Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A lot of misinformation here , firstly , there hasn't been a case of a Skyfox shedding a wing , ever !   There has been a couple of break ups , one was an aircraft that was left outside in a tropical

Posted Images

The above wige craft should be going into production next year. I would give pretty much anything to "fly" one of these.

Hi FW pm me and I'll give you the contact of a person who tested the ones in Cairns back in the 90's. He now lives in Brisbane.

Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The above wige craft should be going into production next year. I would give pretty much anything to "fly" one of these.

What do you need to legally use one of these?

 

092_idea.gif.47940f0a63d4c3c507771e6510e944e5.gif a truck driver's licence?

 

092_idea.gif.47940f0a63d4c3c507771e6510e944e5.gif a marine captain's ticket?

 

092_idea.gif.47940f0a63d4c3c507771e6510e944e5.gif a PPL?

 

...or perhaps all three?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Blue, Does he have the company/business Sea Eagle International? Please excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure how to pm you, I can be contacted on 0431 152150, I'm also Brisbane, And 80 knots, yes that's hilarious, but a boat license would be needed for my design. I certainly wouldn't let a person without flying experience operate it though. In my posting above I said "P.A.W.", should have been, "P.A.L.", power augmented lift.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I looked at WIGS - which was some years ago - ICAO had ruled that for Type A (pure G/E machines), and Type B - (primarily G/E operation but capable of 'jumps', and not operated above 500 feet), they are 'Boats'.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Last I looked at WIGS - which was some years ago - ICAO had ruled that for Type A (pure G/E machines), and Type B - (primarily G/E operation but capable of 'jumps', and not operated above 500 feet), they are 'Boats'.

Correct, and therefore a boat license is required, and not a pilots license. But in saying that, there is no way anyone without sufficient experience in low flying, or flying in ground effect, should attempt to operate one, that would just be asking for trouble. I'm primarily interested in the recreational market, once mastered it would be just sooooo exhilarating. I used to love flying the fox a couple of feet, actually about 3, flat out, down a particular beach until I realized the consequences of my actions if anything were to go pear shaped.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd heard crabs can jump 50 feet but "boats" jumping 500 feet? BS I think, as it's definitely controlled and supported by aerodynamic forces and it's not on the water by any stretch of the imagination, in that situation. Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

FH, I think the 'jump' thing is intended to be the capability to use inertia and sufficient lift to be able to pull over obstacles, but not maintain sustained flight out of G/E. The 500 feet is ICAO simply using the legal definition that has been accepted for 'lowest safe altitude' figure as the line in the sand (air..) for classification purposes.

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I was involved in a fairly serious attempt to develop a small WIG about, gee, 5 - 7 years ago. I still find them fascinating concepts, but it's a fact that all of the attempts ( Lippisch in particular did a lot or work in this area) have found that operating in G/E is a very narrow 'window' for stability; what you don't want is a short-coupled device. Some of the Lippish devices operated pretty well, and of course the Russians had monster WIGS: e.g. the 'Caspian Sea Monster' that freaked USA spy resources:

 

 

There was a burst of interest in WIGS; even Boeing got into the act with its projected 'Pelican' project for a very heavy-lift logistic support beast:

 

 

The 'Volga'-class WIG was probably the most successful - able to 'fly' along iced up rivers for both passenger and emergency-services uses:

 

 

But - WIG development has mostly stopped, because it is a particularly difficult regime in which to get an effective device. A bit like Hovercraft: so very 'niche', that most people have succumbed in the face of the stability challenges.

 

I personally happen to think that WIGs would be amazingly utilitarian for servicing the top-end of Australia, combining efficiency with versatility - but the aerodynamics are exceedingly complex and under-researched. I don't think there are any of the Russian Ekranoplans still in service - or even flying. Just because they 'fly' at very low altitude, doesn't mean they are simple.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oscar, There is a hec of a lot of development going on nowadays, a lot of the previous problems you speak of have well and truly been worked out and overcome now. I really don't wish to get into an argument over the subject but if you really look around, especially in Sth Korea. WIG development has definitely not stopped. Wingship, Flightboat ...there's just 2. Complex to some.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
...But - WIG development has mostly stopped, because it is a particularly difficult regime in which to get an effective device. A bit like Hovercraft: so very 'niche', that most people have succumbed in the face of the stability challenges.

I hope some Big Wig will throw some money at this, hire the most capable engineers (perhaps recruit some from Russia?) and develop this concept further.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 years later...

Bought a Fox recently. Very happy....it flies!! Magic! There are some who seem to claim it’s “so easy to fly”, you’re not really a pilot... Having flown 17 different types of SE aircraft below 5700 Kg, some well below...with a wide range of performance, I say that is nonsense. It’s an aircraft that will keep your skills more than up to scratch, in fact, being so light, speed control on finals and landing it, are definitely a bit more challenging than a C172 for example. I’ve flown the Eurofox and I agree, it seems to be what the Skyfox would have, or should have, developed into. They look very similar, cockpit doors virtually identical. Very nice machine the Euro. The Skyfox seems to have a very good safety record. The aileron hangers seem to be the biggest issue, so their condition if wood, needs to be carefully monitored. The biggest threat today, is the fact they are getting old......I agree about the fuselage, it looks pretty strong! Tubes everywhere. The other point of interest, is the AD for an additional fuselage lower cross member. Age related I think, more than a design problem. I must admit, for a trainer, they could have made the landing gear a bit stronger. For those on a budget, I think they are very good value today. I also think, getting one and re-building it, could bean attractive option rather than buying a kit. The one problem being those irreplaceable wing spars. Some recent pics of my beast, after much love and servicing, back in the air!7F8AAAF2-513C-4DDF-BE70-8B32840284CF.thumb.png.fd6f7e911aa0b7401dc75ff325b392d2.pngBA0616B8-BBA7-4588-B510-4C75B670D458.thumb.png.18e5d47e305edd18dffe1b4b3cc5bbb1.png14AE5207-0BFE-43F2-92EE-5F9E0E4CCFA7.thumb.png.7224dda96ba37596cc7015edf7213b58.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

The AP 3456A, Manual of Flying, to my mind the best book on Aerodynamics for dummies like me ever written, states that most positive cambered aerofoils, at low alpha, will have a leading edge down twisting moment. This because acceleration of air around the lower or underside of the leading edge, create a lift force downwards  say about 1/4 chord back from the leading edge. On the upper surface, the stronger lift force, acts at around almost half chord. Therefore, these lift forces are not aligned and cause a nose down or negative  pitching moment, on a positively cambered aerofoil. Hence, the Skyfox front strut reportedly being under compression.  So nothing really unusual, and no aircraft should be flown at a high speed beyond the recommended envelope. As for aileron flutter, yes, due high speed. In heavy rain, they can fill with water, altering the centre of gravity. Even if the aileron weight comes loose, and rattles a bit, as I was shown with a aileron that had been opened up, it cannot go anywhere, held in place by a torque tube and a foam shaping rib. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...