A random thought...
The Bachem Ba349 Natter used elevons on the tail and a rudder. Not the most successful plane in the world to draw inspiration from, I admit, but hang on a sec.
Those elevons were probably not terribly effective and would be even less so if they had to overcome the inertia and drag of longer wings. But what about a cruciform tail, four control surfaces, up/down and left/right, with the horizontal ones acting as elevators, the vertical ones acting as rudders and ***all four*** acting in unison as ailerons?
Yes, the tail would be wagging the dog and, yes, the rear fuselage would need to be strong in torsion, and yes, roll probably won't impress a Pitts, but would it work?
Why bother? Well, imagine how much easier it would be to fold or remove the wing for transport or storage with ***no control surfaces and therefore no control runs to connect/disconnect***?!
The hard part is going to be the 3-axis control mixer, haven't worked that out yet. ;-)
Cheers,
Matthew
The Bachem Ba349 Natter used elevons on the tail and a rudder. Not the most successful plane in the world to draw inspiration from, I admit, but hang on a sec.
Those elevons were probably not terribly effective and would be even less so if they had to overcome the inertia and drag of longer wings. But what about a cruciform tail, four control surfaces, up/down and left/right, with the horizontal ones acting as elevators, the vertical ones acting as rudders and ***all four*** acting in unison as ailerons?
Yes, the tail would be wagging the dog and, yes, the rear fuselage would need to be strong in torsion, and yes, roll probably won't impress a Pitts, but would it work?
Why bother? Well, imagine how much easier it would be to fold or remove the wing for transport or storage with ***no control surfaces and therefore no control runs to connect/disconnect***?!
The hard part is going to be the 3-axis control mixer, haven't worked that out yet. ;-)
Cheers,
Matthew
