ILikeJetsToo
I’ve done a few things
I know this write-up is a little long, but please read the following and comment with constructive critique and technical commentary with the intent of constructive design improvement.
I’ve debated for a while about posting project info on forums. In the past, I have completed large projects (aircraft and other) completely in the privacy of my personal shop, and I have also shared all the details of other large projects openly on forums. I have had mixed feelings about the process both ways. One of the main reasons for deciding to post here now is for everyone to learn and discuss for the betterment of the experimental aircraft community.
Professionally, I’m an aircraft design engineer. I have worked in the engineering field one way or another for the last 18 years. I’ve worked on many design projects over the years, and I think I’d like to share some information here about my current build for your review. I respect the talent and experience in this community, and I'm interested in constructive feedback.
:: PROJECT BACKGROUND ::
I’ve been working on this project off and on for about four years. I started the project by listing out my aircraft desirements and sub-selecting configurations that met those desirements. I then went out and got training in several specific gyros to better understand the fine differences in handling/performance from classic pusher gyros to several new European gyros. I also got additional training in trikes and flew a number of different fixed wing aircraft to double check that a gyro is what I wanted to go with. In the end, I decided on a two-place tandem, tractor gyro.
:: DESIGN INTENT ::
The intent of this project is to build a one-off prototype, stable/docile, open, two place, gyro with good visibility for fun local flying and short cross country flights. I started my configuration study by benchmarking my basic layout against 15 other “technically relevant” (mostly older tractors) gyros for comparison.
:: DESIGN STYLE ::
I have always gravitated to the classic tractor designs, so I really wanted to design a new gyro that was a “modernized” gyro roughly based on a classic Cierva. Because this gyro was to be a modernized classic tractor, I had been calling it the “Variant”, but after the recent unveiling of the similar themed Bulldog gyro, I might rethink that name as it was never meant to be a “Variant” of the Bulldog.
As I got into this design, I wanted to try for a more aesthetically pleasing gyro layout than some of the gyros I have trained in. I also didn’t want to just put a fairing on a metal frame like many of the Euro-tub gyros do. Not that the “standard” metallic frame gyros aren’t very practical, but I find that they leave a little something to be desired from a modernized structural design perspective. I have often worked with structural composite design, so I decided to go with a completely composite structure and incorporate a classic theme to the stressed-skin monocoque layout. During the final conceptual design phase, I also built a plywood cockpit mock-up from CAD templates to check ergonomics and get a better feel for the sight angles and basic visibility.
:: CURRENT PROJECT STATUS ::
Right now, I have built or purchased 81% of the gyro by mass. I still have quite a few parts to make and lots of assembly work to do. Monetarily, I am 83% through paying for the parts and material (including tooling).
:: BASIC SPECS (more in the following text)::
-- 627 lb empty weight
-- 1,200 lb max design weight
-- 280 mile cruise range (with 35 min reserve)
-- Total length 16 ft (rotor removed)
-- Width 7 ft 5 in
-- Height 9 ft 3 in
-- Solo from AFT seat only
-- Rudder and brakes AFT seat only
-- Throttles and sticks both seats
:: STRUCTURE ::
Fully composite monolithic structure. The structure is primarily carbon fiber-282/epoxy-PTM&W/Divinycell-H45 with localized fiberglass-7725 and Kevlar-49 buildups. There is also localized carbon fiber-IM7 unidirectional tow reinforcements. The horizontal stabilizer is Epoxy-PTM&W /fiberlass-7725/extruded-polystyrene with unidirectional pultruded-Graphlite carbon fiber spar caps. The fuselage tooling method is a seamless composite shell molded over a sacrificial/removable foam male tool. The fuselage tool was CNC milled from the CAD outer mold line loft. The composite structures were sized using hand calculations and shell finite element analysis (FEA) to a minimum safety factor of 2.0 on stress and 3.0 on buckling.
:: WEIGHT AND CG ::
I checked 82 different weight and balance scenarios (example: heavy pilot, no passenger, full fuel) and iteratively refined the configuration to establish as little CG movement as reasonably possible. From a realistic low flight weight of 851 to a maximum takeoff weight of 1,200, the CG swings FWD_AFT +/- 1.8 inches and moves vertically +/- 0.6 inches. The vertical CG position is within 2.0 inches the crank centerline for all weight and balance scenarios. Depending on the part, I am also carrying a 5-20% weight growth margin on all still to be built components. The expected average takeoff weight is 1,055 lb.
:: TAIL GEOMETRY ::
The horizontal tail volume is 17.3% of rotor volume and compares well against other benchmarked tractors. The H-stab is a tapered NACA 0012 airfoil. The V-stab is a modified NACA 0020. The vertical tail volume is 67 ft^3. The vertical and rudder are positioned in the cleanest air available on the underside of the fuselage. The intent is to maximize yaw stability with the nose raised at high power and minimize spiraling-slipstream turn/roll tendencies.
:: INSTRUMENTS ::
Despite the temptation to go overboard with avionics, I want to keep the flying experience super simple and focused in flying, so there will only be very basic steam-gauge cockpit instruments and a Flightline FL-760 radio.
:: POWERPLANT ::
I compared 44 different engines for this application in the 85-150 hp range. Not surprisingly, the 912 and 914 were good options, but I decided to go with the Rotec Radial R2800 swinging a 76x57 Culver wood prop. I love the style and sound of the engine, and I pretty much based the gyro design around it. I have the engine now. It’s a little heavy at 224 lb, it takes auto or aviation fuel and is quite a work of art. The fuel tanks are structurally free-floating tanks that are mounted in the fuselage cheeks on either side of the front cockpit. Total fuel load is a little over 19 gallons.
:: ROTOR ::
Unmodified RFD 28 ft Cruze rotor with modified RFD double-bearing rotor head. The rotor is mounted to a relatively flexible “limber” composite mast. I have not selected a pre-rotor yet, but I am leaning toward a brushless “outrunner” motor.
:: FLIGHT CONTROLS ::
The rotor flight controls are very standard pushrod with rodends and mixed at the base of the rotor mast. Rudder and tail wheel steering is via aircraft cable. Flight controls are per ASTM F2352-05.
:: LANDING GEAR ::
The main landing gear are modified Cessna 140 landing legs (canted out for a wider stance and similar “root” bending moment to the heavier C140). The tailwheel is a Maule castering wheel assembly with spring steering links from the rudder. The gear is 3g at 10ft/sec per configuration applicable FAR23 load cases. The rolling stock is FAA/TSO Parker Hannifin 500-5.00 with single puck differential hydraulic brakes. All TSO and custom landing gear parts are structurally sized to a minimum safety factor of 2.0 using solid element finite element analysis.
:: DESIGN CHANGE OPTIONS I AM CONSIDERING ::
-Remove wheel pants
-Larger tires on 5.00 rims (380x150x5)
-Larger wheels and tires (maybe 600-6.0)
-Add H-Stab vertical tip plates for increased yaw stability
-Remove engine Townend ring (“NACA ring”)
-Change to underslung “torpedo” fuel tank
:: SENSITIVITIES I HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING ::
-Nose-over/prop-strike tendencies
-Tail-dragger ground handling sensitivities
-Drag penalties from a tractor configuration with open cockpit
-Windy flight experience
-Vertical tail/rudder effectiveness (x-wind , etc.)
-Limited FWD visibility
-Limited tractor training options
-Safety of fuel stored in fuselage
I’ve debated for a while about posting project info on forums. In the past, I have completed large projects (aircraft and other) completely in the privacy of my personal shop, and I have also shared all the details of other large projects openly on forums. I have had mixed feelings about the process both ways. One of the main reasons for deciding to post here now is for everyone to learn and discuss for the betterment of the experimental aircraft community.
Professionally, I’m an aircraft design engineer. I have worked in the engineering field one way or another for the last 18 years. I’ve worked on many design projects over the years, and I think I’d like to share some information here about my current build for your review. I respect the talent and experience in this community, and I'm interested in constructive feedback.
:: PROJECT BACKGROUND ::
I’ve been working on this project off and on for about four years. I started the project by listing out my aircraft desirements and sub-selecting configurations that met those desirements. I then went out and got training in several specific gyros to better understand the fine differences in handling/performance from classic pusher gyros to several new European gyros. I also got additional training in trikes and flew a number of different fixed wing aircraft to double check that a gyro is what I wanted to go with. In the end, I decided on a two-place tandem, tractor gyro.
:: DESIGN INTENT ::
The intent of this project is to build a one-off prototype, stable/docile, open, two place, gyro with good visibility for fun local flying and short cross country flights. I started my configuration study by benchmarking my basic layout against 15 other “technically relevant” (mostly older tractors) gyros for comparison.
:: DESIGN STYLE ::
I have always gravitated to the classic tractor designs, so I really wanted to design a new gyro that was a “modernized” gyro roughly based on a classic Cierva. Because this gyro was to be a modernized classic tractor, I had been calling it the “Variant”, but after the recent unveiling of the similar themed Bulldog gyro, I might rethink that name as it was never meant to be a “Variant” of the Bulldog.
As I got into this design, I wanted to try for a more aesthetically pleasing gyro layout than some of the gyros I have trained in. I also didn’t want to just put a fairing on a metal frame like many of the Euro-tub gyros do. Not that the “standard” metallic frame gyros aren’t very practical, but I find that they leave a little something to be desired from a modernized structural design perspective. I have often worked with structural composite design, so I decided to go with a completely composite structure and incorporate a classic theme to the stressed-skin monocoque layout. During the final conceptual design phase, I also built a plywood cockpit mock-up from CAD templates to check ergonomics and get a better feel for the sight angles and basic visibility.
:: CURRENT PROJECT STATUS ::
Right now, I have built or purchased 81% of the gyro by mass. I still have quite a few parts to make and lots of assembly work to do. Monetarily, I am 83% through paying for the parts and material (including tooling).
:: BASIC SPECS (more in the following text)::
-- 627 lb empty weight
-- 1,200 lb max design weight
-- 280 mile cruise range (with 35 min reserve)
-- Total length 16 ft (rotor removed)
-- Width 7 ft 5 in
-- Height 9 ft 3 in
-- Solo from AFT seat only
-- Rudder and brakes AFT seat only
-- Throttles and sticks both seats
:: STRUCTURE ::
Fully composite monolithic structure. The structure is primarily carbon fiber-282/epoxy-PTM&W/Divinycell-H45 with localized fiberglass-7725 and Kevlar-49 buildups. There is also localized carbon fiber-IM7 unidirectional tow reinforcements. The horizontal stabilizer is Epoxy-PTM&W /fiberlass-7725/extruded-polystyrene with unidirectional pultruded-Graphlite carbon fiber spar caps. The fuselage tooling method is a seamless composite shell molded over a sacrificial/removable foam male tool. The fuselage tool was CNC milled from the CAD outer mold line loft. The composite structures were sized using hand calculations and shell finite element analysis (FEA) to a minimum safety factor of 2.0 on stress and 3.0 on buckling.
:: WEIGHT AND CG ::
I checked 82 different weight and balance scenarios (example: heavy pilot, no passenger, full fuel) and iteratively refined the configuration to establish as little CG movement as reasonably possible. From a realistic low flight weight of 851 to a maximum takeoff weight of 1,200, the CG swings FWD_AFT +/- 1.8 inches and moves vertically +/- 0.6 inches. The vertical CG position is within 2.0 inches the crank centerline for all weight and balance scenarios. Depending on the part, I am also carrying a 5-20% weight growth margin on all still to be built components. The expected average takeoff weight is 1,055 lb.
:: TAIL GEOMETRY ::
The horizontal tail volume is 17.3% of rotor volume and compares well against other benchmarked tractors. The H-stab is a tapered NACA 0012 airfoil. The V-stab is a modified NACA 0020. The vertical tail volume is 67 ft^3. The vertical and rudder are positioned in the cleanest air available on the underside of the fuselage. The intent is to maximize yaw stability with the nose raised at high power and minimize spiraling-slipstream turn/roll tendencies.
:: INSTRUMENTS ::
Despite the temptation to go overboard with avionics, I want to keep the flying experience super simple and focused in flying, so there will only be very basic steam-gauge cockpit instruments and a Flightline FL-760 radio.
:: POWERPLANT ::
I compared 44 different engines for this application in the 85-150 hp range. Not surprisingly, the 912 and 914 were good options, but I decided to go with the Rotec Radial R2800 swinging a 76x57 Culver wood prop. I love the style and sound of the engine, and I pretty much based the gyro design around it. I have the engine now. It’s a little heavy at 224 lb, it takes auto or aviation fuel and is quite a work of art. The fuel tanks are structurally free-floating tanks that are mounted in the fuselage cheeks on either side of the front cockpit. Total fuel load is a little over 19 gallons.
:: ROTOR ::
Unmodified RFD 28 ft Cruze rotor with modified RFD double-bearing rotor head. The rotor is mounted to a relatively flexible “limber” composite mast. I have not selected a pre-rotor yet, but I am leaning toward a brushless “outrunner” motor.
:: FLIGHT CONTROLS ::
The rotor flight controls are very standard pushrod with rodends and mixed at the base of the rotor mast. Rudder and tail wheel steering is via aircraft cable. Flight controls are per ASTM F2352-05.
:: LANDING GEAR ::
The main landing gear are modified Cessna 140 landing legs (canted out for a wider stance and similar “root” bending moment to the heavier C140). The tailwheel is a Maule castering wheel assembly with spring steering links from the rudder. The gear is 3g at 10ft/sec per configuration applicable FAR23 load cases. The rolling stock is FAA/TSO Parker Hannifin 500-5.00 with single puck differential hydraulic brakes. All TSO and custom landing gear parts are structurally sized to a minimum safety factor of 2.0 using solid element finite element analysis.
:: DESIGN CHANGE OPTIONS I AM CONSIDERING ::
-Remove wheel pants
-Larger tires on 5.00 rims (380x150x5)
-Larger wheels and tires (maybe 600-6.0)
-Add H-Stab vertical tip plates for increased yaw stability
-Remove engine Townend ring (“NACA ring”)
-Change to underslung “torpedo” fuel tank
:: SENSITIVITIES I HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING ::
-Nose-over/prop-strike tendencies
-Tail-dragger ground handling sensitivities
-Drag penalties from a tractor configuration with open cockpit
-Windy flight experience
-Vertical tail/rudder effectiveness (x-wind , etc.)
-Limited FWD visibility
-Limited tractor training options
-Safety of fuel stored in fuselage
Attachments
Last edited: