# Cantilever parasol wings?

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### Riggerrob

##### Well-Known Member
P
Generally, I agree with Clutonfred. It should be 'traditional' in both looks and construction. Even so, there is a lot of wiggle room. Mossie's 3D models are quite nice, but as he stated they are what he imagines they should be. There is no way of knowing the exact construction details.
At the time, this is all flight had to say:
View attachment 84834 View attachment 84834
Flight also did a nice summary of the then state of the art Fokker welded steel fuselage:
View attachment 84835 View attachment 84836
I think it would be possible to keep it 'period' and still have a simpler fuselage:
View attachment 84837
This is the 1931 Georgias Special which I think is close in size. I estimate about 20 lbs. and $1000 worth of 4130. In 6061-T6 a little lighter and$500 less.
In comparison, the Airdrome Airplanes D.VIII fuselage seems too fiddly.

For the wing, probably a scaled down chocolate bar style wing. Plywood covered. The Cabane/Strut structure of the V.40 is almost perfect, providing very little restriction of the forward view.

There have been some comments about dihedral, but if the Cg is below the wing it isn't needed. In fact, the shoulder wing heavy lift Antonovs have anhedral.
——————————————————————————
Antonovs - and similar military jet cargo planes - have anhedral to compensate for the excess “dihedral effect” (roll stability) created by wing sweep.
Too much roll stability can create too much stability .... aka. Dutch Roll. That is why Boeing 727 had such a massive fin .... to compensate for all the stability created by the dihedraled, swept wings.

#### mcrae0104

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
That is why Boeing 727 had such a massive fin .... to compensate for all the stability created by the dihedraled, swept wings.
Not sure I follow you there--it had too much yaw stability, so they added fin area (another contributor to stability) to compensate?

Maybe you are thinking of a plane other than the 727, which has little dihedral.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
727 had a massive fin because there was a large air intake duct inside it, and it was also not very far aft of the CG. So I believe they needed a big fin primarily to create adequate tail moment... in addition to anything else related to sweep or dihedral.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
We’re a long way from Fokker-inspired parasols, but perhaps he meant the Boeing 707?

#### larr

##### Well-Known Member
Antonovs - and similar military jet cargo planes - have anhedral to compensate for the excess “dihedral effect” (roll stability) created by wing sweep.
Too much roll stability can create too much stability .... aka. Dutch Roll. That is why Boeing 727 had such a massive fin .... to compensate for all the stability created by the dihedraled, swept wings.
I think there is a tendency to over estimate that effect of wing sweep at small angles. For example, the 747 has greater sweep than the Antonov and still has dihedral.

Dutch roll is an unfortunate side effect of wing sweep, so that airliners all have yaw dampers.

Boeing has always used large vertical stabilizers even when there is no sweep - the B 17 is a good example of that.
And yeah, this is way OT. But I think it's an important discussion to have.
A V.40 replica would be just fine as it was. Except for the lack of a tail strake.