2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
coaster
16
Joined: 30 Jun 2012, 05:10

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

One day it will stop, there will be a headline on the Greek news, 'inventor injured by propellor'.

Rodak
Rodak
35
Joined: 04 Oct 2017, 03:02

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

I agree, your motor works and is beautifully balanced and able to lift the pilot. What I don't agree is that it is controllable by moving legs and arms while strapped into a rigid frame. You won't provide details about how the pilot is attached to the frame, etc. etc. When I ask for that information you tell me to design my own flyer....

I'm curious, if the flyer becomes inverted how does the pilot pull out before augering in? Do you have any idea about the flight envelope?

gruntguru
gruntguru
566
Joined: 21 Feb 2009, 07:43

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

manolis wrote:
03 Oct 2020, 06:14
Gruntguru writes:
” Moving the connection point (supporting the weight of the pilot) down is a good idea. The ideal location for the pivot however, is above the CG of the flyer (everything not including the pilot). This can be done with a virtual pivot or instant centre. Locating the pivot here ensures the mass of the flyer does not tend to topple in the absence of pilot input.”


In a swingset there is a pivot.
In the air there is no pivot.
When you fly, what there is, is a thrust axis.
The thrust axis, the air and your body posture are the only things you have .

The only that matters, in the air, is the eccentricity of the overall center of gravity from the thrust axis.

What really is the “connection point” mentioned?

The “Portable Flyer / Back / Torso” assembly has:
a “connection point” with the neck / head,
another different “connection point” with the left arm,
another different “connection point” with the right arm,
another different “connection point” with the hip,
each hand has its own “connection point” with the respective arm,
each leg has its own “connection point” with the hip, each foot . . .

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
We have some translation issues here.

When I said "pivot" I meant "hinge".

When I said "connection point" I was talking about the location where the pilot's mass is supported during hover mode. A harness with groin straps is more comfortable to hang in than one that supports you under the arms only.
je suis charlie

uniflow
uniflow
36
Joined: 26 Jul 2014, 10:41

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Isn't it just a side show? Isn't this thread supposed to predominantly be about twostroke technology?
I do have an issue with manolis's engine, I would like to see it under full load for an hour. I bet it will overheat and seize in minutes, there is not enough attention paid to cooling, some half assed lumps cast on the outside isn't nearly enough cooling surface area, even for shrouded forced air cooling. What HP are we looking at generating here? 80? At least for two small inefficent propellers. What is the true weight of this engine? What BMEP? What rpm?
Zero redundancy.
Several years ago when I abandoned this site, manolis was spouting the same stuff, yes, ground hog day alright. Come on put up or shut up. By that I mean finish it and fly it, show us doubters.

User avatar
coaster
16
Joined: 30 Jun 2012, 05:10

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Mr Patakos,
If i am sliding down a flying fox, 25kmh with a 25kg stack of bricks tied to my shoulders, at full speed when i am descending to 150mm over the ground, i let go of the flying fox.
Now i have to run to keep up, i cant.
I tumble in a ball, i get a few bruises.
Now add 2 propellors spinning at 2000rpm, imagine tumbling, imagine the injury.
Horrific limb loss, fatal bleeding.
Its time to buy a lottery tickey because reading this will most likely save your life.
Your welcome.

Rodak
Rodak
35
Joined: 04 Oct 2017, 03:02

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Several years ago when I abandoned this site, manolis was spouting the same stuff, yes, ground hog day alright. Come on put up or shut up. By that I mean finish it and fly it, show us doubters.
Strangely enough, I know the person who wrote 'Goundhog Day' and sold it to the movie studio. And here we are.....
When I said "connection point" I was talking about the location where the pilot's mass is supported during hover mode. A harness with groin straps is more comfortable to hang in than one that supports you under the arms only.
I asked manolis about his attachment system several pages ago when he indicated interest in design help. Heard nothing back. Anything except some sort of parachute harness/rock climbing harness won't work; hanging the poor pilot by his pits is torture..... plus manolis has said his harness is attached at the waist. But, no answer from the man.

manolis
manolis
107
Joined: 18 Mar 2014, 10:00

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello Rodak.

you write:
”What I don't agree is that it is controllable by moving legs and arms while strapped into a rigid frame.
. . .
I'm curious, if the flyer becomes inverted how does the pilot pull out before augering in?”



Let’s simplify the problem.

Think of an astronaut wearing two small rockets rigidly secured on the left and right sides of torso / back.

Suppose that when the astronaut is at straight posture the thrust from the two rockets is parallel to astronaut’s spine.

Suppose the astronaut is 500m above the ground of the moon and is falling head-down, with the rockets pushing straight downwards. Astronaut’s body is at straight posture. The thrust passes from the center of gravity.

If astronaut’s body stays at the straight posture, the accelerating fall will continue till hitting the ground.

But the astronaut can easily change from “straight” head-down to fetal posture:

Image

displacing the centrer of gravity away from the thrust (to the right in the photo).

Now the thrust force F is eccentric from the centrer of gravity.
According physics, the thrust force F is equivalent to an equal and parallel force F’ passing from the center of gravity, plus a torque T equal to the thrust force F times its eccentricity X from the center of gravity.

Equivalent means that the result is absolutely the same either you keep the F force, or you replace it by the force F’ and the torque T.

While the force F’ continues to accelerate the astronaut towards the ground, the torque T turns the astronaut (together with the rockets secured on astronaut’s body) about the center of gravity (COUNTER-clockwise in the photo).

I.e. the torque T turns the thrust direction.

When the astronaut has turned for 180 degrees:

Image

the thrust is vectoring upwards decelerating the fall and then accelerating the astronaut upwards.

The astronaut has to restore to straight posture to cancel out the torque T and prevent further turning.


Is there any objection to the previous?


If not:

In comparison to the astronaut’s flight (empty space, no air), the correction from inverted flight:

Image

to upwards flight:

Image

of the Portable Flyer happens in the air, which means the pilot can exploit the aerodynamic forces acting on his body to turn faster.

It is a combination of the "Weight Displacement Control" and of the "Aerodynamic Control"

See how fast the wind-dancer (youtube video) turns from “head down” to “head up” based exclusively on the aerodynamic forces applied on her body.
  • And talking for the wind-dancer, it is worth to note here:

    the “thrust” force acting on the body of the wind-dancer (i.e. her weight) is permanently passing from her center of gravity (this is the definition of the center of gravity); if she was falling in the empty space (say in the moon), she could not start turning (if she was not turning before) and she could not stop turning (if she was initially turning).
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Last edited by manolis on 04 Oct 2020, 06:58, edited 1 time in total.

Rodak
Rodak
35
Joined: 04 Oct 2017, 03:02

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Word salad. Do you really believe your 'pilots' could do this while approaching the ground at 5000 fpm? What if the pilot is at 500 feet? Nice chick picture BTW, but I notice she doesn't have a 50 kg engine/propeller unit attached solidly to her torso.

On another issue, did you look into the vortex ring state during braking I mentioned a while back?

manolis
manolis
107
Joined: 18 Mar 2014, 10:00

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello Rodak.

I made a correction in my last post: COUNTER-clockwise instead of clockwise.
Maybe now you can get what it says.


Seriously now:

Since it is pure physics, do the mechanical engineers who read this thread have some specific objection?

If they have not,
can they explain to the rest forum members how simple is the specific case?
(transition from head-down to head-up flight)

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

NathanE
NathanE
3
Joined: 31 Mar 2017, 07:49

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

manolis wrote:
04 Oct 2020, 07:25
Seriously now:

Since it is pure physics, do the mechanical engineers who read this thread have some specific objection?
Yes, the personal flyer as designed is an uncontrollable death trap.

With some fairly minor changes it could become a controllable death trap.

:wink:

manolis
manolis
107
Joined: 18 Mar 2014, 10:00

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello Uniflow.

I can't get you.
If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.


OPRE Tilting reliability:

If the cooling fins of the air-cooled OPRE Tilting prove not adequate, they can easily be replaced by a water jacket for liquid-cooling (the cast will be easier because the necessarily thin fins will be removed).
On the other hand, if the air-cooling proves adequate, it is a far better solution because it is simpler and more lightweight. Note: the cooling fins are in a high velocity airstream from the take-off to the landing of the Portable Flyer, nothing to do with a 2-stroke air-cooled in a motorcycle.

Do you see any other reliability issues? (other than manufacturing quality)



According your posts, your 175cc Opposed Piston has everything:
  • reed valves at top,
    rotary valve at the bottom,
    long transfer passageways from top to bottom,
    special exhaust,
    sprockets and tooth belt for the synchronization of the two crankshafts,
    composite pistons,
    etc.
I don’t know if it will prove reliable.
But, for sure, it is not simple.

What is its total weight? (including the cooling system)
What is its overall height?

I want to compare weight and height with those of the double capacity OPRE Tilting.

Quote from https://www.pattakon.com/pattakonTilting.htm:

Image
  • 333 cc, bore 84mm, stroke 30+30=60mm
    (same bore to stroke ratio with BMW's boxer R1200GS of 2013)
    weight: 8.5Kp (19lb) without the exhaust pipe and the carburetor
    height: 250mm
Isn’t clear what is the weight and height of the first OPRE Tilting prototype engine?
This info is there several years.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

manolis
manolis
107
Joined: 18 Mar 2014, 10:00

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Thanks NathanE.

However what I asked is different (anybody can write such an answer).


Next mechanical engineer, please. . .

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

User avatar
nzjrs
60
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 11:21
Location: Redacted

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

The woman in the bed is a new one - finally manolis introduces a model :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

manolis
manolis
107
Joined: 18 Mar 2014, 10:00

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Thanks NZJRS

Next please. . .

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

uniflow
uniflow
36
Joined: 26 Jul 2014, 10:41

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

manolis, you dont have a lot of twostroke experiance, do you.