Simviation Forums

I have ever intention of designing and producing my own sport aircraft designs. With that said, even though I am just about to start my senior aeronautical engineering classes, I have officially started my 1st design.

I am dubbing it 'XS1' (Experimental Single-seat #1). What is shown below is the layout for the tubing that will form the fuselage. I am going with an old-school style of construction after seeing how rugged and cheap this technique can be on the WACOs and Great Lakes. Thus the fuselage frame will be steel tubing (probably 4130 Chromoly), tube sizes are something I am currently investigating.

This airplane will be a single seat tail dragger with a single low wing. The engine currently being used for reference is the Lycoming IO-360. My ultimate goal is to produce an aircraft reminiscent of a early WW2 era fighter with either an open or closed cockpit (or semi-enclosed like many early/pre WW2 fighters).
Skin will thus be a mix of aluminum sheet and fabric with some sheet metal and wooden bulkheads and fuselage formers like the WACO YMF5 and Great Lakes.
I am planing on making the seat in a fairly reclined position (shooting for ~20degrees) to give that 'go-fast' feel as well as for comfort. Avionics will be the usual stuff you see in small single seaters of today.



Please note, I have done 0 stress analysis thus far; this represents the very beginning of my project. I hope to make this my senior design project in school as well. So periodically I will post screen shots of progress as the design grows.

engine:
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/engines ... Insert.pdf

tube sizing being investigated:
http://www.cartesiantube.com/documents/ ... f#view=Fit

Serious suggestions are welcome!
Tailwinds,
Adam

Looks like fun. My senior design project was a ton of work but a lot of fun. It's pretty rewarding to go from initial hand sketches to "Hey.. I think this thing could actually work."

It is good to see you are looking at what other people have done to solve problems similar to yours. That is a big step in the right direction and it's a step that a lot of people miss both in school and in industry. At lot of successful designs I've seen can be described as "This is basically the same thing they do on the ______" or, more often "It's kinda like a cross between the _____ and the _____".

Unless it is going to be an acro machine, the IO-360 might be a bit much for a single place LSA. The Carbon Cub has what is basically an O-360 and only just makes it under the wire as an LSA and only with a bit of hand-waving. Yours would probably still be a great performer with an O-320.

SolidWorks is a fantastic software package for mechanical design. If you've got the Simulation license, than analyzing that tube frame will be a piece of cake. Kinematics is also a strong suit for SolidWorks, especially if you've got the Motion license, but you probably won't get into that in your senior design class. Modeling the wings might get a little interesting in SolidWorks. Yours will probably end up being pretty simple, so it actually might not be too bad.

Good Luck,
- Brian

Looks like fun. My senior design project was a ton of work but a lot of fun. It's pretty rewarding to go from initial hand sketches to "Hey.. I think this thing could actually work."

It is good to see you are looking at what other people have done to solve problems similar to yours. That is a big step in the right direction and it's a step that a lot of people miss both in school and in industry. At lot of successful designs I've seen can be described as "This is basically the same thing they do on the ______" or, more often "It's kinda like a cross between the _____ and the _____".

Unless it is going to be an acro machine, the IO-360 might be a bit much for a single place LSA. The Carbon Cub has what is basically an O-360 and only just makes it under the wire as an LSA and only with a bit of hand-waving. Yours would probably still be a great performer with an O-320.

SolidWorks is a fantastic software package for mechanical design. If you've got the Simulation license, than analyzing that tube frame will be a piece of cake. Kinematics is also a strong suit for SolidWorks, especially if you've got the Motion license, but you probably won't get into that in your senior design class. Modeling the wings might get a little interesting in SolidWorks. Yours will probably end up being pretty simple, so it actually might not be too bad.

Good Luck,
- Brian

Thanks Brian!
Im actually staying away from ever doing LSAs, as it has been told to me numerous times: "there is no money in it". When you build a 'cheap' plane you really have to go cheap to make it sell, but then you cant make enough money off of it to pay for production and development.
I have the student license for Solidworks 2012 with a year license with access to several more licenses. Problem wit that is the student version is frustratingly absent of the 'weldment' library of tubes.

I have done 2 complete UAVs in Solidworks already, so I am actually okay with wings. I use 'XYZ curve' with coordinates found from an online airfoil library. Usually these coordinates take a bit of editing before they import okay.
Although I am going to do a tapered wing, so I will have to find the chord length of each airfoil and scale them.

For analysis I was thinking of using some analysis software available at school. Im planing though on doing something completely against what is taught in engineering courses today: Im going to over-build it....*GASP*! We are taught to always always always 1st and foremost above all other things: optimize the structure's stress. Personally, I feel safety and reliability is worth the extra material. WACOs are overbuilt, and I have read many and heard many stories of WACOs getting balled up but the occupants walking away after dusting themselves off. I want mine to be just as safe.

Layout with wings and tail surfaces outlined. A box showing area of the current engine being investigated is also shown...I upped the size a bit 

As I said earlier, Im looking to make a plane that looks and feels like a warbird, hence the power.

[quote]Layout with wings and tail surfaces outlined. A box showing area of the current engine being investigated is also shown...I upped the size a bit

Don't forget those wise words in your signature, Adam...>>>

"At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation."- Igor Sikorsky

..be very afraid!.... ...!

Paul....I like Mattress Testing...its much closer to the ground... ... ...!

Paul, I remember those words every day and I am dead serious about following them.

Jake, I have designed a few aircraft by the way that flew well

[quote]Paul, I remember those words every day and I am dead serious about following them.

Jake, I have designed a few aircraft by the way that flew well

[quote]
The whole point of running through Roskam's method is that you get pretty solid numbers without geometry by basing the design off of similar aircraft.

[quote][quote]
The whole point of running through Roskam's method is that you get pretty solid numbers without geometry by basing the design off of similar aircraft.