What a positively delightful looking aircraft!
I see no reason you couldn't log time in this as multi-engine time - it clearly has two engines, with two separate sets of controls (at least throttles, from what I can see).
Similarly I see no reason you couldn't fly it IFR as an experimental aircraft, provided it's "properly equipped" (consult the FARs for ...
The FAA provides pretty clear definitions and/or explanations:
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 21, section
21.191(g), defines an amateur-built aircraft as an aircraft "the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by person(s) who
undertook the construction project solely for their own education or
Yep, as long as your avionics are certified and you follow all the rules for experimental aircraft in IFR you can log it. It's questionable whether or not anyone would accept the time when you go to get a job, but they might.
I would imagine that you're right about the avionics weight, although glass might actually reduce the weight.
The requirement which states that at least 51% of the tasks needed to make the aircraft airworthy must be accomplished by amateurs is 14 CFR 21.191(g). Presumably this would exclude finishing items like paint, some instruments, avionics, interiors, etc., as those are items which in most cases are not required for airworthiness.
The FAA has several ...
That is a complicated process. You need:
A positive mold (mandrel) for the canopy.
A negative mold for the canopy frame. For a single prototype you can also use the unfinished fuselage itself.
A fuselage mold with a molded window sill.
First the fuselage positive mold core is built. From that the negative mold is taken, but also a negative mold only for ...
Putting vertical surfaces at the front is pretty much trying to make the plane fly backwards in the yaw axis. Remember that it is just a weathervane. It will want to switch ends same as a weathervane would if you reverse it to the wind direction and let it go. If you tried to fly a plane configured like that, you'd crash as soon as you got airborne, unless ...
Yes. I assume by hybrid you mean that propulsion is provided by a solar-powered electric motor while the control system is powered by a human pilot.
From Paul McCready came Solar Challenger in 1981, certainly less flimsy than the Gossamer Penguin.
Solar Challenger (picture source)
In the same year, Solair I flew for the first time, followed by Solair II ...
Would it even work properly?
Depends on your definition of "properly".
Would it steer the aircraft like a tail one would? In principle yes.
Would it be as easy to use as a tail one? Not by a long shot.
Putting the vertical fin in the front will not make it act as a stabilizer any longer: any small deviation in sideslip angle will get amplified by ...
I couldn't justify this method more simply than NASA does:
For model rockets, the magnitude of the pressure variation is quite small. If we assume that the pressure is nearly constant, finding the average location of the pressure times the area distribution reduces to finding just the average location of the projected area distribution.
So the pressure, ...
Yes, the centre of gravity can coincide with the aerodynamic centre of the main wing, particularly because that point is rather unremarkable. For stability, the centre of gravity needs to be ahead of the neutral point, but that is the overall aerodynamic centre if both main wing and horizontal stabilizer are flying at the same coefficient of lift, which ...
For longitudinal stability in a conventional wing-and-tail layout, the CG needs to be ahead of the wing's AC. This causes a nose-down moment that is countered by downward lift at the stabilizer, so that the stabilizer will raise the nose as speed builds up. Thus, if the aircraft is disturbed into a dive, the nose will automatically rise as speed builds; ...
Aircraft fabric would be too heavy for a person carrying homebuilt orni-contraption. What you are looking for is 3M Mylar/Tedlar. It has been used as a covering material for a number of ultralights like the Lazair for many years.
You sure can,
The FAA provides a special airworthy cert for this kind of thing. There are a few types that you can apply for depending on what you are trying to fly. You can find the relevant info here
You can find the full Special Order that covers it here.
Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally
As I understand it (I am not a pilot, nor do I live in the US) in the US:
"amateur built" is a subset of "experimental".
"experimental" aircraft are assesed and issued with airworthyness certificates on an individual basis under requirements less rigorous than the normal type-certification process. However the FAA doesn't want manufacturers using ...
"Experimental" was originally applied to development test aircraft only. The application of the term to amateur builts is an artifact of the early days of homebuilding in the early 50s, when the Civil Aviation Authority (FAA's predecessor) was persuaded to create a formal licensing structure for amateur built airplanes created for personal use, and they ...
You will most likely need a Supplemental Type Certificate from EASA
According to their FAQ, emphasis mine:
My aircraft has been modified in the USA by Form 337 action. Can EASA accept this?
EASA accepts alterations on non-critical components that are substantiated via Form 337, as detailed in the EASA-FAA Technical Implementation ...
One major issue with a delta wing was discovered in the early days of supersonic fighters: delta wings don't handle well at low speeds. At high angle of attack, they (like any highly swept planform) exhibit strong "Dutch roll" in which roll and yaw are coupled in an oscillation, and because they stall at very high angles of attack the Dutch roll comes on ...