Hi all,
Did John McGinnis and/or Synergy make it to AirVenture this year? I didn't (obviously) and haven't seen or heard anything at all one way or the other. What's the latest?
--
Richard
Printable View
Hi all,
Did John McGinnis and/or Synergy make it to AirVenture this year? I didn't (obviously) and haven't seen or heard anything at all one way or the other. What's the latest?
--
Richard
Did John give his presentation on the 27th ?
Yes, he did. He also brought the scale model. But no numbers were stated and he estimated only 25% chance to be ready for GFC at end of Sept.
Here is the link to Synergy's Facebook page where there are now links to a series of YouTube videos that appear to cover the entire presentation.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Synerg...12353422181543
&*^%$#*() One of the main reasons I went to OshKosh and some how I missed the Johns presentation. Ahhhhgggg!
If you feel like being part of the cause, Help them Make History http://www.synergyaircraft.com/ What I learned in the forums from him was worth the cost of a book.
Maybe if if the price is right $$ he'll write your name in the dust on the shop wall ;D
Tom
I just watched the video and this is REALLY cool! The first time i saw anything with the boxed wing concept was a boxed wingtip treatment to a Gulfastream at Airventure 2010. I wonder why its taken this long for someone to introduce this concept (unless its really been done before and I just never saw it).
Regarding this aircraft specifcally, any idea why the designer chose a 5 seat version instead of a 2 or 3 seat version for starters? Also, for the traveling family (like me and my wife in particular), why would he put the pilot "alone" up front?
Really looking forward to the development on this. Could be a realtively simple kit build.
A vast gulf exists between genuine innovation and commercialism. The former is risky, costly, and time-consuming while the latter requires conservatism, austerity, and speed. The former requires dreamers and leaders while the latter requires steadfast workers and managers. So long as the primary motivation for "new" in aircraft remains money, exploration of synergistic design concepts will remain rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cattflight
Please check the discussion archives for the "Beyond Streamlining" thread for more than enough information to keep you interested. Also check the "part deux" thread in the Hangar Talk area, where we're restarting the technical and theoretical discussions.
Green Flight Challenge. The idea is get better than 200 seat-mpg at better than 100 mph. With five seats you need only 40 mpg actual. That's still a tall hill when you consider that your C-172 or Commanche probably gets about 12 mpg actual (48 seat-mpg) and a Velocity gets about 20 mpg actual. Additionally, John says a design goal is "comfort." Finally, it naturally falls out from the design. (see the archives for how that happens.) Certainly six seats, or four seats with meaningful cargo, helps marketability too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cattflight
I hope MC2 does not do either a kit or a finished plane. Yes, I want one if I can possibly afford one before I'm too old to fly. OTOH, John's highest and best use to the world and to us is as a designer, not a manufacturer. Tooling up to make and market a kit is costly and time consuming. The effort is likely to dilute the attention and efforts of one of the few genuine geniuses in the world. Far better if they/we can figure out how to license the design and/or key parts to some of the many outstanding kit makers already in the business. Glassair, Lancair, Velocity, and others already do a great job with composites and should in theory be happy to add another design to the stable. Then John would get the income streams from the kits (albeit less) and be able to focus his attentions on design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cattflight
John said (I forget when or where) that it could be flown from the two side-by side seats and put the little guy up front. Just an option. BTW - it's not a boxed wing; the top part is tail. He's been VERY clear on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cattflight
Found this searching "box wing airplane" from 2005:
http://tinypic.com/1ta9lv
so there's probably other examples to indicate that it's been thought about for a long time. A big reason this wouldn't be too attractive for the type of airplane shown in this picture (an airliner with a diamond/joined wing/tail) is that it would probably be much more involved to add fuselage plugs to generate a long-fuselage version, or, use the same (or minimally modified) fuselage with an "improved" wing. For example, the more recent versions of the 737 and 747 probably re-used a LOT of the existing fuselage design and tooling while incorporating new wings. But for a single-point design like the Synergy where if it was a kit, it would be available in the "one size" for a couple hundred units, until the "next size" becomes available. If the performance advantages prove to be worth whatever the cost, building, and/or storage compromises might prove to be, then it probably would find some customers... At least give us something new to see at fly-ins... Though if I were going to design a first iteration to market, it would be the 2-seater. This, by far, seems to be the most popular seating capacity in homebuilt airplanes. More seats than this starts to get very expensive to build and power, and single seaters are always a very limited market (and not much less cost to build or power than a 2-seater).
They might well replace the Shorts cargo series in my book as the ugliest aircraft I have ever seen fly.Quote:
Help them Make History
Hey Eric, do you host your own web page or use someone? (I'm considering whether to take the plunge for web and/or blog.)
That's interesting. I wonder what the real win, if any, would be for a nice wing like that with the high Reynolds numbers you'd get from an airline. It might be "fun" (if one were artistically inclined) to re-sketch that with the engines on the tail, converting the wings to the Synergy's double box tail (not box wing) and see what it looks like then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Witherspoon
Most likely. I would guess that altering the length of the fuselage would alter the laminar flow characteristics all over place and ruin the design as far as "adaptability" goes. A single good design is great for people like us. Businesses need a basic design they can modify all over the place in minor ways.Quote:
... it would probably be much more involved to add fuselage plugs to generate a long-fuselage version, or, use the same (or minimally modified) fuselage with an "improved" wing. For example, the more recent versions of the 737 and 747 probably re-used a LOT of the existing fuselage design and tooling while incorporating new wings.
Do you really think we'll see a couple of hundred Synergy kits in the next decade? It took RV and Velocity a long time to get there. Most successful kits are only in the hundreds. Right now I'm quietly hoping that they're focused on GFE only. I think they can take away all the prizes, if they can get it flying in time. If not, Pipistrel goes home with yet another bird designed to match the rules of the contest. IMHO, GFE should be about real progress, not a flying "America's Cup."Quote:
But for a single-point design like the Synergy where if it was a kit, it would be available in the "one size" for a couple hundred units, until the "next size" becomes available.
The deal is, the Synergy is more efficient in flight (we think) than most two-seaters are now. It's a 180 HP engine, in an airframe with less drag than an RV-6, and seats 6. Materials costs, time to build, and time to qualify will all figure into this too.Quote:
Though if I were going to design a first iteration to market, it would be the 2-seater. This, by far, seems to be the most popular seating capacity in homebuilt airplanes. More seats than this starts to get very expensive to build and power, and single seaters are always a very limited market (and not much less cost to build or power than a 2-seater).
Qualify ... it has two moving control surfaces. It has proverse (not adverse) yaw. I wonder if it has rudder pedals, and what it would be like to fly a machine without them. :)
Here's a great page (yes, there's a picture) :-) I stumbled over this morning.
http://www.simscience.org/fluid/red/downwash.html
Hopefully this is not some conflicting patent, and not some German outfit jumping in on John's IP.
http://www.bauhaus-luftfahrt.net/archive/patent-fuer-flugzeugantriebssystem?set_language=en
[FONT='Lucida Grande', Verdana, Lucida, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The patented propulsion system concept addresses high energy efficiency as well as a significant reduction of aircraft noise emission characteristics. Due to the installation of the shaft power engines in the aft-fuselage, the corresponding external noise propagation is minimised. Simultaneously, the installation space available in the fuselage aft-section promotes highly efficient thermodynamic cycles, including the application of heat exchangers for core energy recovery.[/FONT]
Here's a personal reply from John. I don't have his permission to post (didn't ask,) but I think he'll forgive me this time.
Quote:
Old news. Bauhaus Luftfahrt has all kinds of box wing designs, some
closer to Synergy than others. They seem to be trying to stake an open
thermo claim as well, but this particular patent is relatively narrow. I
can guarantee you they are closely studying my work right now, but it's
unlikely they can cross the credibility gap given their think tank
mentality. No fruit will bear there for a long time.
For those seeking John's (Synergy Aircraft) presentation at OSH, and missed it.... the video's are posted on YouTube broken into 5 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCqk7HUKMug
Enjoy, I know I did!!
Smooth Landings,
Travis McQueen - KHNB
Huntingburg Airport
812-683-5454 Office
I think it would depend on the size range they (or a licensee) goes for in their offering. I know they're going for multi-seat for the efficiency contest since it's mpg per person, but in the homebuilt marketplace, I think if they could size it for 2-seat (looks like tandem would fit best), about 600 lbs empty weight, 1100 gross, and an ~80hp VW-derived engine (or maybe Jabiru 2200 or the 80hp Rotax), this could be a winner that would sell on the order of 100 units per year.Quote:
Originally Posted by spungey
IF (and here's the huge if), they could get the "complete airframe kit" in the $15-16k range including all structure and hardware, allowing the builder to add engine, prop, instruments, upholstery, and paint for maybe another $10-15k, and offer the following options:
Fixed gear, propped slow enough (or rpm limited) to meet LSA;
Fixed gear, but set up for beyond the LSA speed limit;
and retract gear, and maybe retract gear and "bigger engine" (Jabiru 3300, 100+ hp Rotax)
Two big reasons I think this combination could be preferred to some of the 1320-lb LSA's out there are:
1. They would offer similar payload, range, and speeds with the "next size down" of engine - so lower buy-in costs.
2. The smaller engine as well as the airframe efficiency would allow for lower operating costs.
The unusual looks and efficiency I think would find 100 customers / year for several years until they decide to "size it up" for:
bigger engines, to really go fast;
a 3- or 4-seater...
To carry them along until (and if) demand is there for a 5- or 6-seater... Or maybe just a "big cargo" version...
But my experience walking around Oshkosh and some of the other regional fly-ins gives me the impression that >2 seats are a VERY hard sell. Not that there aren't any out there, but the customer base with the inclination, talent, and perseverance to build an airplane, as well as the money to build a more than two seater is just an extremely rare combination.
One thing I would need to see in-person, though, is how does it fit in a hangar, particularly a T-hangar, with another airplane? I have been fortunate enough to share hangars for my current airplane - both with high-wing and low-wing. This is possible because we over/under lap parts of the airplanes to fit two in one hangar. But with the wing/tail joined - a Synergy (LSA-size) might not fit with either a high or low wing. And a larger size version might not fit in a T-hangar at all...
If you think much about Synergy you will probably come to the conclusion that it makes no sense as an LSA - too fast. The same problem exists for fixed gear - all wrong for the design concept - it's all about huge drag reductions. Synergy is all about performance and LSA's are all about limited performance. An LSA can only be retractable if it is a glider, if I am reading the requirements correctly. Now, what about a Synergy glider?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Witherspoon
Current Synergy design would fit anywhere a C-172 could go. Maybe even a C-150/152. Big on the inside, small on the outside. Might have to go nose-in, though, like an EZ.
Howard, Think 2 seats and room for 2 bikes with the wheels quick released. [35-40lb's each] :thumbsup: Not walking!
With a very low drag the frontal area requires little penalty for size /volume.;)
OK, I goofed. Here is what Mr. McGinnis wants said. I apologize to all concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Handelman
------------------------
I noticed your post on EAA forums. What they're really asking is whether we will do other designs, and the answer is yes, hopefully. In fact, a two place LSA amphibian is extremely high on my to-do list. Contrary to your assertion, the speed possible through drag reduction is NOT the point of Synergy, mission efficiency is, and that by definition must include factors that erode pure efficiency and/or pure speed goals when one is designing a practical airplane. A two place designed for LSA using principles of Synergy would simply climb quicker, fly quieter, burn less fuel, carry more stuff, and land slower than the usual LSA, that's all. Of course I will design one (I've already designed several to the conceptual level).
I'm glad you pointed out that the design principle creates room, and that this (and structural efficiency) is why we have the opportunity for more seats than people are used to. So leave them out if you don't want them! It's a pickup truck if you do. Either way, Synergy as-is will effectively compete with two place aircraft in every way. Just think of it as a slow-landing, compact two seater with room for a full size mattress.
--------------------------
With respect to the issue of fitting in a hangar, he said....
use the image below if you like. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater
Hi everyone. Sorry, Howard, to put you on the spot like that. We still don't have anywhere near enough time to respond to all the attention and build at the same time, so even though I occasionally get to see what you guys are saying I was hoping not to jump in personally right now. I really appreciate all the legwork you've done to help us out.
When things settle down a little this fall I'll get back on the forums here and post some new stuff with updates and pictures. Thanks all!
Eric sayeth:
Not sure I agree with tandem. One of the nice things about the Synergy design is that a fatter fuselage is actually slipperier. I personally like a wider dashboard and having my aviatrix at my elbow, but that might just be me. :-) Also, two seats is not my primary flight mission, but I certainly would bend that far if that's what it took to finance, build, finish, and fly.Quote:
I think if they could size it for 2-seat (looks like tandem would fit best), about 600 lbs empty weight, 1100 gross, and an ~80hp VW-derived engine (or maybe Jabiru 2200 or the 80hp Rotax), this could be a winner that would sell on the order of 100 units per year.
Wow! At that price you're only slightly more expensive than many of the single and two-seaters that could qualify under part 103. I suppose if we (you and I? ... the readers here who care?) sat down and thought about it, and worked on it, we could come up a reasonable design to throw at John in a year or so.Quote:
IF (and here's the huge if), they could get the "complete airframe kit" in the $15-16k range including all structure and hardware, allowing the builder to add engine, prop, instruments, upholstery, and paint for maybe another $10-15k,
OTOH, a lot of the costs of an airplane don't really scale. All the avionics for instance. Yes, it's a la carte, but the price is the same per item.
Let's speculate for a minute. Suppose we have a scaled-down version of a Synergy Mark 1 (what I'm calling the design we've seen for the GFC.) This hypothetical mini-syni has two seats and a 100 HP engine. (Rotax 912?) Let's compare with a plane using a 20th century design that carries 24 gal of gas, 400 lb useful load, and cruises at 120 mph on 5 gph. IF (and we don't really have a clue that this is true) the Synergy design efficiencies scale down linearly, then by back-of-the-envelope numbers say we could choose one (or maybe two) of:Quote:
Two big reasons I think this combination could be preferred to some of the 1320-lb LSA's out there are:
1. They would offer similar payload, range, and speeds with the "next size down" of engine - so lower buy-in costs.
2. The smaller engine as well as the airframe efficiency would allow for lower operating costs.
1. reduce fuel burn to 3gph
2. increase cruise to 160 mph at 5 gph
3. increase load to 600 lb (but suffer some climb penalties)
4. increase range (with climb penalties)
You have an interesting idea. :-)
Do you think it's the additional burden of building, or is it the money? Right now, a 4-seat airplane is basically unobtanium for many of us. 12 mpg, noisy, no real luggage room ... it's better just to have a small plane and fly around locally. But a plane like Synergy Mark 1 (or the 4-seat equivalent) makes it cheaper for me to fly the family to visit my sister-in-law in Buffalo than to drive. (We're in Portland.) I suspect a number of people would try to move mountains to have the extra versatility of the larger airframe.Quote:
But my experience walking around Oshkosh and some of the other regional fly-ins gives me the impression that >2 seats are a VERY hard sell. Not that there aren't any out there, but the customer base with the inclination, talent, and perseverance to build an airplane, as well as the money to build a more than two seater is just an extremely rare combination.
Trouble maker. :-) Maybe you've uncovered a business opportunity for new-style hangars.Quote:
One thing I would need to see in-person, though, is how does it fit in a hangar, particularly a T-hangar, with another airplane?
Keeping the conversation alive while we all wait impatiently for press releases from Santa Rosa ...
Anyone have any thoughts about any of the following?
1. Maintenance issues associated with a natural laminar airflow fuselage. It seems that scratches, scrapes, or even bird strikes could rather dramatically increase risk by creating an on-the-fly turbulator.
2. Landing an aircraft with only two flight control surfaces (and proverse yaw.) I've never flown and Ercoupe but it's been done before ... sort of.
3. Similarity of drag reduction by ground effect and drag reduction by box-wing/box-tail design.
The view overlaid on the C-172 just confirms my earlier observation - it's not going to fit in a T-hangar. Not that big of a deal unless that's all there is at your favorite airport. Otherwise just have to find a 50x60 or something to share with a couple other planes.
Reason it's a concern is storage is THE biggest ongoing cost I have for my airplane hobby right now, and I've gotten along almost the entire time I've had the plane out at the airport by sharing a 40-foot T hangar. Shared with an RV-3, and RV-4, and now a C-140. So the little low-wing I'm operating now is small enough to share with a low OR high wing.
But the boxed wing configuration would seem to rule out all of that. Maybe a 2-seater would be overall smaller enough to both fit in AND share the T-hangar.
My earlier post about sizing it for 2-seats / an LSA version was just based on my perception of where more units could be sold, perhaps building the capital and company infrastructure (supply base, manufacturing capabilities, etc.) to support a smaller run of 3, 4, 5, or whatever higher number of seats anyone might want to pursue. Just look at the large-volume sellers out there now. What comes to my mind are RV's, Zeniths, and Sonex. ALL based / started with 2-seaters. Sonex, being a different sort of company is branching back "down" to a single seater, where both Van's and Zenith grew into supporting 4-seaters.
I still think if you want to start building a customer base, making some money, and building a company - that a 2-seater is the place to start.
Yes, I wasn't worried that the efficiency of this configuration might easily make it "too fast" for LSA. As others pointed out, trade that for a smaller (cheaper) engine, add a little drag in the form of fixed gear, and get better rate of climb and/or payload than the competitors. Don't utilize the drag advantage for SPEED, but for all the other things an efficient airframe can buy you.
The wider cockpit is a VERY interesting possibility. Especially around the numbers I quoted - 600 lbs empty, 1100 lbs gross - since you're not having to lug the additional 220 lbs of "the other guys" to get the 500 lbs of payload off the ground, that's a HUGE efficiency advantage right there. Throw in everything else that comes from the configuration, and it's going to be a MUCH smaller overall airframe (cheaper to build, to some extent) and get equal or greater rate of climb from the smaller (and again cheaper) engine choice. I think of the other airplanes in the 600/1100 lbs range -Quickie, KR-2, Sonex - the accomodations, though workable, are TIGHT.
The way I see it, get 2000 fpm climb (at sea level) without having to incur the cost of a Jabiru 3300. Since I've been operating an LSA for a while now, I think 500 lbs of payload (fuel + people) is just great. Solo, that's me + all the stuff I'd want to carry + full fuel. 2-up, to let someone else experience the airplane, it's 1/2 tank and they get to play around in the local area for an hour or less.
There's a huge market for just these sorts of machines. Size that one, and re-use certain parts of it when building one that has longer range, can take a bigger engine, has a higher gross weight, an even smaller wing (less drag, more speed, cheaper to build, easier to store...).
This discussion just reminded me of yet another engine option - the 65hp 2-cylinder 2-stroke. Sized for this engine, the main competitors would be the Jabiru 2200 and 80 hp Rotax-powered machines. Except this one would start with a $6k+ cost advantage...
Think small, build a customer base, then build the big, fast one for those with the money.
From a quick look at the news, it appears Synergy failed to make Green Flight this year. If true, my condolences but I'm glad they chose safety (if they were even close and had to make that call.) Anyone know any details yet?