
Synergy Aircraft Project - amalag
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/launchsynergy/synergy-aircraft-project
======
andrewcooke
the three things that make this new, as far as i can see, are:

\- the configuration. i don't understand what the aerodynamic advantages of a
"boxwing" are, but apparently this has those while avoiding problems with
stalling. it's also stronger / more compact and places the engine closer to
the centre of gravity than a traditional "propeller at the front" design.

\- the engine. initially, diesel, which is unusual for aircraft, and
eventually electric.

\- suction of air through parts of the wing to give laminar flow (reduce
turbulence) and so increase efficiency.

a lot of the site reads like over-hyped snake oil, they don't have any
published papers (never mind peer reviewed), and it sounds like they don't
have good numerical results from full 3d simulations (but argue they are
limited anyway). on the other hand, it doesn't seem to be complete bullshit -
they have a working 1/4 scale model, for example, and seems to have been
accepted into some kind of x-prize-like competition organised by nasa.

~~~
BenoitEssiambre
Yeah I'm not sure this project passes the smell test. I don't know much about
airplanes but a few things seems off when I think of this design in terms of
basic physics.

The "boxwings" seem to be a worst of both world approach. It ads a lot of
surface going across the air and thus a lot of drag, without providing the
width which would usually make available the torque necessary for stability
and control.

Torque is (force * distance) and, for roll control, this distance is usually
provided by wide wings. An airplane having shorter wings would probably go
through the air more efficiently (provided you didn't add a second set of
wings on top of the first one) but would not provide much control to enable
safe flight in all possible conditions. Short wings don't provide much
leverage on the roll axis.

It also seems like in this design the top part of the "boxwings" plays the
role of the tail of the plane. However, it looks like we get the same (force *
distance) problem but on the pitch axis. In order for the tail to give a good
amount of torque for pitch control, it has to be located away from the wings
and the center of the aircraft.

Again, I'm just guessing based on physics here but since there is no tail
other than the one located near the bottom wings, it might be difficult to
stop the plane from pitching up or down out of control.

If we were to design planes for efficiency only, they would look like arrows
or missile. They would have minimal wings or fins to slow them down. The
reason, we have to have things sticking out far from their middle, is to add
the ability to safely control them in a wide variety of conditions.

This aircraft has both lots of wing, thus a lot of drag and yet the extra
wingage doesn't get the wings positioned away from the center where they would
add the most stability and control. Unless the "Laminar Flow", "Wake
Propulsion", "Open Thermodynamics", "Subsonic Area Ruling" or the other
technobably things mentioned on the website somehow compensate for this, it
seems like a lose-lose design.

~~~
Scramblejams
IAAAE (I am an aerospace engineer). Actually, long (or wide, to use your term)
wings tend to be more efficient. The term you're looking for is "high aspect
ratio," which efficient airplanes (see the Global Flyer, for example) have in
abundance. It is the ratio of wing span squared to wing area (viewed from
above, not the front). The explanation for why this is true is complicated,
but this gives a good overview:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(wing)>

~~~
BenoitEssiambre
If I understand correctly, this seems like yet another reason why this Synergy
design would be sub optimal. The two sets of short low aspect ratio wings are
theoretically less efficient than one set of long high aspect ratio wing.
Correct?

~~~
Scramblejams
I don't know what their numbers are, but for an aircraft of its class, the
lower wings don't look like they have an abnormally low aspect ratio. The
upper wings look to be of a higher aspect ratio than conventional elevators.
Since elevators are a source of drag (they usually have to provide some
downforce to trim the aircraft in level flight, and you can't make lift
without making drag), that could be a win. But then they're close to the CG,
so they'll need to provide more trim force (short lever arm as you mentioned),
and the advantage might be lost.

Of course there are other factors at work. For example, Jet A carries more
energy per pound than 100LL and diesels are more efficient, so you carry less
fuel for a given range. But the engine needs to be stronger to run a higher
compression ratio, so that's some added weight. Every little design feature of
an aircraft interacts with every other design feature. Aircraft design can be
a tremendously unintuitive affair. That's why it's so fun.

So, the proof's in the pudding. The ultimate arbiter of an efficient
aerodynamic design is its lift-to-drag ratio, or how much drag is generated
for a given amount of lift produced. (See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-
to-drag_ratio>) They should be getting good data off their scale model, and if
the model's L/D ratio is high and they've done their homework to reflect the
full size aerodynamics, then they might have something.

~~~
evilkillerwhale
Actually, if you read their Kickstarter, they claim to be getting better fuel
efficiency with higher cargo weight. They claim this is because it somehow
lowers their drag. They also claim that L/D is unimportant for their aircraft,
which is why a scaled test is useless to them, even in a wind tunnel. This
doesn't pass the smell test for this AE.

------
rdl
IMO they get at least 5x of their 10x by using a diesel engine, vs. a jet
(inefficient at a range of powers) or avgas (expensive fuel, old designs,
inefficient). Just putting a diesel SMA, Thielert, Deltahawk, etc. engine into
a Cessna 172 would give you substantial fuel economy and cost savings vs.
100LL. 100LL is also taxed, while Jet-A (which a diesel can burn) has no
excise taxes by international treaty (there are some other taxes, especially
in the US). It's maybe 2x fuel economy improvement and 2.5x on per-BTU cost
savings.

So, it's actually kind of plausible -- the problem is the diesel aviation
engines have been VERY slow in coming to market. The main market so far has
been non certified use (military UAVs), where eliminating 100LL from the
supply chain has huge savings on top of performance.

~~~
hasker
You probably have a pretty valid point. One of my aspiration toys, the Diamond
Star DA42 (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_DA42>) burns diesel or Jet-A
in a internal combustion engines. I forget the economy figures, but I think
this plane does quite well when throttled back.

~~~
rdl
I'm not a big fan of twins for infrequent pilots (just based on observing and
talking to pilots, not actual flying myself except in a simulator) -- they
seem to bring with them a lot of problems. You obviously have more cost and
more potential maintenance downtime from two engines, and when one goes out,
the asymmetric thrust and other issues often end up killing pilots who would
otherwise have probably been able to deal with no power. There are exceptions
like over water use, but I would have preferred a super reliable single engine
(Cessna Caravan) to the less-reliable twins (King Airs and Shorts 330s) I was
stuck on -- they had to use a twin for regulatory reasons, but even the pilots
thought a single would be better. And those are professional (military)
pilots; for someone who flies infrequently, the risks of an engine failure are
lower, while the proficiency in dealing with engine out is probably lower as
well. Single + ballistic parachute might be the best compromise, unless you're
routinely operating over water.)

Maybe with FADEC it makes more sense; eventually it will de-skill some of the
engine management and you'll just pay the higher operations and maintenance
costs of the twin engines, while getting the reliability benefit if ones goes
down.

I really want a CH-801 (extreme STOL, rough field, slow), or a Maule.

------
mahyarm
Airplanes seem to be the original vaporware at times. All sorts of interesting
projects that seems to be getting somewhere and then stop and have no updates
for years. Like the ElectraFlyer-X. Kudos to whoever makes the first
affordable to fly airplane.

------
leoedin
The issue isn't the airframe, it's the systems. Take the Cirrus SR22. A fast,
modern, relatively efficient aircraft with a full avionics suite capable of
instrument flying. It's even got a ballistic parachute so that if anything
goes wrong you can simply float to the ground. It's really, really
dangerous.[1] Cirrus SR22's crash something like 4 times more often than
Diamond DA40s (a similar aircraft).

[1]: [http://sr22.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/general-aviation-
safety...](http://sr22.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/general-aviation-safety-and-
the-cirrus-sr22/)

Why? Pilot error. A combination of Cirrus marketing their aircraft as a
transport solution (which attracts relatively inexperienced pilots) and the
comparatively unforgiving airframe leads to high accident rates.

What does this proposal do to solve that problem? It's a novel airframe, sure,
but it's not _that_ novel. I can't imagine that it will offer huge efficiency
boosts over something like a Velocity XP (which has similar construction
techniques and can probably be used with the same Diesel engines).

This is solving the wrong problem. The issues are regulatory and electronic.

~~~
amalag
The issue is cost. They are claiming an order of magnitude difference in price
(1 /10th).

~~~
asynchronous13
Yes, _claiming_. I'll be shocked if they can hit a price point below $150,000
even as a kit airplane (which then takes 2-3 years to fully assemble). Maybe
they're comparing themselves to something like a Cessna Citation, so yes 10%
cost but not what I would call affordable.

~~~
amalag
The cessna citation is a business jet. I don't know what price point they are
trying for, but they are aiming for more mass market. The design has no moving
parts in the wings and they say the design is amenable for mass production.

------
twelvechairs
More description (less sales pitch): <http://synergyaircraft.com/faqs.html>

~~~
gridspy
Yes!

The kickstarter page needed a short video talking about each of these points.
Not photos or just gubbins.

------
amalag
Interesting counterpoint to "forget about the lone inventor in a garage". He
is aiming to be disruptive and his 25% scale model is impressive.

------
savrajsingh
They are raising money to build a prototype, and it looks like they will
succeed with the raise. Congrats to them! The donor levels are mostly just
about recognition.

Icon Aircraft (among many others) has been working on the challenge of making
flight a little bit more accessible for some time now. Check out the icona5
channel on YouTube.

------
storborg
"If airplanes are to re-connect with their potential customers- or their
potential to society- they desperately need an update."

Wait, what? Airplane travel is thriving more than ever. Passenger rail is
dying, the FAA is forecasting a >4x increase in the number of general aviation
pilots in the next 20 years [1], and it's increasingly more affordable for the
upper middle class to fly charted jets [2].

[1]
[http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecast...](http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2010-2030/)

[2] <http://jetsuite.com/suitedeal>

~~~
mahyarm
So when will pilots not be paid horribly?

~~~
noveltyaccount
I was thinking about this recently - piloting used to be a high skill job, but
now pilots are largely relegated to takeoff and landing--a technician's job. I
expect more of air travel to be automated in the future (like, why do pilots
and ATC speak through a radio instead of using something automatic). More
automation -> lower skill required -> less pay in the future.

~~~
gnaffle
..except for the law of leaky abstractions, which is what get you accidents
like AF447. Until the automation has situational awareness, you still need
skilled pilots.

Piloting is still a high skill job, it's just that there's a surplus of young
people who really love flying and will accept a crappy salary to live their
dream.

~~~
leoedin
AF447 was caused by a lack of systems understanding by the pilots. If they had
simply done nothing, the natural stability of the aircraft would have kept it
flying until the pitot tube de-icers had effect and the aircraft could return
to autopilot.

The triggering cause of AF447 was the icing of a pitot tube. The reason the
aircraft flew into the ocean more or less fully stalled was poor pilot
training and poor human interface design.

I do agree with you that skilled pilots are a requirement. Systems are only as
good as their sensors, and lack the flexibility that makes a manned system
adaptable. However, AF447 is a fairly poor example of why we need pilots, as
it was pretty much entirely pilot error which caused the crash.

~~~
gnaffle
That's true, however I think it's a good example of why we need skilled pilots
that maintain situational awareness.

The accident reports mentions that the pilots did not have training in high
altitude hand flying, and the common belief seemed to be that it wasn't
necessary because of automation.

------
ricfulop
I'm a tech entrepreneur and MIT grad who is an avid pilot and type rated on
single pilot jets. I've personally visited John in Montana. This project is
doing groundbreaking aerodynamic work in a garage. It's what America is all
about. The science is sound and based on real designs and concepts that have
been studied at places like NASA but never implemented due to the risk averse
hyper conservative nature of incremental airframe design and certification
barriers to entry inherent to the aviation industry. This project is worth
backing. John has the goods.

------
andrewflnr
Why don't these projects offer a remote control, small scale version as one of
their rewards? Or even just sell them.

~~~
Ralith
Manufacturing, even on only moderate scale, a remote control airplane would be
a whole 'nother affair, I expect.

------
turk5555
Too much technical aeronautical jargon going on here. As a young lad, I built
a box kite. I thought it would never fly, but guess what? It flew very well,
thank you very much. I see a flying box kite in the synergy, so let it fly,
let it fly, and just get out of my way. Case closed. prove me wrong.

------
zizee
Looks interesting, but I don't have time to dig deeper into it at the moment.
Anyone in the know care to tldr; this? I'd be especially interested to hear
what are the innovations that make this different from existing small
aircraft.

------
Synergydesigner
Good morning, everyone! Thank you for your interest. Synergy's premise is that
direct air transport from smaller airstrips at lower-than-commercial speeds is
presently inefficient, thus not profitable and therefore underserved. Targeted
aerodynamic solutions are necessary and beneficial.

Synergy is a double box tail aircraft that obtains high span efficiency by
providing its stability and control through induced drag reduction. Since the
tails push down, it is not a box wing, and the physics of this alone are worth
your investigation.

What's more, and this is the basis for all the hubbub, it provides powered
drag reduction at very high speeds. Both natural laminar flow and boundary
layer control are utilized in the wake immersed propulsive integration. This
combination of strategies provide significant benefits but is outside the
practical experience of much of the industry.

Extensive discussion has been taking place for quite some time about this and
some of that is linked here below. We look forward to completing our effort to
provide flight test results that corroborate our results so far, which are
promising.

I am available to anyone via email or telephone if you have further questions.
Thank you once again for your comments. John McGinnis, EAA 797858, AIAA
289792, john (~at~) synergy aircraft (dot) commercial. fourohsix, twofive0,
twentytwo twenty.

<http://eaa.org/news/2011/2011-04-29_synergy.asp>

<http://blog.cafefoundation.org/?tag=synergy>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UNzch0kuOA> (flyby)

<http://youtu.be/MJIi0zIwdY8>

[http://www.facebook.com/pages/Synergy-
Aircraft/1123534221815...](http://www.facebook.com/pages/Synergy-
Aircraft/112353422181543)

[http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1435870654978.20564...](http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1435870654978.2056416.1179309664&type=1&l=cd5c3ad317)

[http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2269305930339.21157...](http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2269305930339.2115716.1179309664&type=1&l=9655b74356)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCqk7HUKMug> (Synergy OSH 11 pt1)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaVCISch7VU> (Synergy OSH 11 pt2)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlT4V2r4Oz8> (Synergy OSH 11 pt3)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdaI4jQ8PA> (Synergy OSH 11 pt4)
<http://youtu.be/OC0itjCeGAA> (synergy Osh 11 pt4B)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAJ9C5570rY> (synergy OSH 11 pt5)

[http://www.oshkosh365.org/ok365_DiscussionBoardTopic.aspx?id...](http://www.oshkosh365.org/ok365_DiscussionBoardTopic.aspx?id=1235&boardid=147&forumid=175&topicid=3339)
[http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/aircraft-design-
aer...](http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-
new-technology/10117-synergy-aircraft-22.html)

[http://www.oshkosh365.org/ok365_DiscussionBoardTopic.aspx?id...](http://www.oshkosh365.org/ok365_DiscussionBoardTopic.aspx?id=1235&boardid=147&forumid=175&topicid=3339&page=15)

------
mkramlich
I don't think the critical challenge here is how to design a small sexy
"innovative" plane. I think the elephant in the room (I love metaphors) is
solving the problem of (1) who we allow to pilot them, and/or (2) whether they
can be designed to fly in a fail-safe manner. For those folks who've
experienced on a daily basis what the average herp-derp car driver is like,
you should, I hope, shudder to think what it would be like if there were
millions of those kinds of folks flying small planes around you.

In other words, in a world where everybody has a plane we probably want
"planes on rails". Whether physically-enforced or software-enforced.

~~~
cyrus_
I'm guessing that building a self-driving car is a much harder problem than a
self-driving airplane, and we seem to be making substantial progress on the
car front.

~~~
jrockway
The self-driving airplane pretty much exists. Assuming perfect conditions, an
airplane can climb to a desired altitude, follow a GPS course, switch to a
nonprecision VOR/DME approach, and follow a precision ILS approach (and
descent) to within a few hundred feet of the runway. And that's a Cessna 172
with a mildly recent avionics package -- a modern airliner can take you to the
runway surface in zero visibility. (Taxiing and takeoff are still manual
operations that require more than zero visibility, however.)

The reason a self-flying plane is easier than a self-driving car is because
there is much less stuff in the air than on the ground, and everything in the
air has a transponder that tells you its exact location and speed. (Not true
of small VFR planes, but transponders are becoming more common and if we
really wanted to, we could make them mandatory.) Compare this to a car, where
there are kids running into the street, traffic lights, other drivers, loads
falling off the back of trucks, and so on. The number of things that can
suddenly change the driving conditions are dramatic. In the air, that's not
the case; the environment is very controlled and you have an extra dimension
to navigate in.

With that in mind, we're still a ways away from untrained people getting into
an airplane, pressing a button, and arriving at their destination. But
honestly, that's details and risk management rather than a fundamental lack of
technology. (What happens if the engine fails? What happens if there's a
thunderstorm? The corner cases are why you have trained pilots there to assist
the computers. If you're willing to die because of a simple mechanical or
software failure, then self-flying planes are a reality today. If you're more
cautious, then not quite yet :)

~~~
sneak
Every time I read a comment of this quality and look up at the username, it
seems to be you. Thank you for your posts!

