tangential to that: the Falconer V-12 (prototyped from 2 Chevrolet small blocks mated togethers) was developed for a client-base of 3/4 scale Mustang buyers. The project shut down years ago, but a few are still flying. The Falconer is now more common in very big triple & quad motor offshore boats. Now, back to our regular programming: I'm going to query some Bug friends and see what their feelings are about this project......Also, more info on the B100 here: http://www.bugattiaircraft.com Includes links to a book which mentions the US project. Maybe there's evidence of an aeronautical engineer involved........hope so.....
Not sure what you are getting at. What 'necessary torque'? This is NOT a multi-ton P-51. 4-5k rpm in a 'busa is probably the equivalent of 2k on a Chevy, reliability-wise. Why do you think the engine has to turn so slow? A baby 500 doesn't relate that closely to 2 1300's it doesn't seem like... Two Suzukis are a lot lighter than either 2 Bugs or a Chevy lump. You don't really need to reverse the shaft/prop direction at the prop gearbox... Anyway, It seems to have greater problems than the engines, for sure.
Yeah I'm not sure, but I don't like the idea of all those valves, sparks, etc. working so hard ... but of course we have come a long way since the Spitfire days so should be fine. Pete
Guess I was thinking of "bigger than a Rotax", you're thinking "a lot smaller than a Merlin"... Suzuki is a lot closer to a Rotax...
Looking at that airplane on the ground absolutely flat with zero angle of attack, I have to assume that it will have to reach flight speed and levitate on take off. Flaps? Then on landing, it also will have to be flown onto the runway at zero angle of attack at what speed? Cruise?
Well, it has a LITTLE angle of attack on the ground...VERY LITTLE. At least the pilot will not have to get the tail up before taking off...
from the little i have read, it looks as if no actual bugatti parts will be destroyed in the event of an accident....and just what are they proving?..the concept? the shape?...it seems no one is willing to bite the big one and have c&g build a pair of t50 engines from scratch and do it the right way....but i am sure i missed something somewhere.....
I am not a trained engineer but I try to work some things out with help. I attempted to figure the tail volume for the Bugatti---the effectiveness of the tail to control the airplane in pitch and yaw. The recommended volume coefficient for the horizontal tail of a single engined airplane is between .03 and .06, the effective vertical is between .02 and .05. The Bugatti figured out to .02 for the vertical and .027 for the horizontal. Well below what it should be for stability and control. I made no adjustment in the calculations for the disturbed and probably turbulent flow over half of the horizontal tail planes due to the radiator intakes. The other rather odd thing is the diminished width of the spar box at the root where depth and width is needed the most. This thing spooks me.
From the 100T webpage:......"two 1500cc, 260bhp four-cylinder engines"..... These will take the place of the original two 4500cc, 450hp eight-cylinder Bugatti motors. So the 'replica' will have 320hp, in place of 900hp. Related to this, I have not read of any redesigns to decrease overall weight......so how will 320hp take the place of 900hp? I wish these guys well.....but I don't understand their thinking.....help!
There is a fairly large weigh savings with the engines... 2 little Suzuki MC engines vs. 2 huge Bugatti lumps. That will move the CG forward, though. Doubt that's enough of a weight savings though, hundreds of pounds only.
Perhaps the replica is not being built on the same scale plan as the original. EDIT - to say that I still cannot see the point of this.
900 hp in an aircraft of that size begins to approach the power/weight of a model airplane, where many aerodynamic issues are overcome by thrust. I do think a bit like Bob, though, in the belief that the flight characteristics will be part aerodynamics, part ballistics. JMHO
Probably... you're over 500 hp with the Suzuki engines... that should be adequate or a like-size plane... with good aerodynamics. Don't know about this plane, tho.
What will happen if the pilot has to make a hard application of the brakes (if it has them) when the airplane is in a static flat zero a.o.a. position? I can see two propellors biting the dust. Then there is emergency egress. Does the canopy blow off? Where would the pilot go even if he can get out?
Today the text and photo below were posted to the 100P's facebook page: "Adverse Yaw and the Bugatti 100P One of our goals is to reproduce the 100Ps flying qualities. To do that, we need to replicate the original flight control surfaces and their linkages. Drawings and photos helped us to accurately build copies of the rudder; rudder-vators; flaps; and ailerons. Replicating the aileron-control linkage has been a challenge. We have no drawings or clear photos of the most critical component in the system, which lays partially hidden under the main landing gear actuator. Ailerons Critical to Countering Adverse Yaw Adverse yaw is problematic for the 100P. In simple terms, adverse yaw is the tendency for an aircraft to yaw in the opposite direction of an intended roll. The rudder is an effective way to manage yaw, but the 100P has a very small rudder and almost no vertical stabilizer. I speculated Louis de Monge would have addressed this problem by configuring the aileron linkage so that the ailerons travel further upward than downward, producing yaw in the direction of the turn. I just didnt know how he did it. After perusing scores of photos I finally found one that shows a single-lever bellcrank to which two pushrods are attached at a common axis. The geometry of the linkage results in non-linear motion, producing twice as much up aileron as down aileron (30 degrees versus 15 degrees). This simple and effective solution to the problem of countering adverse yaw is consistent with de Monges design philosophy. Photos (original 100P at top) are representative of the left-wing equipment bay containing the landing gear actuator and aileron bellcrank and torque-tube linkages. The dashed line highlights the single-lever bellcrank. The cardboard mock-up shown in the bottom photo in the reproduction 100P graphically depicts the change in direction and travel from the control stick to the aileron torque tube. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Most all of the small airplanes and some of the larger always had aileron differential where the up aileron had more angular displacement then the down aileron because of the difference in air flow. Early airplanes had adverse yaw and the introduction of the Frise Aileron and better aileron design pretty much cured the problem. Working from the configuration shown and using known (or given) dimensions I have roughly figured the tail volume of the Bugatti airplane and it is tremendously short , particularly in the vertical tail where the rudder area is minimal. Initial flight of this machine is going to be very interesting.
This airplane isn't for flying. It's for towing to air shows and pushing into into position much like many cars one See's on the Lawns...
Though it's somewhat of a relief to hear that, it seems as though they're putting a lot of expense and effort into it for a static display piece.
I think Napolis was being sarcastic... The website says that the Bugatti is "to build and fly". This plane may make the Gee Bee look like a hyper-manuverable acrobatic plane.
