Synergy Aircraft- The future of flight
 

I came across this company while looking at a video from Oshkosh. Looking into it amazed me that this exists. I believe that one day this will be the basic shape of all airplanes and current aircraft will be antiques. I only wonder how this idea has not caught on wholesale in aircraft design....if I were designing airplanes based on todays technology, I'd look at this and state a loud expletive knowing what I'm working on is a horse & buggy compared to a Prius.

So here's the basic shape.

http://www.popsci.com/files/articles...llo_teaser.jpg

http://db2.stb.s-msn.com/i/F2/B6A9B8...EABAB13517.jpg

Now the really counter intuitive trick that makes this amazing is the smallish rear horizontal wing up and behind the main wing is set up to create a lot of Downforce!......Whaaaaa??? Who puts a major flight surface on an airplane to push DOWN?

Theory goes that this creates a huge venturi area between the wings creating way more lift than normally possible for the given sized wing, and, it eliminates the trailing vortex that creates huge amounts of drag, so induced drag is remarkably low.

Reading between the lines this is a 5 place airplane capable of jet like performance using a 200HP diesel engine using 5GPH fuel. That's right, 200+ MPH at 25,000+ feet getting 40MPG in a roomy, quiet, & comfortable cabin. Many design features make this simple and easy to build, the main feature being the main wing has no control surfaces, once these get into mass production they'll be cheap to build.

Here's a diagram showing the airflow effects between the wings, the small upperwing flying "upside down".

http://www.oshkosh365.org/userimages...54e3aaaff2.jpg


In reading a bunch of stuff about this, Burt Rutan is quoted as saying, "Why didn't I think of this."

http://www.wright-brothers.org/Infor...VRML_Flyer.jpg

THEN

http://www.rcmodelcentre.co.uk/image...a-gpma1144.jpg

THEN

http://www.copterplane.net/wp-conten...ssna-172-4.jpg

THEN

http://businessaviation.com/assets/i...clipse_500.jpg

THEN

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QH-4VUJxJ9.../a+synergy.jpg

Interesting, following- I'm sure there is more to learn here [than I know].

I want one. Where can I get a kit? :)

Pretty much every conventional horizontal tail pushes down.

Beechcraft Staggerwing-like
 

Negative stagger wing, reduced interference between wings, gentle stall characteristics and improved visibility. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFN0t4OMc4k

^You can practically see the tail pushing down on that Beech- look at the wing and tail angles.

Canard designs have front and rear surfaces both lifting.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Nov12_1906.jpg

107 years ago...

Several "tube winged" craft: http://www.unmuseum.org/flystrange.htm

If you look into it, the Beech Staggewing is not really Anything like a Synergy except for the propeller and flying through the air bits, otherwise, unrelated.

Frank is correct.
The downward lift on the tail of conventional planes is for balance. Engine weight up front down force in the back = balance. If the tail had upward lift it would have a tendency to decrease the angle of attack of the main wing by rotating the nose down and dive. This is considered an unstable condition with no self correction. Down lift on the tail creates a very stable balance at almost all air speeds and helps keep the main wing angle of attack in check. In the case of the Synergy with its rear engine the down force is to balance the pilot and passenger weight (short body length as was mentioned) up in front of the center of gravity.

Staggerwing is one of my favorite airplanes. I'm glad it got brought up even though I agree...nothing like the Synergy other than it has wings.

...only in context w/ the negative wing stagger diagram..

Wow, -Economy cruise: >40 MPG @ >200MPH
From their website.
Technical Information | Synergy Aircraft
No real kits yet. Only a R/C model has flown. This will be something to watch though.

I love those performance projections from an RC or computer modeling. So phony :D
with fixed wing aircraft, you get pitch stability 3 ways:
1: Downforce from a conventional tail. This by far is the most stable arrangement through the whole speed range.
2: A second lifting surface out front, a canard. This is the most efficient. It is also prone to really nasty behavior. Deep stalls you cannot recover from, annoying pitching action from simple rain, etc.
3: computer generated stability via fly by wire. Very nice for high maneuverability, very pricy, and deadly when it fails.

Here is a classic example of positive pitch stability. During my CFI training, we were out spinning the cessna 150. My instructor showed me a neat trick. Trim the aircraft for 65 MPH, then pull it up to stall. hammer a rudder and get it into a nice spin. Close the throttle.
Let go of all the controls!
It will nose down and recover from the spin immediately. Then it continues pointed down as the airspeed builds. It will then pitch up due to the trim being set for 65 MPH, and not exceed the yellow arc in the recovery. Still no pilot input whatsoever. Maximum airspeed was about 115 MPH.
Of course, you have to capture the plane as it pitches through level flight or it will go up and stall again :D

Remember you had to hold it into the initial stall after you set your trim.
It is important to note the plane will be naturally seeking the 65 you trimmed it at. It will only stall again if it has so much speed and energy that it exceeds the stall angle while trying to maintain the 65. Oscillations would be expected to reduce until the stability has returned.

I would be interested in the stall and stability characteristics of this Synergy plane and so would the designers. I cant wait to see the proto fly and hear about its performance.

It does pitch up enough on the first one to stall, or at least an abrupt drop through. After that it "falling leafs" to a stable condition after successive smaller oscillations.
You can see how the diesel engine is doing in other airframes. That is the exciting part for me, the diesel. I got my hopes up when Zoche was in development and testing, only to have it all evaporate.
I kept seeing a pair of those 300 HP beauties on the wings of the 310.

Yeah, the radical (for aircraft) engine is the big part of these performance projections.

I wonder about this layout because of the short couple (distance along the centerline) between the front and rear lifting surfaces. What would conventional aircraft behave like if the empennages were shortened five feet? Everything still works according to flight theory, but the leverage is so short that I would think constant correction would be necessary to maintain level flight and keep oscillating to a tolerable level. So does the Synergy require computer controlled guidance? Is it capable of not only flat spins but tumbling spins? Scary.

Frank, google this Synergy thing and read more about it. Engine is going to be a big part, yes. But no conventional aircraft design today will be capable of what I'm guessing too be 5 passengers in pressurized flight at 30,000 feet going 250-300MPH burning 5 gph doing so. I've come to understand that the higher and faster Synergy goes, the better it gets. The Cd is crazy low, this design really is unique.

The upper air foil is acting to create a venturi effect between the 2 wings, in addition, there will be no "Spinning Clouds" behind the Synergy as it flies because the placement and effect of the upper wing counteracts the vortex formation.

This is an amazing design, they've been playing with the 1/4 scale model for years without it stacking in or flipping out of control in mid-air.

Maybe something will go sideways with this design and project, I'm puzzled that it has been over a year since they thought they could get a full scale prototype flying. I'd think they'd want to get the first plane in the air as proof of concept and gathering data, then work out all the production stuff later. I also question why Boeing, Piper, or Beechcraft et al does not look at this and go Kazam and make a similar model.

Time will tell I guess, if it works as dreamed about, at least some of you can say you saw it here first.

There have been tons of joined wing/box wing proposals over the years; Synergy claims to be different in that the others are all about upward lift while his upper surface acts as a conventional downward-pushing tail. I'll get excited when someone gets to fly in one and report awesome advances in the state-of-the-art.

That said, I don't believe it belongs in the category of the Ram Implosion Wing!

http://pesn.com/2005/03/08/6900067_R...go_RamWing.jpg

https://www.google.com/search?q=join...=isch&imgdii=_

https://www.google.com/search?q=join...w=1280&bih=699

Sink your teeth into this. I plan to, but it's gonna take a while...
http://www.oshkosh365.org/ok365_Disc...5&topicid=3339

John explains: http://www.avweb.com/podcast/AudioPo...w=RelatedStory

Your Google searches make for a very important point, Frank. I don't see one picture of a real aircraft. Lots of models and computer renderings.
I started to think of modern design and realized that even the most celebrated modern designer, Burt Rutan, has/had not one certified production aircraft to his name (exception being influence of the beautiful but failed Beech Starship). This means a lot for design advancement but something big is missing for mass production certified aircraft. Physics, materials, and money probably have something to do with it.
I hate being a skeptic on this topic since aviation is my main passion but reality rules. I do hope some one breaks the trend.

One of my most memorable childhood experiences was flying stick and paper box kites while others were flying plastic/vinyl bat kites. Something cool about the box kites. Synergy meets this cool factor (all of its plastic included).
:cool:

I got my first small plane ride from my uncle when I was a wee sprig; I used that opportunity to do an aero experiment, which was to make a parachute for an old differential gear I found out on the farm and throw that out the window of the plane. Surprisingly enough, he went along with it but the chute was a fail and I was very fortunate to not put that gear through the stained glass window of a nearby church.

Anyhoo, that's what really got my interest in aviation going. I eventually got pilot licenses up through commercial, multi-engine, instrument instructor, where aviation then took a back seat to my burgeoning ground vehicle design career.

A Lot of the pictures you show are "Box Wing" configurations which the Synergy is not. Also, the 1/4 scale Synergy model flies, it isn't just a display.


Synergy 1/4 Scale Flyby

Hey ChasInMt,
Do you have any info or updates on their full size proto? It sounds like it is behind schedule but that is not unexpected as most airplanes are late. This ends up being a good thing as they are usually somewhat better than if flown too early. Experimental or restricted category is pretty open to design creativity with the exception of strength and safety. Bottom line is someone has to fly it. Even when it is all sorted out this takes a brave sole to be a test pilot. I was amazed to see the terafugia actually make it past proto stage.

I been looking and looking, but no, can't seem to find any recent word on the thing. Up until a month ago I was living 5 hours away from the place. Had I discovered this when I was there I certainly would have driven up to volunteer. The most recent word is that they're 90% done.....which I hope isn't a perpetual state, like fusion energy being 20 years into the future for the last 60 years. :p

That "90% done" thing was what was so infuriating about Zoche. That engine was lighter, more powerful, elegant. Better BSFC numbers at .356 LB/HP/HR
We saw vids in the test cell, all this happy talk. Then nothing.

future
 

I would like to see stall and spin recovery with this aircraft.
Certified fixed-wins will typically fly straight and level with hands and feet completely off the controls,requiring only special pilot focus upon landing.
My uncle and flight instructor has told me that in a 'pickle',just to let go of everything,and with enough altitude the plane will resume straight and level flight.
I don't see this with the Synergy.I'm no Barnaby Wainfan,but the plane concerns me very much as far as dynamic stability.
Muroc Airfield was re-named Edwards AFB after Glenn Edwards,test-pilot of the Northrop flying -wing,who along with his crew,perished attempting stall recovery of this weather-cock-free design.:o

I'm curious about this
_________

So which is it?

I suspect a lot of their no-vortex claims come from the vertical stabilizers. Maybe some of the concerns expressed could be alleviated by a small canard. I'd make the inner vertical stabilizers into a full ring wing.

Comments related to stability had me ruminating over the Synergy design the other day and something occurred to me regarding the shape of the little beast.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/project...jpg?1337797121

resembles

http://www.sport4pro.net/upload/slik...2135832951.jpg

more than

http://preview.turbosquid.com/Previe...1cbbLarger.jpg

A discussion here about pitch stability.