How would you feel about a affordable Spitfire ?

Ray Stitts Skeeto 3 hp !

Just in case you think an aeroplane cannot fly at 3 hp…here is Skeeto ( 1967 ? ) !

Towed into air and then flew at 3 hp !

So at a fuel burn of 1.5 litres an hour what is the engine output, 5HP?
It’s sort of reverse engineering, make a full size from model technology :diablo:
That wing has a nice fat section for a carbon fibre spar. Are you sure that aerofoil has less drag than say a laminar flow section? Why didn’t they use a section like yours for the Mustang? Look at the history of NACA aerofoils, they go back long long time ago. How is it that all of a sudden peeble come up with new all singing all dancing aerofoils that have low drag yet look like they come off a high lift primary glider wing? I’m not trying to be negative but in aviation there seems to be nothing new, only variations on a theme. This appears to be a variation of a model. I still recon you would get better reception not calling it a Spitfire but a Magot or a larvae of some sort seeing it hasn’t flown yet, at least in full size. 😀
The last undercarriage looked good, trailing link is always better for loads and feel. The Chilton monoplane had trousered legs and was a very attractive machine. Had a converted four cylinder sidevale car engine of very low output but still managed a resonable cruise speed.
SP

Hey thanks for the input SP !

The lowest output this kite can fly straight is at around 3 hp ( 0,75 liters/hr ).
The foil may look like its antique, but I actually interpolated with the state of the art Wortmann, Drela and Eppler foils..even a tad from latest Goe foil. It has way less drag and Cm than the iconic HPA foil fx63-137 which is really thin but this creates whole lotta more lift ( cl max 2.18 ). I used 2 months to do it with state of the art computer program. I claim it is a laminar foil…not like a Mustang foil was, but still laminar. Mustang foil was created for speed and low drag alone..lift for low speed is made with flaps and the huge engine rotating an enermous propeller that washes thrust to the flaps.

Chilton is one inspiration on this kite…mine is just 1/3 smaller than DW-1..more like Stitts Baby Bird sized. Also this LG is 1/3 in thickness of the DW-1 LG..way less drag.

For some reason this sorta looks like a classical british aeroplane..more like a Spitfire really ( or Hawker Siddley Hawk ), but Chilton gear.

The name of this kite is after the Jupiter’s 4th moon the IO ! But you are right this is a pure paper tiger until flown.

I checked that this might be able to fly to Darwin Australia from eastern Finland ( Fredrickshamn ) in 5 days at 120 liters of fuel on board with a lite pilot. I have no idea what kinda drugs it takes to fly straight 5 days..amfetamine ? Maybe 4 stops on the way would do good…fuel burn would be the same.
http://timezoneguide.com/distance-Australia/Darwin-Europe/Helsinki.html

It was discussed recently that no one actually studies weak powered flight ( except HPA folks )..all effort is in making airliners cost effective and UAVs have some action too. Mr Colomban has done Luciole and Leon Davis the DA 11 in this size category…and Burt Rutan Quickie model 54.

Did you know that the Baileys 4-stroke only burns 1,5 liters in an hour and this travels 120 km/h at that fuel consumption maybe 125 km/h.

So at a fuel burn of 1.5 litres an hour what is the engine output, 5HP?
It’s sort of reverse engineering, make a full size from model technology :diablo:
That wing has a nice fat section for a carbon fibre spar. Are you sure that aerofoil has less drag than say a laminar flow section? Why didn’t they use a section like yours for the Mustang? Look at the history of NACA aerofoils, they go back long long time ago. How is it that all of a sudden peeble come up with new all singing all dancing aerofoils that have low drag yet look like they come off a high lift primary glider wing? I’m not trying to be negative but in aviation there seems to be nothing new, only variations on a theme. This appears to be a variation of a model. I still recon you would get better reception not calling it a Spitfire but a Magot or a larvae of some sort seeing it hasn’t flown yet, at least in full size. 😀
The last undercarriage looked good, trailing link is always better for loads and feel. The Chilton monoplane had trousered legs and was a very attractive machine. Had a converted four cylinder sidevale car engine of very low output but still managed a resonable cruise speed.
SP

bugs ironed out so far…

Did you know that the Baileys 4-stroke only burns 1,5 liters in an hour and this travels 120 km/h at that fuel consumption maybe 125 km/h.
It means that I theoretically could fly to Lancaster England from my town in Finland in 14 h 30 minutes using 5 imperial gallons of gasoline. Nor bad is it ? Flying to Lancaster California would take 64 hours and burn 21 gallons…ain’t bad either.

reworked…

Over nite sleep does good in designing !

:rolleyes: 🙂

Landing gear !

This is still Spitfire…yes model 224 !

http://www.rjmitchell-spitfire.co.uk/spitfire/images/g_type224gullwing.jpg

Here us the reflexed and washed out wing once again.

I am preparing plans for 1/6 scale model…spinner, prop, engine and ergomics test pilot are ready !

Please comment on the high lift foil on the sceen !!

That is 2,18 Cl max but it generates more lift at lower drag than fx63-137 for instance.

Mebe if you call it something appropriate like Flea, Fly or Bot. Seeing it hasn’t flown yet like the lava of a Fly you should call it a Maggot.
All jokes aside an Aircraft that carries twice it’s own weight is VERY rare. Those that “Just” carry their own weight are few and far between and are very strong Aircraft.

I talked all day with an airplane factory owner ( Atol amphibians ), chief of aerodynamics and chief of light weight constructions ( at Aalto University ) and the latter confirmed that my structural thinking is solid/doable and 20% at least can be substracted from wing weight figures of Cri Cri for instance. Also my undergear , rudder and minus 1 engine ad up another 10-15 kilos..so I ought to be at least on a right track. Nothing has been build so far that is true.

I named it as TIKKA ( dual meaning in finnish….dart and woodpecker ).

Mebe if you call it something appropriate like Flea, Fly or Bot. Seeing it hasn’t flown yet like the lava of a Fly you should call it a Maggot.
All jokes aside an Aircraft that carries twice it’s own weight is VERY rare. Those that “Just” carry their own weight are few and far between and are very strong Aircraft.

Triffic, yoo loogin for partners are yoo? :diablo:

It has started to seem like it…I tried apply a local inventor board for an allowance. I have a Dassault ex-engineer here who commented it saying that this AC has potential to make history. Still locals hesitate to invest. It is possibly because I have no formal aviation engineer background..I am just a aviation nut architect.

Triffic, yoo loogin for partners are yoo? :diablo:

wing

This is my adaption of the Prandtl ( Spitfire ) wing of today for a MPG monster ( 123 mpg at 80 mph )!

I have had comments like: ” This will be a historic aircraft once built !”

15 liter tank yields 700 km flight of 5 hours.

An upsized model aircraft one off record breaker is a different thing to an off the shelf easily flyable, economic, affordable and available aircraft. Been round a while and seen a few things, tellim ee’s dreamin. 😀

Of course this has several inconviniencies that no sunday flyer wants on his own aircraft..but we have decided to live with them. Several aspects have been taken care of with good manner…pilot is actually allowed to get cramps and still able to fly on etc. It is very probable that serious cramps take place in a 24+ hour non stop flights for instance.

An upsized model aircraft one off record breaker is a different thing to an off the shelf easily flyable, economic, affordable and available aircraft. Been round a while and seen a few things, tellim ee’s dreamin. 😀

I can. There are 4 of us in the family. I need a minimum of 2 seats for leisure and 4 for a tourer. Something which is electric will be about as much fun as kiilling myself. Make it double the size and lob a V12 in it and I’ll buy one. 😀

Ok..we are talking about different aeroplanes then.

4000k range? 70 kilo’s? Tellim ees dreamin.

No he amn’t ! 😀

Well to do the new record in C-1A0 you have to have the plane at 55-60 kilos empty to be able to load it with 70-100 liters of fuel and a lite jockey to fly it. I am 105 kilos empty…and 108 loaded and I need food and drink too.

Seen the LW-02 distance record yet at FAI pages ?

RAL1T records are easy to brake;

You cannot say it is not for you unless you haven’t seen it. Can you now ?

I can. There are 4 of us in the family. I need a minimum of 2 seats for leisure and 4 for a tourer. Something which is electric will be about as much fun as kiilling myself. Make it double the size and lob a V12 in it and I’ll buy one. 😀

4000k range? 70 kilo’s? Tellim ees dreamin.

JT442

Okay…small compartment behind the pilot seat for jacket and trousers and an overnite bag in this ac is doable..but range is cut from 5000 km to 4000 km..okay !?

😉

I was originally designing this to carry golf clubs..they still could be carried inside the wing ( making the wing tanks smaller ). You will then have only a small carrybag ( not the BAG BAG !! ) behind the seat.

You cannot say it is not for you unless you haven’t seen it. Can you now ?

Test pilot was surprised when I gave him the weights..is it really that lite he asked..it has to be in order to be economical.

There are 43-45 kilo aeroplanes also like Whing Ding II and Elfe P1.

http://www.scalesoaring.co.uk/VINTAGE/Documentation/Elfe_P1/Elfe_P1.html