CAR-251: The Cheap Air Racer Discussion thread.

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by nerobro, Sep 10, 2014.

1. Oct 2, 2014

nerobro

Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 6, 2011
Messages:
1,109
312
Location:
Northern Illinois
the 18 isn't feet.. it's stations. I did areas of each 6" section.

So to modify the curve... I need to, instead of multiplying the curve by each station, multiply the curve by "how different it is from the ideal".

Say my wing has an average chord of 2.5'. At the tip, where it's 1.5' it's only .6 the expected cord. So I'd multiply the lift there by .6. (well a little more since we'd be talking a point 3" in from the tip..) And at the root, where it's 3.5', I'd multiply the lift there by 1.4. (well, a little less because we'd be talking the slice of wing that's the last 6")

I can't wait to compare how the two number sets come out. Knowing the error will be ... uh.. entertaining.

2. Oct 2, 2014

Autodidact

Well-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 21, 2009
Messages:
4,513
799
Location:
Oklahoma
Average chord has nothing to do with it. I'm assuming that you're not wasting time and effort on purpose, so that means that you're just not getting the fundamental idea here... :cross:

Once more. Find the area of a slice, divide that slice by the total wing area, multiply the total lift by that ratio.

I don't see how you can not get this when you've been shown a really large attachment of a dotted line half-way between a trapezoid and an ellipse. Maybe I'm assuming wrong? OK, I'm being intolerant; it took me a while to catch on, too.

3. Oct 2, 2014

nerobro

Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 6, 2011
Messages:
1,109
312
Location:
Northern Illinois
Nope, not on purpose.

I think we're saying the same thing. Let me take another swing at this tonight.

4. Oct 2, 2014

nerobro

Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 6, 2011
Messages:
1,109
312
Location:
Northern Illinois
And that's where I suggested taking the mean chord and finding the modifier for each station. What I did last night was just use the actual mean chord of each station. so the numbers varied from 1.6 to 3.6. When they really should have been more like .6 through 1.4. (That way both my straight wing, and trapezoidal wing would have the same "area")

5. Oct 2, 2014

Matt G.

Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 16, 2011
Messages:
1,241
468
Location:
Kansas, USA
To save yourself future time and aggravation, I'd recommend setting up the quarter-circle and trapezoid with an area of 1 so that later on when you have to tweak the wing dimensions, you won't have to redo all of that.

Autodidact likes this.
6. Oct 24, 2014

nerobro

Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 6, 2011
Messages:
1,109
312
Location:
Northern Illinois
Geeze, I havent' touched this for three weeks. I have time this weekend.

Topaz likes this.
7. Oct 24, 2014

Topaz

Super ModeratorStaff Member

Joined:
Jul 30, 2005
Messages:
13,829
5,463
Location:
Orange County, California
It's hard keeping it going. Life has a way of interfering with priorities. :ermm:

If we both stick with it, we'll get there!

8. Nov 2, 2014

nerobro

Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 6, 2011
Messages:
1,109
312
Location:
Northern Illinois

Tri-gear, using 6" wheels. What wheels? I don't know yet. Who cares yet.

Wings still built on a flat surface.

Open cockpit. The ledge for the cockpit is 3.5 feet off the ground, which.. I don't know how that compares to other airplanes. I'm sure a toehold could be cut in the side of the fuselage for boarding.

Lots of room on the sides, and uninterrupted space across the tops of the wings for sponsors, race numbers, and whatever else might come to mind.

I think the engine could come up 6" or 12", but that will need to be re-done after an engine is converted for aero use. Sadly, if the engine moves up, it'll also make the nose look quite "normal" and I was hoping to keep the distinct profile.

Given my little "tutorial" on tapered surfaces in another thread, perhaps I should do something about the taper of the control surfaces on this thing. But I probably won't.

Autodidect gave me a bit of a tutorial on lift distribution. So.. next update will be full of numbers. If my brain won't do that, it'll be fuselage strength.

I came home and did this instead of going to the hackerspace for the holloween party.

9. Nov 2, 2014

BBerson

Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Dec 16, 2007
Messages:
12,172
2,393
Location:
Port Townsend WA
In the old days, they worried about small planes having the cockpit " blocking the air flow to the tail" or disturbing the effectiveness of the tail.
Looking at your side view reminded me of that. Something to consider.
Might be a big difference with open cockpit or smooth canopy like CriCri.

10. Nov 2, 2014

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member

Joined:
Feb 13, 2010
Messages:
6,430
2,280
Location:
World traveler
Kudos on keeping at the design, I need to get back to work on my own. A few thoughts...

--I'm sure you've run the numbers with a range of pilot weights, but that cockpit does look a bit far back to me.

--For simplicity and ease of building, why not run the top longeron in a straight horizontal line from nose to tail?

--How about moving the engine up so that the cowling top is in line with the wing upper surface and with the firewall projecting a little above the top longeron? That would give more prop clearance and allow a single fairing straight from firewall to wing a bit like the Volksplane.

--With the engine a bit higher you could more easily bevel the bottom of the firewall to reduce digging in during a hard and/or off-field landing.

Cheers,

Matthew

11. Nov 2, 2014

nerobro

Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 6, 2011
Messages:
1,109
312
Location:
Northern Illinois
I wonder if model testing would prove that out.. Otherwise that fin and rudder may need to grow.

It is! There's weight left over to allow for nose weight.

It does! the wing bolts on top of the top longeron.

A big portion of the cowling is defined by the 18" height of the engine. the crank is quite low, only about 6" off the motor bed.

I think this is the best argument for raising the motor. I'll ponder it. Say, raise the motor 6", lower the plane by 3". That'll lower the frontal area too.

12. Nov 2, 2014

BBerson

Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Dec 16, 2007
Messages:
12,172
2,393
Location:
Port Townsend WA
Model testing might help. But only if you load it down so much that it barely climbs to simulate the full scale.
The model pilot might not like the handling at scale weight.

13. Nov 2, 2014

nerobro

Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 6, 2011
Messages:
1,109
312
Location:
Northern Illinois
I'm completely ok with flying underpowered models. I had a lot of fun seeing just how much my planes could get off the ground. Up to, and including, planes that couldn't climb while turning.

14. Nov 2, 2014

BBerson

Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Dec 16, 2007
Messages:
12,172
2,393
Location:
Port Townsend WA
I didn't really mean underpowered. It should be scale power, not overpowered or underpowered. But also scale wing loading to get the scale downwash and other affects to provide useful results.

15. Nov 8, 2014

BJC

Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Oct 7, 2013
Messages:
9,693
6,483
Location:
97FL, Florida, USA
Anyone know what happened to this project? Aerochia LT-1

BJC

16. Nov 9, 2014

Rienk

Well-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 11, 2008
Messages:
1,364
190
Location:
Santa Maria, CA (SMX)
That's a really good question.
I wonder if they lost momentum when HKS closed down production for a while (that is the engine they were using).

I'm not sure if I think the airplane is good looking or ugly... it seems a bit cartoonish.
But though it may be a neat little airplane, it definitely is as expensive as everything else out there. $30k for a kit, plus engine, avionics, paint, etc. - is higher than the market is probably willing to pay. You can get a complete Onex for less than that (including engine). 17. Nov 10, 2014 RJW RJW Well-Known Member Joined: Feb 9, 2011 Messages: 703 Likes Received: 201 Location: Wisconsin and Kansas I like the “aluminum has its place” nonsense. It would take about two minutes to design an airplane that looks and performs like this in aluminum. Geeze, if you are going to use heavy, over-built composites how about a few compound curves? Oh well, I’m bored, Rob Angusnofangus, bmcj and autoreply like this. 18. Nov 11, 2014 bmcj bmcj Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter Joined: Apr 10, 2007 Messages: 12,963 Likes Received: 4,899 Location: Fresno, California You'd have to ask the cartoonist. 19. Mar 5, 2016 Swampyankee Swampyankee Well-Known Member Joined: Dec 25, 2015 Messages: 1,398 Likes Received: 357 Location: Earth USA East Coast Make it a claiming race: the winner has to sell the airplane for a price set in the rules, say$45,000. They can spend all they want, but they have to sell the plane for no more than that price. This would discourage spending a lot on the plane. Well, they could spend megadollars, but since the plane has a set price, this would tend to discourage the use of unobtainium parts.

20. Mar 5, 2016

Joined:
Nov 14, 2009
Messages:
6,437