Models typically have a much higher thrust-to-weight or horsepower-to-weight ratio than full-scale aircraft. That factors into the same performance equations we use for "real" aircraft. A C-150 would perform a lot better with three times the power for the same weight, too, and the engine isn't doing the lifting. Not directly, anyway.As I understand it, scaling up is a completely different problem from scaling down, as most powered models are over powered. Which I think would mean that the engine by itself does a lot of the lifting.
You're not the first. I liked the idea of the facetmobile, but it needed more span and a higher AR for my far103 plans. I'm looking at a faceted lifting body, with foldable wings sticking out. I'm not planning to smooth the centre. Wings I'm currently thinking d box then ribs/fabric. On my smartphone too, it sucks!Just had a thought....take something like the fact mobile, except smooth it out, and extend the wings outward with sweep.
Don't confuse stability with damping....are you still getting lateral stability with no vertical tail? If you say so, I believe it, and that would be an amazing feature.
"turbulence behind the engine pod==lots of drag!My latest iteration....
View attachment 55467
You can see the extended center section chord. This has a tremendous beneficial effect on the longitudinal stability. I guess it is acting like a horizontal stabilizer.
In this picture I have added a canopy and engine pod. This is the first iteration of the canopy/pod, but you can get the idea. As you can see, there is more work to be done.
The picture shows the air stream coming off the structure. Lots of turbulence behind the engine pod==lots of drag! With the wing by itself, everything is nice and smooth. As I have said before in other posts (not necessarily in this thread), XFLR5 is not a CAD program, and doing structure design, even in outline form like this, is clumsy at the best.
Just remember that that formula is 60 years old. A lot has been learned since then. Horten used an 18 or 19% thick airfoil section at the root of many of his planes but LD of his sections was not very impressive compared to later designs. Here's an XFLR5 comparison of a 19% thick airfoil I produced with that spreadsheet some time ago with one of my whales and a version of the NACA 23112 that I blew up to 19%*. I hope the graph is still legible after the site compression gets through with it. I'm also attaching the coords of my whale. As usual you'll have to change the extension to .DAT