And it will get better . Aerodynamics (in MSFS) are not fine-tuned yet.Just downloaded and tried it out in FS2020, really fun little plane. Can't wait to see more progress!
Yeah, the texture is still missing, as I am not used to creating UV-maps yet. They will be added soon, but first I am evaluating switching to a T-tail.Looks like a carton to me.
Unfortunately not. At Mach 0.5 to 0.6 cruise the area rule has no impact, but pressure gradients (Arnolds "poor mans area rule") are used. This is why I calculate a T-tail right now, as the elevator is creating a lot of low pressure areas which create too much drag.Two ideas already consulted elsewhere: a MiG-17 with an Area Ruled fuselage?, an F-104 with an straight leading edge wing? Would this improve somehow these aircraft? Blessings +
Never flew a T-tail that I liked.Unfortunately not. At Mach 0.5 to 0.6 cruise the area rule has no impact, but pressure gradients (Arnolds "poor mans area rule") are used. This is why I calculate a T-tail right now, as the elevator is creating a lot of low pressure areas which create too much drag.
At the moment (after loosing funding due to Corona) I am happy if I manage to build at least one. But as soon as one is flying and tested thoroughly, there is nothing against selling it in kit form. Price would be 300k$ if built in single orders or 200k$ for one per month. This sounds high as the JSX-2 is ~150k$, but instead of getting only a few aluminum sheets, it comes already painted and sanded, so that you only have to glue left and right half together (saving at least a 1000h of work).As mentioned by others here, if your target speeds are achieved with the structure able to withstand aerobatic loads, your airplane will surely be a lucrative project.
Have you pondered on whether it would be supplied in kit form or fully manufacturing it?
Unlike the first draft, it has a center tank, so the wings are free for wing tanks. No problem doing that, except that you need some connectors and extra pumps. As the weight is inside the wing, it does not add up to the spar (so no change required here). The aircraft is using 450kg class parts, so it has capability to "grow" by 70kg, which means that the fuel can be +50% (or another 20gal) --> cruise up to 3h possible at slightly lower speed.Also, I immediately wondered if this could have a later variant version:
An option for a less aerobatically capable version, with extended wingtip tanks for some very desirable range, up to the 600kg EASA limit.
Your thoughts on this possibility, with regards to lift and wing area, structural load bearing, and drag?
The response was to my query whether Scheny has considered increasing the fuel capacity and if the wing area should be increased in this case, but as he replied the current parameters are sufficient to bear the added weight with no major difference to the speeds.Pretty sure drag will vary as the square of the velocity rather than in a linear fashion... No?