banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 14:41 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 19 Jul 2021, 22:25 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 01/24/10
Posts: 6730
Post Likes: +4406
Location: Concord , CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1967 Baron B55
Ok I think I just found my next toy.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 10:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/12/16
Posts: 49
Post Likes: +21
Aircraft: Tecnam P2008
Haha, I’m telling y’all it’s something else! 156 square feet of wing area clean with an increase of 12% to 175 square feet when dirty. Less drag with higher wing loading when you want it and a ton of drag with less wing loading when you need it.

The wing area is encroaching on Carbon Cub territory with the slats out but without the 34’ 3” span that negatively impacts some of your maneuverability and clearance into tight strips. The Norden’s wingspan is 29’ 7.5” which enables a quicker roll rate but with the safety of leading edge slats that could prevent a stall spin scenario in a no go around situation.

Its massive double slotted flaps account for about 65% of the trailing edge of the wing with the rest dedicated to the deep chorded frise ailerons that enable insane agility and roll response. The forward pitching moment produced by the massive flaps are perfectly counter balanced by the leading edge slats as you can in the video with near neutral elevator in a high AOA configuration.

The best part of all is that the black Norden you see only weighs 830 pounds with the 915. The electric slats alone weigh 22 pounds so pretty remarkable. I’m a bit obsessed with it!

https://youtu.be/VPqTh_hZNoI


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 11:00 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/01/14
Posts: 8705
Post Likes: +13324
Location: Операционный офис КГБ
Aircraft: TU-104
So where can we buy them?

_________________
Be kinder than I am. It’s a low bar.
Flight suits = superior knowledge


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 11:20 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/12/16
Posts: 49
Post Likes: +21
Aircraft: Tecnam P2008
http://sportair.aero/


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 11:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Andrew, so the leading edge slats are electrically retractable and are not based on aircraft speed ala the Helio Courier?

In one of your pictures I see a handle for the slats and a handle for the flaps?

Mike Patey stealing those ideas?

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 12:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/01/14
Posts: 8705
Post Likes: +13324
Location: Операционный офис КГБ
Aircraft: TU-104
Username Protected wrote:
Mike Patey stealing those ideas?


Mike Patey's design is "better." He has dual slats mechanically linked to the flaps and the drooping ailerons. With everything for both wings actuated by a single motor and a single torque tube structure, his system will always remain balanced between slats and flap and from wing to wing. All of these ideas have been around for a long time, but have seen limited use in production aircraft and kits due to complexity, weight and cost.

I put better in quotes because Mike's system is not light weight and I am sure was crazy expensive to build. The amount of machining involved is insane! Of course when you have a 780 cuin engine with nitrous boost, and you own the CNC machines, these problems are mere mole hills for your 35" bush wheels.

_________________
Be kinder than I am. It’s a low bar.
Flight suits = superior knowledge


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 12:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/06/12
Posts: 2290
Post Likes: +2114
Company: FlightRepublic
Location: Bee Cave, TX
Aircraft: DA40, C182
Username Protected wrote:
Mike Patey stealing those ideas?


Mike Patey's design is "better." He has dual slats mechanically linked to the flaps and the drooping ailerons. With everything for both wings actuated by a single motor and a single torque tube structure, his system will always remain balanced between slats and flap and from wing to wing. All of these ideas have been around for a long time, but have seen limited use in production aircraft and kits due to complexity, weight and cost.

I put better in quotes because Mike's system is not light weight and I am sure was crazy expensive to build. The amount of machining involved is insane! Of course when you have a 780 cuin engine with nitrous boost, and you own the CNC machines, these problems are mere mole hills for your 35" bush wheels.

Yes, Mike Party’s design is significantly more complicated, and sophisticated. I can’t wait to see it fly, and the aerodynamic and engineering work is very clever.
However, the counter argument in this case where weight is at a premium might be to keep things simple at the expense of pilot workload and increased potential for operator error.
_________________
Antoni Deighton
contactlink.to/antoni.deighton


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 13:13 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/18/09
Posts: 1144
Post Likes: +203
Company: Elemental - Pipistrel
Location: KHCR
Aircraft: Citation CJ2+
Username Protected wrote:
It's a 2012 though with under 400 hrs. A 2001 is a decade older and would probably be in the 100-110k range. There is also 2008 on Barnstormers for 145k. https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... atid=22222

the 7GCBC is a great airplane.


Still does make me feel better about my Citabria and value.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
--
Jason Talley
Pipistrel Distributor
http://www.elemental.aero

CJ2+
7GCBC
A-1C Husky


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 13:28 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/01/14
Posts: 8705
Post Likes: +13324
Location: Операционный офис КГБ
Aircraft: TU-104
Username Protected wrote:
[
Yes, Mike Party’s design is significantly more complicated, and sophisticated. I can’t wait to see it fly, and the aerodynamic and engineering work is very clever.
However, the counter argument in this case where weight is at a premium might be to keep things simple at the expense of pilot workload and increased potential for operator error.


Not only is weight a premium for light sport rules, the ability to run a MUCH lower power Rotax is a major upfront and ongoing cost savings as well.

I would bet that the stick forces in the light weight Norden are such that an uneven deployment of flaps vs slats is a non-event but also obvious and easy to correct.

I actually think if I could have either one for the same upfront cost, I would take the lighter, simpler and cheaper to operate Norden. Scrappy is more of a novelty plane to me where the Rotax powered light sport plane would be a fun flying toy.

At 135,000 EUR, ready to fly with a 915, the Norden is shockingly affordable too! If I can convince my kids to skip college, I could place my order today!

_________________
Be kinder than I am. It’s a low bar.
Flight suits = superior knowledge


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 13:45 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/12/16
Posts: 49
Post Likes: +21
Aircraft: Tecnam P2008
Username Protected wrote:
Mike Patey stealing those ideas?


Mike Patey's design is "better." He has dual slats mechanically linked to the flaps and the drooping ailerons. With everything for both wings actuated by a single motor and a single torque tube structure, his system will always remain balanced between slats and flap and from wing to wing. All of these ideas have been around for a long time, but have seen limited use in production aircraft and kits due to complexity, weight and cost.

I put better in quotes because Mike's system is not light weight and I am sure was crazy expensive to build. The amount of machining involved is insane! Of course when you have a 780 cuin engine with nitrous boost, and you own the CNC machines, these problems are mere mole hills for your 35" bush wheels.


The Norden’s slats are manually activated on the control stick and electrically actuated. They are interconnected and if the electric servo motor were to fail both slats fail in the position they were in.

Mike Patey’s wing design solves a different problem entirely. From what I gathered Mike needed the double slat design to compensate for the massive amount of flap area he was trying to counter balance from the forward pitching moment being produced by them. The fact that they can keep the airflow attached at ridiculously high AOA is a huge bonus and I’m truly excited to see that wing design on a Helio Courier or Sherpa.

The single slat design with respect to the Norden is sufficient to keep the airflow attached over the flaps and ailerons at high angles of attack. Just see below.

https://youtu.be/w8eE4NB3OmI

The double slat design wouldn’t make sense on the Norden as the flap area is much much smaller than Scappy’s and only require’s a single slat to counter balance them. That’s clearly shown in the 360 cam video and means with the slats and flaps out you’re not taking anything away from their massive lift production. It’s perfectly balanced and in fact one of the demo pilots early in flight testing had noted that it didn’t require any pitch trim in any configuration which is pretty amazing.

Aside from the single slat being sufficient for the Norden’s wing design the weight and complexity wouldn’t make any sense either as the current single slat implementation only weighs 22 pounds which is impressive.

I really feel as though Zlin has changed the light GA STOL arena as this wing design is practical in many different implementations.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 16:12 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/10/13
Posts: 1121
Post Likes: +424
Location: greenville,ms
Aircraft: baron 58
i would love to have those wings on my j-3


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 16:51 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/12/16
Posts: 49
Post Likes: +21
Aircraft: Tecnam P2008
Username Protected wrote:
i would love to have those wings on my j-3


Wouldn’t that be something?! It would be neat to see how the performance numbers would change, handling differences, etc.

Here’s a nice walk around of the wing starting at 4:40. https://youtu.be/5Olmfj7O4Ec


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 17:16 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/06/13
Posts: 403
Post Likes: +246
Location: KFTW-Fort Worth Meacham
Aircraft: C208B, AL18-115
I loved flying the Rotax 914-very efficient and the turbo was nice. I have always thought that the Rotax 915 would be outstanding on a light weight Cub. Less fuel burn means less fuel, less weight, and better performance.

I will make one comment on being at the light weight end of the spectrum with a big wing-gusty winds are a real hand full. When your airplane stalls in the 20's, it doesn't take much of a gust to launch you up in the air during landing. Taxiing can be painfully slow on windy days. Sometimes much faster than a slow walk can lift the tail or risk a take off.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 18:22 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/12/16
Posts: 49
Post Likes: +21
Aircraft: Tecnam P2008
Me too Ed. You know how I feel about the P2008’s handling and I think the Norden will be similar in its response and roll rate.

The 915 dyno’s at 145hp and the rumor is that Rotax is releasing a 916 with 165hp for 5 minutes and 145hp max continuous. From what I’ve heard it’s a 915 with an ECU remap to provide 50” of manifold at the same weight so that would be killer on the Norden.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2021, 18:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/01/14
Posts: 8705
Post Likes: +13324
Location: Операционный офис КГБ
Aircraft: TU-104
Username Protected wrote:
rumor is that Rotax is releasing a 916 with 165hp for 5 minutes and 145hp max continuous. From what I’ve heard it’s a 915 with an ECU remap to provide 50” of manifold at the same weight so that would be killer on the Norden.


Imagine a pair on an amphib Aircam! :D

_________________
Be kinder than I am. It’s a low bar.
Flight suits = superior knowledge


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.