not sure how likely this is as I have no experience with sea planes but make sure it is riding high enough, the pitching down moment from the propellors could make this more likely especially at low speeds when the wing and tail are yet to keep the nose up properly.
Hope any of this is helpful or interesting, good luck with the build im excited to see it fly.
Thanks Player 1884. Good thoughts and thanks for commenting. Here is my response to each as they are numbered:
1. Yes, for sure we will text this design in X-plane to see how it performs both in flight and on the water.
2. I am not sure what your meaning by "Neutral Point". As for the rest of the comment I think we will find that out by using the X-Plane modeling. Personally, I don't think it will be a factor.
3. The nose will be sitting a couple of feet above the water line. I know it looks like it is just a couple of inches, but this plane is much bigger than you might think. Also, one would not get close to the water with the nose pointing down. We do descend on approach in a nose low attitude. But as we get close to the water or ground, we transition to a level attitude, then within a foot or two, we begin pitching the nose up in the landing flare. On most aircraft including this one, it will touch down with about a 5-10 degree nose up attitude.
Thanks again for your comment. I like hearing others views on this project. Keep in mind that we have already made many changes to this design since this video. It's time I get another video out because of the changes we have already made.
Just an idea, but why not make very minimal profile pontoons like the Icon A5? It would be like a Jet Ski shape like you already made but with just some small "pontoons" to keep it afloat. The Wheels could retract into the main body... Just throwing it out. Hope progress continues!
Thanks for the idea Derek. The reason as to why is because I wanted the pontoons instead of a mono hull like the A5. I want to be different. I try to never copy others ideas and instead come up with my own. My original design is unique. Thanks for the comment.
I have a dream to build an aircraft of some sort that focuses on photography, I want to follow in my Great-Grandfathers footsteps in designing aircraft as he had contributed to the design of the A-5 Vigilante. I am only 13 and have no experience but I believe I can make it happen.
All dreams start with the belief it can be done. If you want it bad enough, you can make it happen.
Thank you@@BrightStarAssemblies
skip the jet thrusters and go with variable pitch props....I would lol
Thanks for the comment. Both engines already have constant speed variable pitch propellers on them. However, I will keep the water jet thrusters. Water rudders look ridiculous on an aircraft and add drag in flight. So, if I ditched the jet thrusters, I would still have to add water rudders even though my design has two engines and variable pitch propellers which can provide asymmetrical thrust. Plus, jet thrusters are cool. :-) Having them lets me shut down the engines and just troll around like a boat. If I am using the aircraft as a fishing platform, I wouldn't have to crank up the engines (scaring the fish away) to go to another spot and fish.
8:18, wing area INCLUDES the control surfaces.!!!!!!
Wow, you are very much a little keyboard warrior aren't you. That is a lot of comments in just one video. I guess my video really sparked some emotional cord for you. Thank you for your comments. It helps the channel.
Do you have plans to put your design in a flight simulator software to see how it will perform there? The simulators are not perfect but they can give you some insights to improve your design.
Actually I haven't even thought about it. Also, since I have never used a computer flight simulator, I don't even know how to do it. Good idea though. If you know of someone who knows how to do this, email me. We will do it once we have the design locked in.
@@BrightStarAssemblieshave you done cfd sims yet?
Can you make it run in ground effect for traveling long distance over water?
Nope, but I love wing in ground effect designs, and I may come up with one after this design.
At what point do you consider the body to be a lifting body that helps with overall lift
To be honest Richard, I have no idea. I know nothing about "Lifting Bodies". I have seen flying wings and so forth. I am sure their will be some lift generated by the shape of this fuselage. This is why just recently I have brought on board an Aeronautical Engineer. I'm sure he is looking at things like this.
When it comes to the pontoons, why not mount them on independant suspension arms to act as shock absorbers in rougher water?
Thanks, cool idea.
No, thank you for the acknowledgment. I have no technical background, but I'm pretty innovative.
HI, I have seen all of your video and will you able to send the cad file so that I can test in software and give you feedback if possible. Thank you
Thanks for watching the videos. Sure, I could send a file once I have the design finished. Recently we have moved the tail back a foot. We made the rudder and vertical stabilizer larger and we made the fuselage a bit skinnier. Next we will get the shape of the pontoons (floats) dialed in.
I am wondering, if peterscripol is helpful for you or not , if you colorate with him for Design??
I am sorry, I do not know who Peter Scripol is. I even checked my emails and could not find that name. So, no I am not collaborating with him.
Great project! Any updates?
Yes, I have replied to many people in the comment sections of different videos on the channel and talked about some. This past year, I have gotten an aeronautical engineer involved with the project and have made changes to the tail section. I have spoken with a float manufacturer and gotten some good information on how to redesign the floats. I have started on the next video, but it will not be finished anytime soon has I will be very busy for the next two months. But I will get it out as soon as I have finished the training.
What is the reason for there not existing a large scale R/C model?
The first reason is that the design is still being changed. Once we have the design finished there are at least three viewers that have told me they want to build an RC of this design. I will be happy to provide them with all the information they need to do it. So, there will be one or several built.
How i can get content with u
Am mo from Egypt and i have many designs of many things like this specially in aircraft 😁
That is easy, as you will see above in the comment section, I do provide my email address. It is BrightStarAssemblies@yahoo.com
tail area still looks too small for the very large forward of cg frontal area.... and the wide engine spacing (why so wide?)
Thanks for he comment. I believe the tail area will be increased in size as we continue to refine this design. As for the spacing, the engines are spaced just far enough to give 12 inch clearance between the tips of the props and the aft section of the fuselage. The only way to move them closer is to cut into the fuselage. I would prefer to not do that as it creates drag because it disturbs the airflow. If we just make it six inches from the tips of the props to the fuselage, you start getting a popping sound (drumming) from the air as each blade sings by that section of the fuselage.
Two 150hp rotax with variable pitch props will make this a seller and an absolute monster on takeoff and landings
Thanks, and you are very correct. In my next video, I will talk about how we are moving away from the BMW engines and towards a 200hp light weight engine. You will find out more in the next video.
I see you are addressing what I wrote in your previous video. The flying car shown has a much larger horizontal stabiliser, it also creates lift. The main wing is much closer forward to the centre of drag. The wing is also in the centreline of drag with the car. Have a look at the Beriev Be-103 for comparison. i disagree with making a model also, they are very accurate in modelling a full size aircraft. For a fixed wing aircraft it is also easy. I am myself making a helicopter of unique design, and modelling for that is difficult to make.
Your front wheel has no castor built in for a start, it will flap around.
Yes, I read all comments and do make changes to the design based on those comments. As you know things are still changing with the design to make it the best design I can create. There will be models made before the prototype will be built. Thanks for you comment.
Im looking to start my first experimental build and just came across this. Couple of things have you considered not having nosewheel steering at all and just using a free spinning nosewheel and differential braking to steer? Its a little harder on the brakes but would probably save some weight. Also have you thought about doing something along the lines of Aircraft Spruce. In addition to the complete kits they also offer everything down to every nut and bolt for the build al la carte. Basically you can buy anything from just plans all the way up to a 49% assembled kit and everything in between..
Also It would be nice if someone offered smaller (I'll call them staged kits) kits. So if you have space constraints, you're on a budget, or just get easily distracted/overwhelmed working on large projects you can buy the parts for the aircraft as you complete it. (I'm just spit balling here as in reality it would simply be following the plans in order, just broken up into stages) So basically you buy the 1st stage kit. This could be like your basic frame, wing roots, spars etc that need to be assembled first. Then once that's complete you can buy the 2nd stage, which could be landing gear, electrical, flight controls etc. Stage 3 and so on until the plane is complete. These broken up into 5K-10K (20K at the most) would allow much easier entry into the build and allow builders to work one thing at a time without parts strewn everywhere.
If you offered something like a staged build I would definitely be on board day 1. Right now thats the only reason I really haven't jumped on a Velocity or complete Cozy kit as there is NO WAY I would be able to convince my wife to let me swing 50-70k+ "for an unnecessary toy" all at once (I mean I could just do it anyway but I kinda want to keep her around and not worry about waking up in the morning lol). But she wont notice 5-10K here and there every 6 months or so lol.
Anyway, I've rambled enough. Just wanted to say I love what you're doing and the direction you're taking. Hope you get around to an update soon. Cant wait to see the finished product!
Thank you so much for your comment. I do plan on sticking with the nose wheel unless we find too much of a tipping moment on turns. There are many reasons for this. Here are just a few, complexity to retract two nose wheel into the floats, not leaving them out because of drag and they look ugly, centering these free wheeling tires before retraction would add complexity, I want nose wheel steering since I have taxied free castering nose wheel aircraft before and didn't like it. As for the kits and how they will be sold, I haven't given it a lot of thought. Personally, I would rather sell the entire kit at once. So, we will probably get set up with a finance company to offer financing. The kit will cost way less than the flying airplane. In fact, the two engines and instruments will cost more than the kit. So, in a way, it is already set up as a multistage investment. The major purchases would be the kit, then the instruments, hen the engines, then all the wiring, interior, and paint. Thanks for checking out my design and liking it. I wish you all the best with whatever ki you do end up buying. I have built many kits, and my advice is for you to set a goal of at least 15 minutes each day five days a week working on it. If you work longer great. But every day, a minimum of 15 minutes.
@@BrightStarAssemblies We actually have the same type of philosophy. I have been modding and building cars for years. I recently started restoring classics and found the amount of work to do a frame off FAR exceeded anything I was used to. I was used to completing builds in 6-12 months. Frame offs are more like 2-3 years when doing them on weekends and in your spare time. I just go out to the garage and complete ONE task. Most of the time I do way more but at a MINIMUM, every single day, complete one. This is usually only needed in the middle of a project. In the beginning I'm excited to get started and at the end I'm excited to finish. Its always in the middle where you're like... WHY DID I DO THIS TO MYSELF lol.
Have you thought about 3d printing a model of it and testing it in a wind tunnel?
No, I had not thought about that. To be honest, I'm not really concerned with that information. This aircraft has lots of drag. One can look at it from the front and see it. I am more concerned with getting the shape of the floats correct, the location of the floats correct, and the control surfaces the correct size. Wind tunnels can't give me that information. They are used more for showing air flow, drag, and lift of an airfoil.
@@BrightStarAssemblies Catamaran style boats are not designed to stick to the water, they are in fact designed to suck air in under them to lift them as water causes more drag than air. They have strakes in the design and little fins sticking downwards to give them straight line stability in conjunction with the rudder. A wind tunnel would be good, if you have a lot of drag it will cause nose down.
I like how you consider tall people in your design. Coincidentally, I am 6'5. I actually got interested in your videos because I hope to, one day, design aircraft.
Edit: after seeing maximum useful load, I'm concerned about passenger weight when considering tall people. For example, I'm 240lbs, and definitely not fat. In fact, I've been trying to gain weight.
Yeah, I just picked the round number of 200lbs for each person as most of us are near there or lower. But I can totally see a 6'5" person being over the 200lbs estimation. Thanks for watching my little video.
Pusher engine issues are expressed in Beechcraft starship. Always needing to clean the prop of exhaust suit. Too bad you do not want to go electric. MagniX. 350
Thanks for your comment ptcruiser. yeah, electric is for those that only want 30 minutes of range in a four seat aircraft. I am excited for electric aircraft and once the batteries are able to give us four to five hours of range, then this might be an option. Sadly for those who want to do a cross country they would be stuck on the ground once they land for about six hours charging the batteries. Right now almost no airport has "Fast Chargers" that would charge them. So you are stuck with an aircraft that can't go anywhere. Most people buy an aircraft to go some place fast. Personally, I like more of the Slow and Low flying like in a Supper Cub.
Using Pontoon as terminology for Sponsons may be keeping you from the source. Sponsons are the split hull design used in performance water craft. Use the simplest design to keep strength high and weight down. Look more towards aerodynamics than hull lift characteristics. Unless you are under powered. Which you should never be. The joint between the sponsons and cabin look like a weak point. Fairing the sponsons to cabin joint and wing to cabin joint may strengthen these and enhance performance.
Thanks for the comment Bryan. The actual term for them is "Floats" or so I am told by those who manufacture them. Integrating them into the hull may change the name to "Sponsons", I'm not sure. I have spoken to a manufacture since I made this video and received some good information about the shape. "The joint between the sponsons and cabin.." Yes, I talked about this in one of my videos. I have a retired Lockheed Martin composite professional who has assured me that the amount of connection between the pontoons and fuselage is enough. Also, I'm not sure when we changed it (possibly after this video), but we have moved the pontoons inward towards the fuselage more. This will not only give us more strength in this area, but also makes it look better. Just yesterday I was talking to my CAD guy and he said he wanted to fair in the area where the wing and fuselage come together. So, that is happening now as well. Thanks again for the comment and suggestions.
Float shape and main landing gear placement. The Step of the Float needs to be Aft of but as close to the CG as possible. Its almost the same point as the Main Gear. To Rotate the aircraft on land or (water, The aircraft will skim on the water on a section just forward of the Step) if the pivot point is too far Aft of the CG, the tail has a lot of work to do to push down and raise the nose. Water, as the Pilot Rotates, the section of the step aft of the CG (wants to be the pivot point) digs into the water creating drag and preventing takeoff. Wheels, The higher the CG above the takeoff surface. During the rotation, the CG point moves past the pivot point and the pilot must correct for the Tail now Falling. Look at Amphibious floats manufactured by Wipaire etc. Main Gear doors. Quite Often under the pressure of water operations,( Water rudders mostly) and the gear is forgotten down for takeoff. As the Pilot sets power, he quickly realizes his mistake, Stops, Raises Gear, Embarrassed, He resets and takes off. Gear doors wouldn't last in 5 knots of water. Thats how I see it. Best of luck.
Some really great advice. No one has taken the time to explain it to me that way, so it really was helpful. I am not sure about the gear doors either. I know the power of water is very strong. I'm sure that aspect will get more attention. Thanks
Nice job Danny. How’s the new job? Make sure you don’t call me for any of your aluminum welding. Lol
Hey Scott. I just subscribed to your channel as well. The new job is great. When I need something aluminum welded I WILL call you. haha I will just make sure it is not a cast wheel.
Love your design . would be great with a twin AEROMOMENTUM AM15T 160hp engine. AEROMOMENTUM AM20T is a good choice
Lots of fuel and 2000nm range. My dream airplane.
Just went and looked at the AEROMOMENTUM AM15T. Looks a lot like the Viking car engine converted for aircraft. Personally, I am staying away from all water cooled engines. Just more stuff that could break causing one to have an off field landing. But we will probably have engine mounts for these engines. Thanks for loving my dream. I appreciate that.
Pontoons are for boats Danny. Airplanes have floats.
Thanks for your comment. I am sure glad you cleared that up for me. In future videos you will hear me call them pontoons and sometimes floats. I prefer pontoons because it is a boat until it flies for the first time. As they say, it doesn't matter what you call them, they do what they are suppose to do.
no one in his right mind would begin with the construction of a FULL-SIZE prototype.!!!
Thank you. You are correct. I and many others like me are not in their right mind. This is why we design and build aircraft instead of living in our mothers basements slamming other people for fallowing their dreams. I wish you all the best with your aircraft design.
at 7:52, the horiz-stab SHOULD have a SYMMETRICAL profile.!!!!!!!!!
Yes David, you MUST be 100% right. Let me contact all Aeronautical Engineers and tell them they have ALL been doing it wrong for years. I am of course joking as I would never ASSume to know more than all Aeronautical Engineers like you are doing. So, I will let YOU tell them. I am sure you have many aircraft you have designed that are flying today and know more than them. As for me, I am NOT an Aeronautical Engineer and I do have a symmetrical profile on my horizontal stabilizer. Thankfully I do not need as many explanation points as you do to get my point across. ;-) All the best to you in your search for perfection.
3:17, FLAWED LOGIC and opinion.!!!!!
We are all entitled to our opening. Thanks for watching.
Flight characteristics can be learned by way of RC. Whoever told you otherwise is about a fool.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I want to design an aircraft but I don't have access to a cad right now and i cant afford to get one
I totally get it. At one point in my life (2000) I was a homeless man living in my car and going to shelters asking for food. This is why I put out my first RUclips video. ruclips.net/video/X_GphT2E1HU/видео.html In this video I talk about how you can get the same CAD program I have for only $20 or $40 if you are a member of EAA. I provide links and everything. If you don't want to go that route, than you can just draw it out on paper and take that to a printing shop and have them scaled up to 100% full scale. Then use those to cut out the foam. But I will say, it all you are wanting to do is design it, paper and pencil is all you need. Now if you want to build it... You will have to have money. Materials are not free. I wish you all the best of luck. Make your dreams come true.
Actually, onshape is an intuitive cloud based CAS that I recommend for pricing and power. It’s totally in your browser and the guys at Darkaero use it for there kit planes. Besides, cad isn’t always necessary. You can design it in free software like blender than export as an stl and run fluid simulations. I think onshape has a free add on for fluid simulation. Also, I hope your situation improves and that you had a wonderful Christmas,
So where do you put all the 12 volt batteries for the elec jet pumps? Much better weight problem solved using small jet ski engines. Or just use your already ample plane engines and leave out the jet pumps. Did I hear you right, its 400 HP?
Batteries? How many hours do you think you need running these two jet thrusters?? On any normal day one might run both thrusters at half power for a total of three minutes backing off a dock and three minutes taxing up to a dock. Sounds like you want to go cruising around the lake just using these electric thrusters. hahahaha But that is not what they are made for. To answer your question there will be one 12 vt battrie that weighs 11 lbs because it is an aircraft grade battery and it will run these thrusters for probably 30 minutes. But it gets recharged while the engines running. So, any normal person will only use them to back off a dock and then start up the engines.
400hp?? Nope, there is nothing on this aircraft that is 400hp. Those electric thruster motors will maybe be 1/2 hp each and the engines that we have switched to is 200hp each. For a total of 400hp combined. Maybe that is what you heard. Thanks for watching my video.
Dream on, a 12 volt deep cycle battery weighs about 60 lbs, That will last you about 20 minutes, and how do you charge that battery? I know put solar panels all over the wings,, thats another 60 or so pounds. So how do you make up that weight in an airplane? Well I guess you can make the plane a single seater. Its clear you havent thought this through much.
Honestly I have no idea what you are referring to. The battery I will probably go with is an aircraft 12vt battery weighing 15lbs. There is a link below to one if you want an idea what it looks like. To charge it there are two alternators on this aircraft (one on each engine) that will charge this battery when the engines are running. There will not be any solar panels on this aircraft at all. Anyway, I hope this helps clear up any confusing about these small electric thrusters on the floats. As stated above. These electric thrusters are not for powering around on. They are for pulling up to a dock or pulling away from one. They will only be run for maybe three minutes. Probably less. They will also not be at full power.
www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/odysseydry7.php?clickkey=9055811
The fuselage seems very large. From what I understand most 4-seat planes are in the realm of 42 inches wide by 39 inches tall internally, with something luxurious like the Rockwell Commander being 4ft by 4ft. Contrary to either, yours seems closer to 5x5, which could lead to excessive weight and drag. You could design a lower and slimmer fuselage and likely save on wing and empennage surface area, and therefore weight, size, and cost in all aspects. Same with then being able to decrease the pontoon sizes.
Speaking of which, why go catamaran for the pontoons? Seems again like an excessive weight, drag, cost, and complexity situation. Was it literally just the style you wanted?
Lastly, and this is of curiosity instead of nitpicking; Why T-tail as opposed to, say, cruciform or V? (I get why it's not traditional; which is probably for safety to keep it out of the water.)
Thanks for watching Dunken Hamster. The reason for the size is that I have flown so many aircraft that are just so cramped. The one that was the most comfortable was the velocity aircraft. So, my aircraft will have the same with as that one. The size of the cabin may change when I make a full size mock up of the cabin. Honestly I am not concerned with drag. I am more interested in style and comfort.
As for the pontoons and my choice to go with them, you are correct it is because of the style. As stated in one of my videos, "I wanted something different." Who knows, I may end up make a model of this that doesn't have pontoons.
As for the T tail, I chose this because I wanted it further away from the water and I wanted more in the air stream of the propellers.
Thanks for your comments.
Well, the Construction Manual says it all: 'Safty in Design'.
And I'm sure the thing will cost less than 40k, can be built by total amateurs in 3 months and it will include a soda fountain ...
Thanks for your comment. It was helpful, and I will look into the road fountain idea for you. Haha
7:58, 15% is thick, for a full-size wing
Thanks for your input.
Should work with Darkaero, could be another new carbonfibre aircraft kit, they also using the UL engines in there aircraft.
I have been fallowing them for awhile. I hope their aircraft can hit the numbers they are saying it will.
You can get very good results by scaling weights and moments, not just size. NASA does this. You can too. Google scaling laws engineering models.
Your belief that a model will misrepresent performance is definitely a misleading one. Test scale models.
It is also wise to test structures using scale models. Consider having a brief conversation with several professors at nearby schools. A well trained instructor, lacking PhD credentials can also validate my assertions. Engineering using scaled down objects is common - and time, money, and material sparing.
Best wishes on your project.
Thanks for the comment Nicholas. I will check into it.
@@BrightStarAssemblies It's worth saying that this only makes sense in wind tunnels, as the environment has to be carefully controlled to account for the different scale. So typically you would make a solid model out of foam (or some other easy modelling material) and not worry about sticking in the electronics that would actually make it fly. Unless you feel like slapping a fan in a box and making your own, you would probably best off contacting the nearest university and checking out their wind tunnels.
Good luck with this plane!
i think a few degrees higher Dihedral could be better. im not an expert or anything but it does look really straight
You are correct it does look straight. I did that for a reason. The greater the dihedral the less vertical component of lift a wing can produce. Greater the dihedral the less maneuverability an aircraft has. A good example of this is fully aerobatic aircraft have no dihedral. So, as stated in the video, once I have an aeronautical engineer look at it, then we can decide how many degrees we want. I will probably go with the amount of degrees a Cessna 177 has. Which of course is a bit more than what I have now. Thanks for the comment.
@@BrightStarAssemblies ok that makes a bit more sense. I guess i forgot that it is still in its design stage so things can be changed :)
@@BrightStarAssembliesdiahedral is great for stability, 2-3 degrees should add tons of stability
What if you used identical assemblies for each landing gear, making them interchangeable?
All this from one photo to start this project?
Yes, that is what we plan to do for the landing gear. Thanks for the input.
Nope, this video covers from the day I received my CAD guys photo realistic pictures which were taken from my drawings. This design actually started in my head back in 2013 when I was living in the Philippines. Check out my previous video on the history of how this design came about: ruclips.net/video/YsXFsR5Ragc/видео.html
I have a plane I want to build. Could I sent him or you a picture of the plane I want to build to start the process?
Have you considered designing around an electrical drivetrain? This is the way of the future, especially for private aviation.
Oh sure I have thought about it. I love electric. It always goes well with water. haha Yes I have thought about it but it is not the electric part that is holding things back. It is the energy part that turns the electric motors. Maybe with the new tech of Nuclear Diamond Batteries electric flight might become a reality. The few aircraft that have flown so far have not flown a four place 3,000 lbs aircraft at 120kts for even 30 minutes. I love the future and believe electric flight (something like a C-172 flying for four hours with 4 people onboard) will happen. I just do NOT believe it will be in my lifetime.
Ideal to remove altol
Not to be an armchair engineer but, those props look a little close to the wings. If you encounter some funky forces that flexes the props a little you wouldn’t want it to chew on your wing.
Thanks for the info. We have the propellers several inches from the trailing edges of the wing. The photos may not show it very well but they are. Thanks for watching and your comment.
uh bro its bean years u gonna upload?
Hahaha, I know, right? I am so sorry. Right now, at this very moment, I am sitting in a hotel in Chicago because I have been going through training at an airline for the past two months and have two more months to go. Since my last video, I have moved to three different states, gone through two jobs, retired, came out of retirement, and so much more. My CAD guy has gotten married, moved to another country, and taken a new job. Thankfully, it was Canada, so he is a lot closer to me now. We have still been making changes to the design over this past year as we are able to find time, and I have started on the next video. But trust me when I say I have a busy life. There will be another video coming. Honestly, your comment made me smile because it tells me you really like my design and want to see more. It's coming. I will never give up on this design until it is flying in the air, and we have kits rolling out the door. Thanks again for your comment.
@@BrightStarAssembliesalso i like your design ::) (the four eyes on the smily face is on purpose)
Float tanks
Thanks for the comment.
Hi Sir,
I have created a design made the blueprint also a skeliton structure using Foam board.. As you mentioned "RC" may not help to test.
Wish to work wirh you and learn more...
IF you suggest I can share my small step of work and design with you.
Thanks Roshan, please feel free to send me an email. brightstarassemblies@yahoo.com
food for thought have you considered and retractable hydrofoil that retracts into a clean line into the pontoons. this could make it so you could Massively clean up the pontoons into a smooth surface that WON'T stick to the water. Taking the idea from the "Lisa" design.
I believe I know what you are referring to but could you shoot me an email showing an example? brightstarassemblies@yahoo.com Thanks
it's die-hedral
hahaha Like the Ever ready bunny you just keep on going. In the big scheme of things does it really matter the spelling? After all, you and I both know what we are talking about. The difference is that I am moving forward with my own design and you are just wasting time posting on RUclips your feelings. I wish you all the best David.
As soon as you mentioned "jet thrusters" I stopped watching.
Don't tell people it's OK to be stupid.
Hahaha Thanks for watching. I sure hope you don't tell people who ride jet skis they are "Stupid". Maybe you never heard of water jets before and how powerful they are that they can cut steal. Humm