Carplane: German future flying car

Judging the name of the inventor and the country, this invention was presented and
rewarded, I'm pretty sure he's a member of this forum. ;)
 
No, John is not member here. He was interested then he failed to register or decided not (I don't remember, and after a computer crash/format again, I have lost my mail archives to check - I knew him as flying car expert, gently providing me many twin-boom links, and I sent him the content of our topic about flying cars: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3556.0.html ) :)
 
:) Answer from John Brown:

Prof. Tophe,
thanks for introducing the Carplane® on secretprojects.
I want to be a member. But, despite trying hard, as I remember,
at the time your site was the subject of hacker attacks, making it
complicated for me to join. It required me to change settings on
my computer which I was unable to do. So, thanks to you and
Jens for keeping me informed.
The Carplane® has changed considerably since the patent was
filed. We started building on Sept. 1st, 2008. Among other things,
we made it narrower (2.2m) & changed the wing storage mechanism,
saving 46kgs in the process.
May I point out, Burt Rutan's "Bipod" has not flown (as one member
wrote). To get publicity one week before the Oshkosh Airshow, the
Bipod (which has no props) did a "wheelie" and was photographed
in such a way as to make it look like it was flying. [We could have
done that 3 years ago. But that's not the way we do things here.]
Secretprojects is one of the few forums I have found to be truly
informative. Congratulations to you all. I know you, Jens and other
members have helped me considerably over the years. I would be
happy to engage members in a discussion about the Carplane®
or indeed about any roadable aircraft.
Best regards,
John"
 
For the first picture I posted above, I gathered 2 views but not respecting scale. I think it is better below, transformed with Photopaint, still gathered but bringing the car-status to scale:
 

Attachments

  • carplane2.JPG
    carplane2.JPG
    22.2 KB · Views: 316
Tophe said:
For the first picture I posted above, I gathered 2 views but not respecting scale. I think it is better below, transformed with Photopaint, still gathered but bringing the car-status to scale:
Click to expand...
We must have for avoid the traffic ! :D :D
 
John Brown sent me the right picture without fake scaling down (below).
He sent also 8 other pictures, is someone interested to see them? may I post them here without Megabytes over-load or something?
 

Attachments

  • CP4.JPG
    CP4.JPG
    107.4 KB · Views: 252
Tophe, you can upload it to Megaupload or similar and post here the link. Some member use this option for heavy weight file sharing.
 
Thanks for this answer explaining. Well I checked and Jpg-ed and that makes 7 pictures from 78KB to 125KB, the grand total being 664KB after I post this one. I will continue little by little I think. I used to upload on Photobucket but I feel uncomfortable putting them on my account as I am not at all the owner of them - here it is different: I clearly say they come from John Brown and I mentioned his web site, with other pictures.
 

Attachments

  • CP1.JPG
    CP1.JPG
    100.6 KB · Views: 238
Drawing another what-if roadable Lightning for my P-38 fantasy site (http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/#Sit at the end of it) I asked John Brown if the Carplane was counted canard or 3-surface. His technical answer is interesting　for me:
<<The Carplane HAS a canard, but is NOT a "canard configuration". (This confuses people.)
It's a "3-surface-configuration". (Most "3-surface configuration" aircraft have canards, but are not "canard configurations".)
Here's the difference:
- On a 3-surface-aircraft, ALL THREE surfaces create lift in most (not always all) phases of flight.
- On a "canard configuration", both surfaces create lift. (The wing-loading of the canard is higher than the main wing - so the canard stalls first).
- On a conventional configuration, the tailplane (empennage) creates downforce (no lift). Only the mainwing creates lift.>>

John Brown also directed me to something interesting　: Rick McWilliams presented a project of homebuilt roadable amphibian similar to the Carplane in layout, see http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/10919-next-configuration-discussed-boomerang-configuration-other-multi-pods-2.html
 

Attachments

  • Roadable_Amphibian,_Rick_McWilliams.jpg
    Roadable_Amphibian,_Rick_McWilliams.jpg
    27.5 KB · Views: 21
There's another less known effort by Swiss inventor Andreas Reinhard (article in Italian) called the 'Ghi-Ta' flying car.

http://www.tcs.ch/main/it/home/touring/mensch_und_mobilitaet/andreas_reinhard.html
 

Attachments

  • Ghi-Ta.jpeg
    Ghi-Ta.jpeg
    49.2 KB · Views: 261
hi, it's my first post so forgive me if i digress from the topic.

the english translation link posted by Tophe mentions the Stingray aircraft. This and other interesting designs can be found at the prospective concepts ag website under projects 1991 to 2006. My favorite is the Kanguhru aircraft launch system.

I think we should take up John Brown's offer to discuss other flying car designs. What are his views on the Labiche Aerospace FSC-1?
 
minmachine said:
other interesting designs can be found at the prospective concepts ag website under projects 1991 to 2006. My favorite is the Kanguhru aircraft launch system.
I think we should take up John Brown's offer to discuss other flying car designs. What are his views on the Labiche Aerospace FSC-1?
Click to expand...
Welcome minmachine. What is this "ag" that Google does not find? A shortcut for AGricultural or else? Please give us a link. Thanks.
I will transmit your question about the Labiche to John.
 
hi Tophe, the link is www.prospective-concepts.ch/html/site_en.htm
right side of web page is projects 1991- 2006 menu button then navigate to air sub menu.
sorry if this is confusing i'm using an old mobile phone so it dosen't display the link well. will post from pc tomorrow.
 
:mad:
Tophe said:
minmachine said:
I think we should take up John Brown's offer to discuss other flying car designs. What are his views on the Labiche Aerospace FSC-1?
Click to expand...
I will transmit your question about the Labiche to John.
Click to expand...
Sad answer of John: he answered already (no need for me to repeat the question), but my mail provider or mail software refuses most mails from him...:
----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender :mad: Tophe,
this is the fifth email that has been returned to me.
I have answered all your emails.
Please get a gmail or yahoo account.
John
 
John’s answer thanks to yahoo-mail:
(first mail: LaBiche did one thing I agree with: For him, "4 large wheels"
and good road performance is an important criteria. He bases this on a survey he did)
here are my comments upon viewing the FSC-1:
1. It's unclear from the video - once the wings fold out (or fold+swing out) - how they're anchored
to provide the necessary structural support for a 4-person vehicle.
2. In the video, it looks like the seats may extend down into the wing storage area.
3. Besides twin fuselages (chosen by Carplane & Bipod to enclose four large wheels), a single fuselage
is certainly an option. Most designers have opted for a rounded, aircraft-like single fuselage with the
wheels out on struts. Where a flatter, more car-like shape has been used to embody the wheels, the
fuselage has usually been blended into the wings. A lack of blending could pose challenges.
4. The frontal area is one issue; the obliquely-tapered rear of the vehicle is another. Air disturbance
there could be heightened.
5. Only the very top range of the propeller appears to be located in undisturbed air. The remainder is
located in the lee of the obliquely-tapered rear of the vehicle. This may affect propeller efficiency.
6. The low placement of the propeller may incur rotational ground-clearance and FOD issues.
7. A "Low-wing" on a plane is still high when compared to placing wings below a car's chassis.
Crosswind capabilies may be limited in such a configuration.
8. The wing-sweep angle (& area) is more typical of higher-speed, streamlined aircraft.
9. It's a 3-surface configuration which can be very tricky.
Beyond these observations, I decline making any judgements.
That's up to the readers themselves.
 
hi Tophe please thank John Brown for his comments on the labiche fsc-1.
point 2: had a look at the video and i can't see the seats moving down into the wing storage space.
point 5: the counter rotating propellers may have efficiency issues as they are in the lee of the tapered section of the car but i think that the variable height suspension of the wheels may help with the propeller clearance issue as well as the crosswind problem due to the low set wing.

Have you or John seen the patent on the car?

thanks once again to you both.
 
John's answer:
"Tophe,

I think there's a misunderstanding:
The FSC1's seats don't move. Their legroom-area appears to be where the wings are stored
(i.e. the seats "extend down" into that area - they don't "move down" into that area.)

Comparing both A. wing height & B. prop height to normal aircraft would be helpful:
A. Crosswind tilt needs to include a safety-space in case of wind-gusts. This is regulated by law inasmuchas
aircraft are certified for a legal maximum crosswind component. In this case, no crosswind component
would be approved.
B. On most aircraft - even on pushers like the Cessna 337 - a propeller's ground clearance INCREASES
upon rotation. Here, the propeller moves closer to the ground. The issue is not danger of hitting the
ground. The issue is prop efficiency and ingestion of foreign objects.
1. A propeller loses efficiency if it's too close to structural elements or (in this case) to the ground.
2. Rear wheels throw up objects ("FOD"). A propeller should not be located in this "spray area".

Cheers,

John"
 
Article in AvLeak: Carplane, A Roadable Aircraft Designed For Drivability


Here
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom