Hi;
In looking at several types of homebuilt aircraft, it occurs to me that there are some that have parallel sides in the cockpit area, and some that are never parallel at any point of the fuselage from nose to tail. This, I mean, from a top view.
Some aircraft seem to have a parallel section roughly from engine to rear of cockpit, then a straight taper back to the tail.
I am working on the shape for a 2-seat Murphy Renegade, cosmetically modified to look more like a "Little Toot" by Tommy Meyer. So at this point I have the option to make the outer skin of the fuse any shape that makes visual and aerodynamic sense.
So, from a design or airflow point of view, which is best? 1, 2 or 3?
I would want to do some aerobatics eventually, but no knife-edge passes. Just rolls, loops, etc. The actual airframe has a long parallel section where the 2 seats are located, but that doesn't mean that the skin has to adhere to that shape.
Thanks, Tom.
In looking at several types of homebuilt aircraft, it occurs to me that there are some that have parallel sides in the cockpit area, and some that are never parallel at any point of the fuselage from nose to tail. This, I mean, from a top view.
Some aircraft seem to have a parallel section roughly from engine to rear of cockpit, then a straight taper back to the tail.
I am working on the shape for a 2-seat Murphy Renegade, cosmetically modified to look more like a "Little Toot" by Tommy Meyer. So at this point I have the option to make the outer skin of the fuse any shape that makes visual and aerodynamic sense.
So, from a design or airflow point of view, which is best? 1, 2 or 3?
I would want to do some aerobatics eventually, but no knife-edge passes. Just rolls, loops, etc. The actual airframe has a long parallel section where the 2 seats are located, but that doesn't mean that the skin has to adhere to that shape.
Thanks, Tom.
