Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: What's up with Synergy

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hillsboro, Oregon / USA
    Posts
    64
    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.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Witherspoon View Post
    Found this searching "box wing airplane" from 2005: http://tinypic.com/1ta9lv
    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.


    ... 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.
    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.

    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.
    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."

    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).
    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.

    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.
    Richard Johnson, EAA #395588

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hillsboro, Oregon / USA
    Posts
    64
    Here's a great page (yes, there's a picture) :-) I stumbled over this morning.
    http://www.simscience.org/fluid/red/downwash.html

  3. #13

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hillsboro, Oregon / USA
    Posts
    64
    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.

    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.
    Richard Johnson, EAA #395588

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Jasper, IN
    Posts
    1
    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

  6. #16
    Eric Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by spungey View Post
    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.
    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.

    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...
    Murphy's 13th: Every solution breeds new problems...

    http://www.spoonworld.com

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    62

    The imagined Synergy version

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Witherspoon View Post
    ...snipped..

    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)

    ...snipped..

    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?

    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.

  8. #18
    hogheadv2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Booger finger of the mitten
    Posts
    30
    Howard, Think 2 seats and room for 2 bikes with the wheels quick released. [35-40lb's each] Not walking!
    With a very low drag the frontal area requires little penalty for size /volume.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    62

    Sad John McGinnis asked for this correction

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Handelman View Post
    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?

    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.
    OK, I goofed. Here is what Mr. McGinnis wants said. I apologize to all concerned.
    ------------------------
    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

  10. #20
    John McGinnis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kalispell, MT
    Posts
    27

    Onward!

    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!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •