> > I had a brain storm today on a roadable aircraft.
> > It is always in the back of my feeble mind :)
> >
> > I realized one of the unique features of the rotary
> > is its very simple e-shaft. If one makes it longer and
> > larger in diameter on the front end  one can get power out of both
> > ends. One end is mated to a stock VW transmission and the
> > other end uses one of Ken Welters 3:1 cog belt reduction drives.
> >
> > You take off in first gear and get much better acceleration to
> > flying speed. This is due to the traction you get out of tires
> > as opposed to a highly slipping prop. As soon as you run out of
> > RPM in first you push in the clutch and shift into neutral.
> > the prop takes over.
> >
> > For road work you remove the canard and main wings
> > and tow them behind you. The only drawback here is the weight
> > of the VW gear box and drive shafts.
> >
> > Its a motor cycle on the ground as that circumvents a load of
> > EPA and DOT rules.
> >
> > Paul Lamar
>
> Watch it Paul!!
>
> Moller is calling!
>
> TJ :))
>
> I don't get the connection. It is nothing like a Moller Skycar.
>
> Roadable airplanes ARE flyable. There are no technological
> break throughs required. The vast majority of the
> parts are off the shelf.
>
> The main challenge is minimizing the weight penalty.
> Most roadable aircraft designs use twin booms for the tail but
> the Ruttan Canard configuration  is a better fit with roadable
> requirements IMHO. To my knowledge nobody has tried the canard
> configuration yet.
>
> Paul Lamar


Paul,

,

An honest person could make some money selling well designed
kits.

--------------------------------

With the gear retracted there will be near zero aerodynamic
penalties.

-------------------------------------------------

One of the design parameters one needs to pay a lot of attention
to on a roadable is the weight of the wheels and tires.
I suggest dragster forged aluminum front wheels and tires at 15 by 3 1/2
for the rear. You need diameter as the cruise RPM on
the ground using the VW tx requires a rather large diameter
tire.

The front tire can be a light weight motorcycle wheel
and tire. Motor cycle disc brakes will also keep the weight
down.

Paul Lamar

I promised myself I would stay out of this - but then I do not keep all my
promises.
IMHO - the thing would fly reasonably well - at least a little better than
Molt's.
The trailer to handle the wings (large - required for canards) at highway
speeds
is a bit of a problem (where do you carry it while you fly?). The large
wheels
are not a requirement - remember VW versus rotary rpm. Cg on the road would
give a very light front end - but trikes do OK. However (and this will rasp
your
throat) have you considered how much easier  the proof of concept would be
if you used a VW engine? They have a proven capability of taking  power
off either end. (;<)) - Vance


The large wheels also give you a bit more ground clearance for
suspension travel when landing. Suspension is on the down stops
when lowered for landing. Also the rotary gets better
gas millage just like any other ICE if you keep the cruise
RPM as low as possible.

Thanks for bringing up the subject of trailer configuration.
You build narrow wheels and part of the hitch into the leading edge
of the wings and strap  the canard to one of them. Hinge the tip vertical
stabilizers to lie flat (more or less) on top of the wings.

Yes and they have broken a lot of cranks doing it.
A wimp VW engine is not going to generate enough power to get
this thing off the ground  :)

Paul Lamar

In most cases would you even need to trailer the wings? You keep the car
at home and the wings at your local airport. Drive to airport, put on
wings. Fly to your destination. Leave wings at that airport. Drive
locally around that airport. When you are ready to go home, drive back
to destination airport and put the wings back on. Takeoff and fly back
to home airport. Take wings off and drive home, leaving wings at local
airport.

Perry