PDA

View Full Version : The SSDR Trike



probshaw
7th June 2007, 20:47
SSDR Trike and Trya wing

Weight Trike 32 kg.

Wing 40 kg.

Total weight of wing and trike is 72 kg

Available weight for SSDR wing loading

compliance is 110 kg

Available weight for engine and instruments 38kg



Attached files http://cloudniner.co.uk/images/converted_files/10147=645-image288.jpg (http://cloudniner.co.uk/images/converted_files/10147=645-image288.jpg) http://cloudniner.co.uk/images/converted_files/10147=646-image305.jpg (http://cloudniner.co.uk/images/converted_files/10147=646-image305.jpg) http://cloudniner.co.uk/images/converted_files/10147=648-bbssdr-with-optional-fairings.jpg (http://cloudniner.co.uk/images/converted_files/10147=648-bbssdr-with-optional-fairings.jpg)

mdphillips1956
10th June 2007, 15:46
Hello Paul,
It looks a very nice neat little unit.
I was wondering how it could be the same weight as my miniswift trike until I realised the weight did not include an engine.
I am interested if you have any figures on the rate of climb or sink rate with certain power engines with this wing... I ask because I am trying to assess the likely climb or lack of it that I can expect from my Photon wing (145 sq,feet) with my Radne Raket motor.
I see your wing is a sporty full double surface job and would be interested to know its wing area; the weight I see is close to my Photon which I have weighed at 40kg in its bag.
Does that pylon break above the seat?
How much is there poking out of the picture?
Have you got a rigged shot that shows the bar height?
A nice little unit.
Mark P...................

probshaw
10th June 2007, 20:14
Hi Mark take a look at www.soloflightltd.com (http://www.soloflightltd.com/)

Most of the answers are there and I am updating them as fast I get results in. I will try to get you a photo of the rigged ssdr ASAP. The SSDR trike flies with the same wing as the section S Trya so performance is around the same.

I have uploaded the BB SSDR with optional pod and spats fitted. This shows it fully rigged.

The reason the pod and spats are optional is because the weights available will depend on engine and instrument fit. There is a SSDR on test in Spain which has reported hot of 68 and climb rates of well over 1000 ft per minute with a Rotax 447 fitted. However the 447 only leaves 1 kg to fit instruments in which is possible but tight.

If the simonini range of engines are used then the figures become more sensible and the optional extras can be fitted.

Cheers Paul.

mdphillips1956
10th June 2007, 22:24
Hello Paul,
All these new things are very exciting territory... and even more exciting are the developements and refinements that become possible with SSDR.
Of course doing much refining is always going to mean quite large investment even on just a personal use basis, but little things like the resiting of the kill switch to where you can find it most easily, is now open to you.

First I want to get my Raket powered miniswift flying acceptably, but after that I plan a Chaser with tipfins and a low slung 330 Robin that swings a large slow turning prop.

I love all this stuff and really hope you can get the BB trikes sorted and flying well... it looks good so far.
Mark Phillips............

Kevin Armstrong
11th June 2007, 22:35
Nice one Paul

Good price, and I reckon with some very careful stress work that wing weight could be reduced; Jan doesn't seem to bother with sleeving down to reduce weight, just appears to use plain tubes which means they are at the wall thickness of the highest stressed section. A 10m Chaser can save 3 or more kilos using larger/thinner crosstubes (some risked it in comps and flew with standard 2" in thinwall and they didn't fail).

Good starting foundation for building something special, or even a comps machine.

Another trick would be to pop 6" Nylites on the wheels; they aren't as good as the standard alloy rims, but lighter. If you speak nicely to Steve Cooper he might let you weigh one of those fitted to my old trike, they are only about 11 per rim. Do that and you might get a three blade prop inside the SSDR weight too.

I'd like to belt drive off a low mounted 447, sweeter running and light if engineered properly.

Kev

probshaw
12th June 2007, 16:20
Hi Kev, Take a look at the victor 1 specs and wieght below. Its almost as if was made for the Trya! and if you save extra wieght by changeing wheels etc then theres no end to the stuff you could do.. The Victor uses less fuel also so you dont need to put a big tank on.

Victor 1 Rotax 447 DC
WEIGHT 28/61.6 45.8kg/100.9
DISPLACEMENT 362 436.5
HP 44 41.6
KW 32.75 31
MAX RPM 6200 6800
L/Gal per Hour 5/1.40 @ 5400 20.9/5.5 @ Max

I think we could be liveing in intresting times.

mdphillips1956
13th June 2007, 09:26
Hi Rob,
Now you have confounded my memory: I had it in my head that the 447 Rotax had a displacement of 436.6cc!
But seriously, what is this Victor engine, a single or twin, and how can it generate 44hp out of 5 lph... ethelene glycol injection perhaps?
Mark P...................
ps. As you say it sounds a perfect unit for a light trike, though I think I would de-tune it to 25 to 30 hp for reliability and quietness.

probshaw
13th June 2007, 10:05
Take a look at simoniniusa.com . The tbo is higher then rotax and the spare parts are cheeper.

Cheers Paul.

paultheparaglider
13th June 2007, 13:35
Paul Robshaw wrote:
Take a look at simoniniusa.com . The tbo is higher then rotax and the spare parts are cheeper.

Cheers Paul.

What? Cheaper spares than Rotax? You must be winding us up...... :devil:

probshaw
13th June 2007, 20:04
http://forums.bmaa.org/emoticons/lol.gif na Paul, there atually about the same but you know the little clip that holds the fuel line up under the engine well thats 5p cheeper!!http://forums.bmaa.org/emoticons/roll.gifhttp://forums.bmaa.org/emoticons/yeah.gif

Cheers Paul.

fjgarbar
4th July 2007, 18:17
Hello Paul and friends.
Paul said "There is a SSDR on test in Spain which has reported hot of 68 and climb rates of well over 1000 ft per minute with a Rotax 447 fitted. "
Im from Spain and I fly a BB-03 Trya wing with an Air-Creation Racer trike with Rotax 447. It flies at 85 Km/hour at 5000 rpm using about 9 liters/hour.
I dont know of other BB trike in Spain but if you have any information about who is flying a SSDR in Spain, please tell me because I would like contact him.

probshaw
9th July 2007, 18:53
FJ you have a PM

Kevin Armstrong
12th July 2007, 22:43
F. J. wrote:
Hello Paul and friends.
Paul said "There is a SSDR on test in Spain which has reported hot of 68 and climb rates of well over 1000 ft per minute with a Rotax 447 fitted. "
Im from Spain and I fly a BB-03 Trya wing with an Air-Creation Racer trike with Rotax 447. It flies at 85 Km/hour at 5000 rpm using about 9 liters/hour.
I dont know of other BB trike in Spain but if you have any information about who is flying a SSDR in Spain, please tell me because I would like contact him.Hello FJ
What does the Trya/Racer combo weigh empty?

Paul, the 447 weighs 37.4kg with a B box. Means a wooden prop.

Also, I believe the cheek-plates on the wing hangbracket are steel, you'd save about 400grams each side or 0.8 kilos making them up in 6082T6 alloy plate, use plastic wheels and you'd probably shave enough for more instruments, but you don't need many for a 447 if you aren't too worried about fuel consumption.

I've attached a file with the weights on; it came from http://www.800-airwolf.com/ you can also bin the pull start mechanism and hand prop it, a trick often used on sub 70s in the old days, works fine, saves even more.

Kev

Kev

Attached files 2strokeweight.pdf (http://cloudniner.co.uk/images/converted_files/12088=820-2strokeweight.pdf) (10.9 KB)

mdphillips1956
13th July 2007, 08:50
Hello Paul R,
The 30 something hp Simoni engine looks a neat unit, and if all the consumption figures can be believed it won't, as you said, need a monstrous tank.
I know that my trike with its Radne Raket being the same weight (32kg) as the Simoni engine alone, is very much at the bottom end of SSDR weight, but 32kg is a fair percentage of the 115kg allowed... in reality it doesn't leave you much for the trike structure and the fairly tight wing that an engine like that deserves, though I am sure it is do'able.
I have slimmed down my newly aquired Photon wing to its lightest, (early eighties factory spec) and am shocked that it still weighs 40kg in its bag... albeit a fairly tough old bag.
I assume a 32kg (and is it like most, more like 35?) engine needs a beefier trike than mine, and to be hung under a wing certainly no lighter than my slimmed down photon.

I guess SSDR will work fine so long as we can use manufacturers claimed weights, and not have to put the finished machines on the scales! Which is probably going to be the case as no body really cares that much if something is 115kg or 135kg; the law would have been better worded as "A light single seat trike" really!

I would like one of those wings you use on the BB trike, but one of around 170 square feet with half the battens gone and a lighter airframe... go well with my ultra lightweight trike.
Apart from the weight, I need fewer battens because I intend to be rigging it each time I fly and cannot be fagged to be shoving 'em all in every time!
Mark P..........

mdphillips1956
13th July 2007, 08:54
Hello Paul R,
Just found your photo of the wing and it hasn't got quite as many battens as I pictured it having... I have this mental image that too many modern wings are designed to be rigged once and pushed into a hangar!
Mark P..........

probshaw
13th July 2007, 16:41
Yes and its still as tight as a drum.

mdphillips1956
14th July 2007, 15:18
Hi Rob,
Have you flown these wings with a VSI and do you have engine off min sink rate information that might give a clue it flyability on low power?
Mark.............

probshaw
14th July 2007, 15:56
No but every one will get full figures very shortly as I am just waiting for paper work so a test pilot can give you the correct figures.
Cheers Paul

probshaw
14th July 2007, 16:35
I can get a 14 sq and a 16 sq meter wing of the same design but the wieght jumps up to 47kg for the 14 and 49 for the 16. This sort of negates the increase to 115 kg and leaves you worse off ie:-

Trya wing 11.5 sq meters(123 sq ft) = 40kg. allowable trike wieght 110 - 40 = 70 kg
Trya wing 14 .0 (150) = 47kg allowable trike wieght 114 - 47 = 67 kg
Trya wing 16.0 (172.2 sq ft) = 49kg 115 - 49 = 66 kg

Daft thing is that when you consider all these combinations fit the dereg rules as in the 10kg per sq metre wing load empty etc. but the most unlikly to work is the wing with the slowist landing speed and the lowest wing load at MTOW
ie:-
16 sq meter wing. 300kg max take off , land 24mph, wing load 18.75
14 sq meter wing 300 28 21.42
11.5 sq meter wing 300 28 26.08

Now I know that the rules where created by beings who are a lot smarter then me so I can only assume I am missing the point.

Cheers Paul.

mdphillips1956
16th July 2007, 09:59
Hello Paul,
Just found all this and thanks for finding some info and thoughts.
172 square feet (sorry I still see wings in sq. ft.) sounds a nice lifty size for low power, though still quite small when you think my wing on the Hiway Skytrike in 1980 was 198 sq. ft... and it climbed very well on 9hp!
By I guestimate that a modern tight 172 sq. ft. would work, but 49kgs claimed (so clearly not less than that) is almost the weight of a Raven wing, which can carry 2.2 tons without breaking.
172 sq. ft. with some light walled tubes, light sail cloth, and lighter and fewer battens to get it down to around 30 to 35kgs sounds like a light trike wing to me; 300kg MTWA sounds good from one angle, but mine and one or two other light trikes that I know of being built are going to have trike and pilot suspended load weights between 115 and 125kgs.
Thanks for the info Paul, it is great to see more wing options in the sport.
Mark P............

flylight02
16th July 2007, 11:35
If you are not worried about speed, and the trike and you is light, the lightest wing option could well be an Areros target - we use this on the Doodlebug. In power spec it is rated to 110Kg suspended load and weighs just 25Kg itself. Not many battens and has three packing options - long, semi short (leading edge outers out) and super short (just 2M long! - we took one as check in luggage on an airliner once).

If you are looking at something faster and have a bit more pwoer than a racket, then the old Chaser 110 is worth a look (I reckon Nigel coudl be persuaded with enough pressure to put it back on the market) again just 25Kg weight, 10M area and only a spit off a Chaser S for speeds, and much lighter handling, gfar less battens and easier rig. Nigel reckons it it possible to put a 508 fourstroker on it under Sub-115 rules...

Paul

ivass
17th July 2007, 09:06
Hi Mark Have you come accros the French Ellipse Fuji 16 m wing? I think it could be what your looking for.

Cheers,

Iain

mdphillips1956
17th July 2007, 10:20
Hello Paul D and Iain,
Thanks for both those suggestions, and the Aeros target in particular sounds a good bet at 25kg... I could put on another 30lbs of beer gut and still have the same all up weight I have now with the Photon!
Does the Target have room for the main hangpoint to be moved a gnat's cock aft, and to have a second hangpoint a little forward of it?

On the AA SX110 wing: yes an option for a bit more power, though I think I prefer the steadier Chaser S wing; but the SX 130 might almost suit Raket power... perhaps not quite?

The wing breakdown options of the Target (do you know the area?) sound to go a long way towards improving the portability aspect of light Rogallo trikes as against paratrikes... what is its shortest Paul, 2M? very interesting!

I have been emailing Jeremy lately to talk about the take off techniques of paratrikes as he has built one; we were getting onto the ergonomics of portability against operability and being able to taxi to the holding point etc or dragging stuff behind you; so I think anything that brings a 'fixed' wing closer to the back-pack size and convenience that paragliders have, is I think a welcome advance for the new generation of ultra-light microlights.

I will look out for that French wing too.
Mark P..............

mdphillips1956
18th July 2007, 10:03
Hi all,
I should perhaps have made it clear that Jeremy's paratrike, is like my Rogallo winged trike, still at the research and developement stage.
Mark P...........

ps. The Aeros Target rated at a suspended load of 110kg... how many g's is it good for at that weight, and what is a typical cruise speed that the doodlebug manages with the Radne Raket... it is sounding quite a good option for a true light trike.

flylight02
18th July 2007, 21:27
The usual 4G limit load I think. Dont expect much speed though, flies on low power well courtesy of lots of wing area so it can fly slow and eliminate all that nasty parasitic drag. 30Mph or so.

the Discus 15 is slipperier, and in power mode is rated to 150Kg suspended load. Super glide angle with a min sink around 200FPM. about 35Kg though and doesnt pack down quite so short. This is teh wing we have been using on the lightfly.

Paul

mdphillips1956
19th July 2007, 09:13
Hi Paul,
Well around 30mph is a respectable speed to cover the ground at a pleasant pace if going somewhere in fairly still air.
Do you know the comparative minimum sink rates of the two wings; 200fpm sounds hard to beat but is the Target better than that?

What are your thoughts Paul: it strikes me that on a fairly light soft sail that is going to rise significantly under load, that exposed cross tubes are going to give the wing a far smoother lower surface for lift... albeit more drag from the exposed tubes.

As you said, the low speed keeps the drag factors quite low... do you know the person who designed the Target, and if it was considered that enclosing the crosstubes wasn't going to bring a benefit... all interesting stuff these trade-offs.
Mark P.....................

Paul Dewhurst
20th July 2007, 17:56
The target was designed for the Skyfoater and beginner hang glider pilot market. Simplicity and easy handling at low speed was a key parameter as well as price and quick rig/derig, which leads naturally to exposed cross tube design.

Sergey Dobrashev is Aeros's chief designer, and yes I have met him, a quiet thoughtful old hand that has been designing gliders and trikes for many years.

We list the sink rate at 216fpm. Standard clip in weight for the 16M target is 95Kg tested for BHPA certification and Aeros have beefed it up for power (Target 16M) and reckon it should be ok aup top 135kg, but perfromance drops off noticeably much above 100.

List price for the M version 2350 inc vat and delivery to Uk.

Paul

mdphillips1956
20th July 2007, 23:22
Hi Paul,
If the Photon proves a little heavy and small (145 sq.ft.) on area for the raket, I may well look around for a second hand Target to try that instead... weather permitting!
Mark P................

probshaw
27th July 2007, 18:10
Just a thought but watching all the debate on SSDR has left me with the impresion that every one wants some thing differant from it. Which is really what the catagory is all about. How about some suggestions on what the perfect SSDR machine should have. Nothing technical, just say what you would want from a very light aircraft? What bits would you like to see on it?

mdphillips1956
27th July 2007, 21:16
Hi Paul,
Good point about everyone wanting something different, you have it squarely on the nose; this is why by the same token you have answered your own question and there will never be a design that will suit everyone or make a perfect SSDR design.
A range is probably the answer: someone will arrive just wanting to be in the air as cheaply as possible and will go for a big lifty wing and the smallest cheapest engine and be quite happy to stooge around; a year later he will see someone with a smaller wing and a twin cylinder motor and think. "I could trade up to one like that and start going to the coast and back in an hour's flying"... and so it will go within the SSDR limitations.

If SSDR fosters a return to farm field flying a few miles from where we live, then portability and light quick rigging might be a priority; but if it stays with airfields and permanent strips and hangared storage, the ultra light Raket powered trikes may just be a brief sojourn on the road to 50mph go places machines.

Could a wing manufacturer like BB easily make its larger wing (something like 180 square feet) in a light cloth with less reinforcing at wing roots etc, then go down a mill or so on the wires, and unsleeve the cross tubes etc to give them a modification to a quick and easy wing for 10 to 15hp?
Evoloution will show us the way!
Mark P...............

probshaw
28th July 2007, 19:07
Hi Mark,
So reading your posts the over rideing feeling I am getting is must be cheap?
Im not looking at a single aircraft to suit all, but looking at the most sought after options. Whats high on peoples priority list?

mdphillips1956
29th July 2007, 10:13
Hi Paul,
I am no expert, and also rather out of touch the the current crop of potential Joe Ordinary types in the sport.
Right now the sport probably does not even have many guys in the market for absolute rock bottom machines, because for ten or more years speed and sophistication have been the order of the day.

It would take a brave manufacturer, but it probably needs a product produced for a public that is not really there yet, but who may well stick their collective heads above the parapet if the right machine came to exist.

That is what Flylight appear to be doing, and of course the beauty of SSDR is that you can produce a machine without years of developement and investment.

My guess, for what might get a manufacturer going like yourself Paul R, would be two trikes, one offered with a fast wing and one with a big light floater; the fast one has a nice light twin cylinder of 25 to 35 hp, while the floater has the cheapest motor you can get like a Raket or 215 Solo.

I think the commercial answer (as if I really know!) is to price up and offer both in their most basic functional form, and at almost cost price but don't go too far that way; then have a large range of add on goodies that people will not be able to resist on their baby when they start flying it... these to be priced up with a good profit margin.
I think two machines works well, in that someone turns up with one in their head, but instead of deciding the slow one isn't quite going to cut it for him, and wandering away empty handed, sees the slippery job with its twin cylinder engine and decides to dig deeper... but someone else who really is up against it on budget, can at least buy something and get airborne... then can add the bigger motor next year when they've worn out the Raket, and the faster wing the year after that.

I guess one problem with add-on motors and trade ups is that you might have your Raket trike built too heavy, or keep the fast job too light... I suppose it would be the engine mounts, pylon, and rear undercarriage that want to be most different on the two trikes.

What a challenge to make a trike light and strong enough for both, but then you get into kevlars and monocoque stuff and material costs go through the roof and Joe Ordinary stays on the ground.

Perhaps you don't want to cater for Joe Ordinary, that is fair enough of course, but SSDR seems to be ideal for on the one hand, things like niche market powered sailplanes, and on the other super simple trikes.

As I speculated once before: mix it with the second hand Quik market/price at your peril... a big four stroke, and a second seat and any SSDR however posh is going to struggle.
Mark P..............