Next chapter of the Honeybee G2

[Illini85]

For those interested, Jim Fields has released some renderings of the enclosure for the single and two place HBG2

Here is the link to his blog

http://www.honeybeeg2.blogspot.com/


Let the critique begin.

[Friendly]

I like the ultramodern look, but the picture looks like the frontend would swap ends in bad wind. Is this tested or just in the design phase?

[gyromike]

Mark beat me to it. Doesn't look like near enough tail for all that front area.

Also, this mast setup gives me the heebie-jeebies...

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-s3uzUOc_LmA/TXhBTQXmLtI/AAAAAAAAAYc/hcdbSar7pCk/s1600/Morse+Teleflex+Cables1.JPG

[Illini85]

[QUOTE=gyromike;414662]Mark beat me to it. Doesn't look like near enough tail for all that front area.

Also, this mast setup gives me the heebie-jeebies...

I know they have completely dropped the teleflex cable design. To my knowledge it is only in the renderings stage at this point.

[Alan_Cheatham]

[QUOTE=gyromike;414662]Also, this mast setup gives me the heebie-jeebies...

I know they have completely dropped the teleflex cable design. To my knowledge it is only in the renderings stage at this point.

I think the comment was directed to the design of the mast.

.

[gyromike]

[QUOTE=Illini85;414664]

I think the comment was directed to the design of the mast.

.

Yes, it was. Maybe it's strong enough but it looks like a solution in search of a problem.

[wdr_601]

Mark beat me to it. Doesn't look like near enough tail for all that front area.

Also, this mast setup gives me the heebie-jeebies...

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-s3uzUOc_LmA/TXhBTQXmLtI/AAAAAAAAAYc/hcdbSar7pCk/s1600/Morse+Teleflex+Cables1.JPG

Being a right-brained, non-engineer liberal arts kind of person, I don't know if I am the best person to comment on these issues; OTOH, I apparently have the thickness of skin/brain necessary to keep posting on this forum.:der:

Looking at the rendering, it seems that some aerodynamic decisions were made concerning the shape of the cabin and fairings to direct air flow to the propellor and h-stab. Perhaps the shape of the keel itself has stabilizing effect?
OTOH, it's just a rendering. Until an enclosure is built and gets some real-world testing, we are just speculating.
On a different note, I think the Martin/Boyer ultimate tail for the RAF would look great on the enclosed version. (Please note I am speaking from an aesthetic point of view, not necessarily an aerodynamic one.)


According to this update, http://honeybeeg2.blogspot.com/2011/02/two-place-tandem-update.html , the movable mast is supposed to allow a student pilot weighing anywhere from 130 pounds to 350 pounds to fly from the front seat and still be able to easily maintain the correct hang-angle. I don't know the mechanics behind the design.


I think if you have any questions, you ought to write Jim Fields an e-mail. He has responded to my e-mails in a prompt, polite manner.

William

[PW_Plack]

...I think if you have any questions, you ought to write Jim Fields an e-mail. He has responded to my e-mails in a prompt, polite manner...

Designers field 100 rude criticisms from people who will never buy anything for every polite question from from an actual future customer.

Jim doesn't seem to care much for darts thrown from the peanut gallery, but he's good about answering respectful questions.

Since Oshkosh 2010, he's made dozens of tweaks to the open machines based on flight testing. Most have been minor. If a major tweak is needed here, (such as tail volume,) I'd expect that to happen, too.

[Friendly]

Paul,
I am not sure how to take your comments since I was the one who brought up the question of the frontal surface to the tail surface. I try to be respectful to anyone on this forum. I fly a tall tail, no pod, I know what 16 mph crosswind does to my gyro in the air. I also an interest in new pod designs. I have been drawing some myself so I was asking to gain knowledge, not cast disparaging remarks about anyone.

[PW_Plack]

Mark,

I wasn't commenting on your question or this thread, just noting that there's a reason some designers get defensive. A number of gyro companies have disassociated themselves from the PRA and/or the forums over the years because the signal-to-noise ratio can get unmanageable.

I do NOT intend that comment to defend at least one notorious example in which the questions were not honestly answered by the company.

It invites questions when someone puts his early design out there before there's test data. I believe your concern in this case is reasonable. I also suspect it will be addressed in due time, meaning before kits start being delivered.

[Illini85]

Mark

I don't think Paul was directing his comments to you explicitly. Paul knows Jim quite well and knows that he is not interested in waging a war for the sake of a fight and hence doesn't immerse himself in this and other venues. I have met Jim and John Hunt(his partner) and they were kind enough to tour me through their operation.

Like you I wonder about the aerodynamic considerations but this is an area that my understanding is very limited on and my experience with is even less. That being said I feel I know Jim well enough to trust that he will thoroughly test his design, modify as is necessary and be confident before releasing it.

As an example, Jim has maintained as a foundation from the outset the concept of duplicity between the single and two place design as a means of managing production related issues. Hence the control surfaces of the tail assembly are identical between models. If a larger rudder assembly is warranted I am totally confident that Jim will incorporate that into the design. As Paul pointed out Jim has made several modifications to his design already and I would expect even more as this design evolves.

I'll close here but reiterate that I think Paul highlighted your comment to affirm it for the larger community rather than an indictment of your specific comments.

[Friendly]

Thank you both .

[Illini85]

Just noticed on the comments section at bottom of the above HBG2 blog that Doug Barker expressed his concerns about engine cowlings and balancing of aerodynamic forces of the large surface area of the enclosure. Jim response indicated his awareness of the issues and laid their testing plans of action on a general basis. Good questions Doug.