Discussion: Conceptual Design of an "Inexpensive" Single-Seat Motorglider

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Topaz, Sep 10, 2014.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Apr 11, 2016 #541
    If your centre sections had some anhedral and therefore extended slightly below the fuselage could you use that for impact resistance? Wheel safely crushes up and then the wings spring up too?
     
  2. Apr 11, 2016 #542

    RPM314

    RPM314

    RPM314

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Messages:
    723
    Likes Received:
    300
    Location:
    NY, USA
    I think that if the center went down far enough, it would make the wingtips drive through the ground.
     
  3. Apr 11, 2016 #543
    only anhedral on the centre section. So a w-wing a-la stuka/corsair.
     
  4. Apr 11, 2016 #544

    RPM314

    RPM314

    RPM314

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Messages:
    723
    Likes Received:
    300
    Location:
    NY, USA
    Ah, an inverted gull wing. I think sailplanes used to do that for a short time in the 80s or something.
     
  5. Apr 11, 2016 #545

    Jan Carlsson

    Jan Carlsson

    Jan Carlsson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Sweden
    What about the AH 93-K-130 to 132/15 series? and what is different between them except the 1/10 percent thickness and camber? are they used in any good(er) gliders?
     
  6. Apr 11, 2016 #546

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,419
    Likes Received:
    5,134
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Ah, I understand now. I think the drag penalty would be too high, but I'll consider it. Thanks.
     
  7. Apr 11, 2016 #547

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,419
    Likes Received:
    5,134
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    And there's a reason they're not used currently - weight and drag increase. A gull wing will have a higher induced drag than a planar wing or one with elliptical dihedral. While that might be a small penalty on a typical sportplane (because of all the other drag penalties going on), it will be a noticeable penalty for a glider.

    Some really creative ideas coming, though. That's cool.
     
  8. Apr 11, 2016 #548

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,419
    Likes Received:
    5,134
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Is this stepping back to airfoils? I don't have the coordinates for those sections. What's their current usage?
     
  9. Apr 11, 2016 #549

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    There's been considerable controversy about it, whether it's the actual airfoil of the ASH26/ASW27. Haven't found anything definitive so far and forgot to ask when I should have.
     
    Jan Carlsson and Topaz like this.
  10. Apr 11, 2016 #550

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    633
    Location:
    Norway
    The drag penalty of a skid might be negotiated by making it two and double as wing fairings. If the wing fairings where turned vertical they would also act like underbelly protection in a wheel up landing. The downside is again how it look, but you can probably do better than I me.
    ds54_side_1.jpg

    Next option does have a higher weight penalty. Move the outrigger wheel inboard and attach them to the two sturdy beams. The trouble is that the weight here probably is as large as a landing gear. With some detail change you could probably dismiss the retractable wheel, but then the retractable gear idea went out the window. And the lower drag benefit of a retractable gear.
    ds54_side2.jpg
     
  11. Apr 11, 2016 #551

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,419
    Likes Received:
    5,134
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    If they project at all below the belly of the aircraft, as they'd have to in order to act as impact attenuators, then that's at least two, and as many as four, more near-90° intersections added to the aircraft. The drag increase would be considerable.

    I'm not trying to play "yes, but..." with you guys. But you really do need to understand the sensitivity to drag we're talking about here. I'm already significantly compromising the airplane with my "ease of build" conic-sections fuselage. Adding even more drag is something I'm very strongly trying to avoid.
     
  12. Apr 11, 2016 #552

    Radicaldude1234

    Radicaldude1234

    Radicaldude1234

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Front Range, Colorado
    Thinking aloud here: would it be an option to partially, instead of fully, retract that center main wheel so you can use the tire as a shock absorber/skid? Drag penalty would be similar to having a separate skid and it would have the advantage of using to existing structure to serve a dual purpose...
     
  13. Apr 11, 2016 #553

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    633
    Location:
    Norway
    The analogy to the vertical wing root fairing is the P51 Mustang compared to the Spitfire. The Spitfire did have quite large wing root fairings, the Mustang did have the radiator scoop performing some of the same function.

    I do not find this “yes, but …” at all, rather a washing of ideas between engineers to find possible good solutions. Progress is best when both the pro and con of different solutions are found.
     
    Topaz likes this.
  14. Apr 11, 2016 #554

    Jan Carlsson

    Jan Carlsson

    Jan Carlsson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Sweden
    Sorry, I am late to the party, I was just thinking loud.

    About drag, I think you made the best out of it, you know the rules what made AR5 and 6 so fast, highest part of canopy over the TE, straight fuselage sides from wing highest point to or close to TE, canopy starting at wing highest point, and engine cowling fairing into the same point.

    Did you look into the B&S Vanguard engines?
    you seems to get it right, 30 or so HP, one liter of fuel for every HP is a good number. Calculate with 0.5 - 0.55 lb per HP, if can't lean the carb.

    And remember that most imperial engines is SAE rated, so use 85% of that for performance or size calculation. so to get 30 hp at the prop you need 35 SAE gross hp, or BHP
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2016
  15. Apr 11, 2016 #555

    Swampyankee

    Swampyankee

    Swampyankee

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,390
    Likes Received:
    355
    Location:
    Earth USA East Coast
    The least drag penalty and weight penalties would, obviously, be to follow traditions of light aircraft attention to crash safety, and do nothing. Otherwise, the least drag penalty would be to increase the fuselage height to accommodate the needed energy absorbing structure.
     
  16. Apr 11, 2016 #556

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,095
    Likes Received:
    5,901
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Many years ago, a friend and a true craftsman, and builder of five or six scratch-built airplanes, observed that engineers take forever to complete an airplane because they get distracted thinking about too many insignificant design details.


    BJC
     
    Topaz and BBerson like this.
  17. Apr 11, 2016 #557

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,536
    Likes Received:
    2,149
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    I would use one " external skid" perhaps 1" wide. Call it a " crash keel" or crash fin.
    The Rutan Defiant had a belly rudder called "rhino rudder", but not for crash crush.
    The skid in your drawing is what I suggested.
     
  18. Apr 11, 2016 #558

    Jan Carlsson

    Jan Carlsson

    Jan Carlsson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Sweden
    you don't want a center keel, but two one on each side.
     
  19. Apr 11, 2016 #559

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,536
    Likes Received:
    2,149
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    One center keel would streamline the center wheel.
    I don't recall if retractable or not. But leaving 4" wheel stick out while retracted is common. So my keel fairing would be less drag than nothing.
    The wheel really can't absorb crash like a purpose made crash keel.
     
  20. Apr 11, 2016 #560

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,419
    Likes Received:
    5,134
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    No worries at all. Great to have you back.

    I haven't. I haven't found a turn-key conversion for them, and coming up with my own is out-of-scope for this project. If you know of one, I'll consider it. Right now, I'm baselined on the 32 hp Hummel 1/2 VW.
     

Share This Page

arrow_white