Andrew M AndrakaBishop Hendricken HSWarwick, Rhode Island, USAPrivate Catholic SchoolGrade 9 (Freshman)Andrew@andraka.com

Next Generation DC-3

Introduction

A cloud of fog slowly lifts off the field. There, lying quietly on the tarmac, a giant metallic figure sits nose

high on the ramp, as if it cannot be conquered by anything. Two pilots enter through the huge door in the rear. It

seems as if one could fit a whale through that door. They make there way to the cockpit, where they find a light

coating of mist on the windscreen. They sit down, run through the checklist, and prime the beast for takeoff. The

starter is engaged, 9 blades go by, the mags are hit, and slowly, the huge, 1000hp Pratt and Whitney’s wind up. The

monstrous plane awakens with a thunderous roar and cloud of smoke.

The tail wheel lock is disengaged and the throttle is increased to 15%, and the monstrous plane begins to

roll. It makes its way slowly to the active, swiveling back and fourth to stay on the taxiway and avoid going into the

grass. The pilots works feverishly with the brakes sending the plane dancing down the taxiways. It stops short of the

runway, then rolls into position. The flaps come down with a thud. A final check of the gauges assures the pilots that

all is fine. The throttles are increased, and the DC-3 lurches forward.

The plane accelerates to 55 knots, and the tail comes up. Before long, the entire plane is climbing quickly

out of this rural airport. It climbs fast as it is lightly loaded. The gear comes up, and a reassuring thud is heard from

the gear wells. This is a relic from the golden age of flight. They don’t make planes like this anymore.

The simple mission of general aviation and civil transportation has since drastically changed over the past

generations. Back then, we built strong, rugged airframes that were both reliable and lasted. Load and range was

seen as far more valuable than speed. Today it’s the opposite. We want speed and efficiency. But, this generally

requires that we compromise between other key factors.

Mission:

The ideal modern replacement for a DC-3 would be far more radical than many modern designs we see

today. The average airliner and heavy haulers flying today suffer many drawbacks in one category or another and

generally are 20-40 year old designs 16. Also, we see the effects of ever tightening security issues, noise pollution,

carbon waste management, tighter airport operation limitations, operating cost, and congested terminals affecting the

airliner and general aviation communities.

Sooner than later, more and more people may be taking to the skies in privately owned general aviation

aircraft 15. So the number of people relying on commercial airliners is going to drop. Also the average income of

these customers is going to be lower 15. This calls for an aircraft that can be economical, efficient and have a large

useful load.

Dc-3’s were able to be used for everything from luxury airliners to rough and tough back-country haulers 1.

Today were really don’t see many planes like this. They’re more specialized on what the operator wants the airplane

to do. The new design would have to be easily used in many roles, including luxury airliner and cargo plane. This

would mean more rugged designs to ensure safe operation under all of these categories.

What about fuel? In this day and age of $100 a barrel of crude oil, fuel efficiency is a big issue. The

answer may lie with alternative fuel types, newer engine(s), and new and improved airfoil and airframe designs 16.

On the other hand, whatever is used to power this aircraft, will have to be whisper quiet. The average person doesn’t

take to noise to kindly, and new government regulations will require quieter engines, and cleaner airframes to reduce

noise 7.

Production and operation costs are big factors in the world of aviation. In a world of million dollar aircraft,

and replacement part costs in the thousands, the cost associated with aviation must be reduced. This could easiliy be

achieved with newer, state of the art production techniques, longer lasting parts, and higher load to power ratios.

Systems must also be made both redundant and reliable. All sources of wear and tear must be reduced to extend the

current operational safety and life of these aircraft.

How about those wings?

The first area I will address will be the actual flying part of this aircraft. A near vertical takeoff or land

aircraft, or at least STOL aircraft would be most beneficial to this aircraft, allowing it to operate out of shorter and

rougher runways, and allowing it to carry higher loads. Common, everyday wings are efficient, but to produce the

best lift, they must be long and thin 3. On the contrary, to produce the most speed/least drag ratio, they should be as

short as possible. The wings don’t determine how fast a plane flies, but how slow a plane will fly 1.

As most any pilot would agree, it’s far easier to land a slow plane than a fast plane, so reducing the wing

length with out decreasing the lift is critical. How will we do this? In the 1960’s, William Custer developed a

revolutionary wing. He called it the Custer Channel Wing. It is a rounded channel in the wing forming a haft duct

with the prop on the leading edge of the airfoil/channel, fitting perfectly inside the channel. This design produces

phenomenal amounts of lift with out sacrificing speed 12. The channel will produce an extreme amount of static lift

at a complete stand-still by pulling the air over the airfoil rather than pulling the airfoil through the air 12. The takeoff

run for this aircraft is only required for the primary flight controls to become effective 12.

The down sides to the channel wing are few and can easily be compensated for. One problem that was

determined in tests had to do with the way the airflow exited the channel. It tended to produce a tremendous amount

of downward thrust 12. This is considered both good and bad. The downward thrust greatly assists in producing lift

on takeoff, much like a helicopter. Yet, the thrust also caused a tendency for the nose to drop 12. The best way to fix

this problem is properly the simplest solution; a trim system. This would establish a counter to the downward nose

movement by modifying the angle of attack on the elevator 4.

The major drawback would be the simple lack of a true wing. The channel wing design would produce

enough lift to permit the design to entirely replace a wing with a channel 12. However, if a channel wing were to

experience an engine failure, the lift produced would drastically be reduced. With one channel producing lift and the

other not, a flat spin could result if not dealt with appropriately. William made all of these prototypes with short

wings coming off the channel to deal with this inherent problem. Other possible solutions would be to add an

additional engine on each side or a emergency parachute similar to those currently produced by BRS 8.

A ballistic recovery chute would have to be huge, but could be beneficial in more ways than one. One

parachute would most likely prove ineffective considering the speed at which it might be use, relevant to the area of

the parachute and the mass of the airplane. Three separate parachutes located at different points on the aircraft would

be better, since it would distribute stress loading on the airframe, rigging cables, and parachutes. The parachute

could also double as a safety feature in this modern day of terrorism. If a bomb were to go off, the chutes could be

deployed to lower the aircraft to relative safety. The size of a bomb capable of being brought aboard a plane would

be small enough to just blow a hole in the airframe, not complete destroy it 7. The stresses inflicted on the airframe

afterwards for complete loss of control would result in the aircraft being literally ripped apart.

Another realistic idea would be to incorporate the infamous delta wing, which is making a come back after

many years of being rejected due to its poor slow speed handling capabilities. The advantage to the delta wing

comes when it nears higher speeds. Its large cross section ratio greatly increases its ability to glide much more

efficiently at higher speeds than another current airfoil technology 16. How does this play into my aircraft design? In

the event of an engine failure with a channel wing, it’s primary source of lift is compromised. Channel wings fly on

the principle of airflow being pulled over the wing, unlike conventional aircraft where the airframe is pulled through

the air 16. So the affect would be like having a standard winged aircraft have one wing stall before the other, putting

it in a spin stall. Unlike that conventional aircraft, the channel wing cannot simply pull out of a stall by gaining

speed. It needs an engine to force air through the channel. Some sort of low drag, high lift airfoil is needed 12. Some

sort of wing is necessary to buy the pilot time to make an emergency landing.

A delta wing is the solution. It will allow an extremely long glide range at high speeds (that’s why its seen

on the space shuttles) and could potentially allow a crippled channel wing to return to an airport 16. The problems

arise when the aircraft approaches slower speeds. Channel wings become quite unstable at low speeds, and would

require “fly by wire” technology to help assist with this problem. Another simple solution would be the addition of a

canard wing.

Canards were found on the very first successful aircraft, the Wright flyer. Ever since they have

incorporated on some of the best and most revolutionary designs out there today. The trick is the way the lift is

produced. In a conventional aircraft, the main wing produces lift with a tendency to nose downward 13. The force is

countered by the stabilizer, which produces an adverse nose up tendency, canceling out the nose up/down effect.

This is also a source of drag and a loss of energy 13. In a canard design, the main wing is located to the rear of the

stabilizer. With both the forward stabilizer and rear main wing producing upward lift; the nose up/down tendencies

of the aircraft are eliminated 13. This essentially means more lift on less power. This has been applied to designs such

as the Long Eze (Burt Rutan Design), which is capable of achieving 200-knot cruise speeds with 1700sm range on

minimal horsepower 1.

The use of a canard/delta/Custer Channel wing setup would allow for the best advantages of all three setups

to fill in for the disadvantages of the each. With this setup, the channel wing can experience a single or dual engine

failure, and not just simply fall out of the sky. The plane would able to glide substantial distances provided it was

able to keep its flying speed up. At the same time, the channel wings will allow the plane to land very slow, much

slower than many conventional airliners and heavy freight aircraft we see operating today. The delta wing provides

the emergency glide; while at the same time it has a minimal profile drag at cruise speeds 16. The combination of

these three setups allow for the most cost effective and safe way to operate this aircraft for most any mission.

Runway Conditions

The DC-3 was designed to operate out of unimproved runways. This is still necessary as one ventures

around the globe to third world countries, the bush, and bad weather conditions. This means, for our aircraft, ideally,

the landing gear would have to be far more rugged than any current landing gear seen on the world’s production

aircraft. Large, low-pressure balloon type tires are best for this application, as they are used by bush pilots all over

the world. The bigger the tire, the lesser the effect of objects, potholes, grass… have on them and as long as they can

be tucked away in the airframe, they will not be a drag factor 1.

Which configuration should be used on such and aircraft? A tail dragger like a DC-3 has many

disadvantages as do tricycle gear depending on the runway. The simple fact that the center of gravity is behind the

contact point of the aircraft (wheels) make the aircraft want to trade ends with itself, resulting in the infamous

ground loop 7. Yet, they are easier to fly on final (in a wheel Landing) considering the stick is pushed forward

increasing visibility over nose 7. In a tricycle setup, while in the flare, visibility over the nose is limited. This means

it is easy to drift off the centerline on final approach to the runway.

The major drawback for the tail dragger is on the ground. They rely on differential braking and the rudder

pedals to keep the aircraft from veering off the runway. Poor brakes can result in a ground loop, as will a broken

tail-wheel spring 10. This is where the visibility over the nose become quite difficult for the tail daggers, thus making

“s’ turn maneuvers on the ground is critical 7. The advantages would be more specialized to the specific operation of

the aircraft. Tail draggers are best in the backcountry and unapproved runway spectrum. The lack of a bulky nose

wheel also helps keep the overall weight of the aircraft to a minimal, improving initial flight performance.

The tail daggers also have the upper hand in high wind applications. They are easier to maneuver through

the flare, and the pilot has a better view over the nose all the way to the ground 10. This will help a lot for a pilot

trying to line upon the centerline. Another area they will be superior in would be by taking away the fragile nose

wheel; thus the risk of severely damaging the plane is decreased 10. Nose wheels will typically dig in soft soil and

will be sheered off when they come into contact with large potholes and bumps in the runway 10.

The best way to get around these problems would be to initially use a bush wheel for the nose wheel. The

strut would have to be completely redesigned so that it would have a dragging effect much like a swivel nose gear

setup found on many experimental setups 1. This would allow for the nose to be dragged over any hazardous terrain

before ripping the gear clean off the airframe 6. A good example of this kind of nose wheel would be seen on a

aircraft such as the Horten Flying wing, developed by the Germans during WWII 16. The strut is angled back

somewhere in the relm of 20 degrees to allow operation from rough fields.

To solve the problem of the lack of visibility over the nose, one could lower the taper in the nose, and have

the instrument panel separate of the wind screen, much like that of a Boeing B-29, with the glass going down to the

floor. The entire gear setup would be a retractable, tricycle gear set up. The nose wheel would be fully steerable and

angled back, as described above. The struts would be manufactured with a connection to allow skis to be fitted to the

main gear, much like those seen on a number of DC-3’s operating in snowy conditions up north. This has been

tested with tricycle gear by the classic aircraft known as the Ercoupe 1. This would allow such a plane to easily

operate in remote snowy areas, where the average aircraft today simply cannot land. Such an attempt would cause

the wheels to dig in and flip the aircraft or severely damage the main gear 14. The skis would have a recessed wheel

well allow operation from both runway and snow at the same time, unlike straight skis 14.

The Passenger/cargo Compartments

Creature comfort. It’s a word generally not associated will civil aviation. Why? Well its quite simple,

airlines want to maximize their seat to size ratio, thus increasing the company profits. These generally mean tight

seats that seem as if they were intended for oversized yard gnomes. As far as the airlines are concerned, there really

isn’t a solution. They want to get the most money out of each gallon of gas, so they’re going to fit as many seats as

possible into the fuselage. Now, building this airplane to DC-3 specifications, the airframe would end up being a

little less than 70 feet. The crew and avionics would take twelve of these feet up. To maximize the rear fuselage

room, the wings are short delta wings, with the channels as the primary means of lift. This means you can pack the

fuselage up all the way to the tail. The center of gravity is located much farther back on a delta/canard/Channel wing

setup than a conventional aircraft setups. In a conventional aircraft setup, the tail is typically left hollow (as in a DC-

3) or is taken up by the support structure needed by the engines 1. By having the engines on the wings, the support

structure for only the rudder, and the naturally far aft center of gravity attributed to the delta wing, there is far more

available cabin space.

The DC-3 only had 21 seats, a cargo/luggage hold, and an otherwise empty tail. This left about thirty feet

between the actual tail of the aircraft and the cockpit 16. The delta wing allows us to access roughly another 15 feet

of space, adding up to about 12 more seats than your typical DC-3. This gives you about 33 seats for passengers,

overhead storage, belly luggage/ fuel compartments, and there would be room for a lavatory between the support

structures for the rudder (estimates made via DC-3 specs provided by Delta Airline/History).

Fuel and Environmental Effects

Right now, there are very few FAA approved alternative fuels 1. Ethanol rots out the fuel system

components, nuclear energy is far too dangerous, the list goes on. The best way to do it may lie within research

being done at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. They are using the TF33 jet engine to test alternative fuel mixtures.

They are comparing the current fuel, JP-8, to a 50/50 blend of Jp-8 and Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuel. The results

seem promising with a waste particle reduction of any where from 20% to 40% (Propulsion Directorate AFRL/PR).

The lab also reduced the smoke concentration about 30%-60% according to the Propulsion Directorate at Wright

Patterson.

Could this be an option? It’s already being used on a B-52 11. It’s a true form of jet fuel, meaning it could

be use in a turbine prop engine like that necessary for the channel wing design. If we were to go with piston power, a

German company knows as Theiralt, has begun to develop diesel engines for the general aviation market 11. The

same technology could be used on a larger scale for our aircraft.

The engine most practical for this application would most certainly need to be a propeller/engine setup of

some sort. It is far more effective than a jet with the Custer channel wing, and to provided for the best all around

performing aircraft, props prove to be best for short field operations 1 and 12. The channel wing has been successfully

tested up to 300+knots, and is able to slow to merely 10 knots before stalling out 12.

The otherwise simple option would be to use a turboprop engines with alternative fuels. The Custer channel

wing was originally designed around a propeller. The most suitable engine would be a Pratt and Whitney PT6A

Turboprop engine, Capable of producing 500to1,940 hp, almost double the DC-3 original Pratt and Whitney 1000hp

radial wasp engines 7. Why use an engine developed in the 1950’s? The decision was made more on the reliability

and parts availability of the engine. PT6’s are flying on almost every civilian turbo prop aircraft on the market 1.

They are extremely reliable, and have good parts availability. One could certify their aircraft to allow it to use a

50/50 blend of Jp-8 and Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuel, cutting on gas costs and reducing air pollution.

The big problems with other alternate new engines are they really don’t have a reliable track record to

support them, so they can prove to be unreliable 5. The Cessna 411 suffered from this very problem, and it lead to

many crashes, giving it the one of the highest fatality rates of any light general aviation aircraft 2. This was due to a

fairly unreliable lycoming 520 340hp engine, and the notorious single engine handling of the aircraft, which lead to

over ten percent of the fleet to crash after and engine failure 2.

Aircraft, must have reliable engines. A bad engine in a design with a channel wing, where the channel and

prop produce the primary lift, will lead to many crashes. That is the reasoning behind the delta wing, providing

emergency glide capabilities in the event of an engine failure, and minimal drag under normal circumstances 16.

Other high efficacy aircraft engines I saw had obvious flaws. Most notable, the Russians attempt at nuclear power

generators onboard to provide power to electric engines 16. The radiation released is extremely harmful to the crew,

passengers, line boys, and anywhere the aircraft could fly and land 16. A crash into any area would have adverse

environmental effects such as radiation poisoning 16.

Maintenance, Keeping the cost down

The cost of anything nowadays in aviation is staggering. So for a practical economical aircraft, the parts

must be easily replaceable, long lasting, and super reliable. The best way to do this seems to be keeping everything

as simple as possible. The wear and tear on parts of the airframe can be significantly reduced if we can limit the

actual “wear and tear factor”. Where else better to start than the brakes?

The brakes are properly one of the most abused parts on any aircraft. The forces inflicted on the brake pads

and brake disks are tremendous, and produce substantial amounts of heat. The solution? Simple, non-contact brakes,

which have been developed for several special needs vehicles, including the team North American Eagle jet car

(Team North American Eagle). This highly modified fighter jet clipped-wing car uses a new technology known

simply as magnetic brakes. The brakes use magnetic solenoids to slow a vehicle with no friction or slippage 9.

Brake slippage and failure is the primary cause for ground loops among both tricycle aircraft and tail

draggers alike14. These accidents can be attributed to slippage, poor adjustment, and loss of hydraulic fluid; the list

goes on 14.The magnetic brakes will provide the aircraft operator with reliable, high endurance brakes that are easily

repaired if necessary. These brakes are also far simpler, which equals a weight savings. Hydraulic lines, reservoirs,

and cylinders would all be removed, allowing for a higher useful load.

The reasoning for using time-tested engines is also attributable to a attempt at lowering part replacement

costs. The PT6A is a common engine, well known by mechanics in most any shop that deals with larger aircraft.

When something breaks, there usually a part on the shelf or readily available for replacement (Chris Aircraft, RI).

The systems would be far more familiar to anyone working on them. These all help reduce the cost of maintaining

the engines themselves

Production

The new generation of high performance aircraft has seen the introduction of advanced composite

materials. They are strong, and even easier to use on the production line to form complex curves 17. However, the

lay-up for composite parts is labor intensive, and durability can be a problem. The lay-up must be done entirely by

hand, and can take time. Also, they are subject to damage by light impacts 16. Not only are they easily damaged, but

they are even harder to repair, and any damage requires immediate attention 16. Part of The solution could be a new

idea known as vacuum form composites.

This idea is being pioneered primarily by Cirrus aircraft, a leading manufacturer of certified aircraft 17.

Before, the most popular composite was fiberglass, which required extensive work to mix resins, lay up the glass,

and cure. The idea behind vacuum form would be a pre-made glass/resin/stiffener combination, which was heated,

then dropped over a mold and cooled 17. The problems come in with the connection of the actual formed parts, and

the durability of the part itself. The process requires heat to manipulate the composite to allow it to mold to the

complex curves of the aircraft design 17. This is problem if an in flight fire ever occurred. The softening point of this

material (not yet fully developed for standard aircraft use) would easily be lower than certified composites used

today, causing airframe failure 17.

The problem with using this as a primary material in my design would be the simple fact that no such

material that is FAA Certifiable exists at the present time. There is plenty of research going on to try and develop

such a material at this time 17. For the time being, the traditional methods of fiberglass lay-ups will be suitable for

my application. Although still affected by extreme heat, the composite materials are almost as reliable as aluminum

16.

The benefits of using composites are obvious. They can be used to form complex surfaces not previously

achievable with aluminum 1. This allows for far superior airfoils and drag reduction. The strength of composite

materials is lacking compared to alloys though 16. Any alloy is subject to metal fatigue, a common occurrence

caused by vibrations throughout the airframe 1. Composites are not subject to metal fatigue; so using them would

help reduce in flight breakups attributable to metal fatigue 1. Composites have a serious downfall. They have a

critical failure point, where the surface will fail with little or no warning (BSA COMPOSITE MATERAILS

BOOKLET). They also must be repaired if they are dented or chipped, as it may lead to failure of that structure,

unlike aluminum, which can withstand serious abuse 16. Alloys will also bend before absolute failure, warning the

pilot before it is too late 1. Composites can be designed quite strong, and this should not be a huge factor unless the

aircraft is faced with high g maneuvers. Another possible solution to the down falls of composites are

thermoplastics. They are far more rugged than standard composites, which will allow for all the same benefits of

composite technology, but also allow for serious abuse 16.

The Cockpits

In light of recent world events such as cockpit break-ins, my design will be fitted with an entirely separate

entrance, with no access to cabin for the airline setups. Otherwise an entrance would be included for cargo and

private operation aircraft. For better cockpit safety, a possibly revolutionary idea will be installed for aircraft

customized for airlines. This system would be a Ground Operated Emergency Flight Take Over System.

This is a revolutionary idea that may be possible with the recent advances in unmanned air vehicle

technology. The system could possibly be installed for any aircraft at risk for hijacked by cockpit intrusion if there

was access to the cockpit. The concept aircraft would have an entire UAV flight control system on board, which

would be accessibly by the ground if the aircraft showed any sign of a possible hijacking. The technology already

exists in modern military surveillance aircraft. Now the only modification to systems found on aircraft like the

Predator UAV would be an override system, allowing the ground control station to gain entire control of the aircraft.

Possible? At a weight penalty, and cost, yes, it would be a revolutionary concept that could be adopted by many

aircraft manufactures.

Situational awareness is a problem with many of today’s pilots. You see planes being flown into the sides

of mountains, out of fuel, or into other airplanes frequently because the pilot spends too much time with his head in

the cockpit. Yet, in full-fledged IFR weather, a pilot almost must entirely rely on his instruments. The solution to

this may never be fully resolved, but pilots must be able to keep an eye out for trouble. The panel I would install for

my aircraft would most defiantly be a Garmin G1000 with a full “standard six steam gauge’ backup, and an

electrical power backup system.

This may seem contradictory to my earlier statements about situational awareness, and it is. Nothing beats

having paper maps and knowledge on the operation of more reliable vacuum panel systems. The best way to present

a safe cockpit would be extensive training on the simplest means of navigation, and then work up to the better more

complex systems. The G1000 would provide the pilot(s) with the best situational awareness, especially for a pilot(s)

who tends to keep their heads in the cockpit (Horizon Aviation, RI). Pilots are about information, and the Garmin

G1000 provides just that. It will provide the operator with flight information on everything from terrain, weather and

traffic 12. The problem with relying on the traffic is it only records flights with an active transponder (CFI Horizon

Aviation). This excludes the smaller, general aviation aircraft flying at lower flight levels not using transponders.

This creates a problem for mid-air incursions by pilots who rely too heavily on their flight display systems (CFI

Horizon Aviation).

The optional weather and terrain also causes a problem with pilots. Sometimes this technology makes pilots

rely to heavily on these systems, and they try to “beat” weather and terrain. The problem comes when the data the

pilot is reading, especially in the case of weather, is not in real time (CFI Horizon Aviation). Pilots who fly based on

weather that can be as old as 25 minutes usually will find themselves and their aircraft being picked up by NTSB

investigators. Unfortunate, yet true in many cases.

Another problem is complete electronics failure. This is why the concept aircraft would also have an

emergency vacuum powered standard six-gyro system to fly off of. Systems like this are not seen very much today,

but could save lives. Other options would be solid-state Ring Lazar gyros, which have no moving parts at all 1. The

solid-state avionics are untested and it is unknown how well they will hold up to hundreds of take of and landings

(Ray Andraka, Electrical Engineer consultant). The more redundant a systems, the better, especially when the lives

of an entirely loaded aircraft rely on it.

Conclusion

Is an aircraft like this a possible replacement for the DC-3? It will all depend on the costs needed to

manufacture such an aircraft. Neither the channel wing, nor many of the technologies on this aircraft are currently

certified with the FAA. The aircraft would most definitely be able to surpass the current performance of the DC-3.

The speed, efficiency, and un-surpassed reliability of such an aircraft would be superior to anything currently flying.

But, with so much untested technology, there could be downfalls in the design. It would need a rigorous testing

period, extensive parts inventory, and revolutionary new composite engineering processes. I believe that this could

just possibly be the ultimate solution to replace the aging fleet of DC-3’s currently operating all over the world,

carrying on their 60 year legacy.

Channel-Wing Next Generation DC-3 drawn by author.

Channel-Wing Next Generation DC-3 drawn by author.

Channel-Wing Next Generation DC-3 drawn by author.

Bibliography

1.EAA Sport Aviation Magazine articles, Oshkosh, WI

Spangler, Scott M. “Composite Construction) August 2006, Vol. 55, NO.8

Wilhemlmsen, George R. “Cockpit Resource Management” March 2006, VOL. 55, NO.3

Ibold, Ken “Power and speed/ What’s New.” June 2006, VOL 55, NO. 6

Spangler, Scott M. “Multitasking/ Bush Pilots” April 2006, Vol. 55 NO. 4

Spangler, Scott M. “Wilderness Adventure” January 2006, Vol. 55, NO. 1

Spangler, Scott M. “Metals Enduring Strength” March 2007, Vol. 56, NO.3

Palmar, Bruce “Electric Flight” March 2007, Vol. 56, NO. 3

Parker, Todd “Those Shapes In the Sky/ Why airplanes look like airplanes” July 2007, Vol. 56, No. 7

Rossier, Robert “Special Delivery” July 2007, Vol. 56, NO. 7

Willford, Neal “Those Plastic Planes” November 2005, Vol. 54, NO. 11

2.Belvoir Publications “Aviation Consumer Guide to Used Aircraft”. Blue Ridge Summit, Pa, 1989. Tab Books PA.

3.Wolters, Richard A. “The World of Silent Flight.” Copyright 1979. McGraw-Hill Book Company.

4.Purdy, Don. “EAA’s Aerocrafter Edition 8.” Oshkosh, WI, 2001. Experimental Aircraft Association.

5.Bingelis, Tony. “Firewall Forward” Oshkosh, WI, 1998. EAA Aviation Foundation Inc.

6.Bingelis, Tony. “Sport Plane Techniques” Oshkosh, WI, 1998. EAA Aviation Foundation Inc.

7.FAA “Flight Training Hand Book.” Washington, D.C, 1980. U.S Government Printing Office.

8.BRS Parachutes “History of BRS” 1998-2007, <http://www.brsparachutes.com/about+BRS/BRS+hostory/defualt.aspx>

9.Patent Storm “Patent Description 5746294” May 1997, Lowe Pricne, <http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5746194-description.html>

10.Davison, Budd “flying Tail-daggers” 1999. <http://airbum.com/articles/articletailwheeltraining,html>

11.Propulsion Directorate AFRL/PR. August 2007, <http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123040425>

12.SAE “Custer Channel-Wing” KS, 2008. http://www.sae.org/techincal/papers/2006-01- 2387

13. “Canard types” 1999, <Canardzone.com/types.htm>

14. “NTSB Aviation Investigations” 2002. < http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp>

15. CAFÉ Foundation “PAV Library” 2007. < http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_tech_lib.php>

16. Century Of flight, 2008. < http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/evolution%20of%20technology/Aviation%20Fuel.htm>

17. Cirrus design “News and Press.” 2008.

< http://www.cirrusdesign.com/about/news/default.aspx>

Next Generation DC-3

Channel-Wing Next Generation DC-3 drawn by author.

By

Andrew M. AndrakaGrade 9 (Freshmen)

Paul Alianiello (Teacher)Bishop Hendricken HS

2615 Warwick Ave

Warwick, RI, USA02889

School Ends: June 8th