Facet Opel

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
6,051
Location
Australian
Somewhere here on HBA Cheapracer posted some photos he took of the landing gear. It is pretty compact but would need some cleanup for a commercial version. There are so many posts about the Opal I just couldn't find the pics with a quick search.
i,ll post them all when i get home.

I spent the afternoon with Dean Winton, I think i got some model plans from him, have a look later.

I was in contact with the owner of the only 1/3rd scale model Dean built, it was for sale and he wanted Dean to buy it back. Not sure what happened thete.

Both Dean and Scott were unhappy with the airfoil choice for the Opal, naca 6 series if i remember, they were going to change it.

.
 

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
6,051
Location
Australian
........
 

Attachments

nestofdragons

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
277
Location
Near Antwerp, Belgium
View attachment 98115
for me it would be desirable to have this fuselage of the red lower bird, why not a Polini Thor 250 or similar powerplant, and a sturdy suspended central wheel. The center section should not be wider then 2500mm or less to remain street legal here in Europe. No composites.sheet metals why not, even if I would prefer wood. An a overall design similar to the Pelican, with a bit less wingspan, due to the power increase from 15 to 35hp.
I like the yellow one in your drawing. Sorry, Flying Wing fan but also Flying Flea fan. ;) Did you ever hear about the Butterfly? It is the most basic Flying Flea which was motorized. Sadly no plans available. Plans of the Pouchel are still available.
 

erkki67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
1,971
Location
Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
The Opal is a Hotrod, too much for my abilities to handle. I wouldn’t mind to fly a nimble flying wing, but it would have to remain docile and nimble.
695C6C2F-1886-462D-B14B-110A1103B821.jpeg
this critter without its booms, fins on the wing and a wider airfoil
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
6,992
Location
Rocky Mountains
this critter without its booms
Leave the booms.
They add minimal construction time or cost and can be made VERY easily removable/folding with auto connect rudders. For this example I'd also even add fixed horizontal stab to improve the pitch damping.
It's no longer a pure flying wing but it may be a better solution to the desired mission.
 

nestofdragons

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
277
Location
Near Antwerp, Belgium
Erkki67, if you intend to delete the booms, don't make the same mistake as JC Debreyer did in his Pelican. He placed the two vertical fins just next to the prop and that resulted in vibrations in the stick ALL FLIGHT LONG. :rolleyes:
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,234
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
this critter without its booms, fins on the wing and a wider airfoil
... would be the Backstrom EPB "Plank", which would simply not fly as well.

If you want the fin on the wing, and a wider airfoil, in reality you must start looking at the Marske flying wing configuration. Marske addressed these issues by accepting a modest increase in build complexity, by using a tapered wing planform. Once the additional construction time (of different ribs) has been accepted, you get the benefit of having the elevator and fin(s) further behind the CG, yielding better stability without the booms.

So I would suggest that you spend a small amount of time looking at the Marske Monarch ultralight sailplane. This configuration could be built with the Afford-a-plane style fuselage, and one of Fritz' tab-and-slot wooden wings.

 

nestofdragons

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
277
Location
Near Antwerp, Belgium
I promised picture of Fauvel sideways on trailer.

IMG_7464.JPG
****. This was the Fauvel. Sadly no picture of it on trailer. You can see nose can be dismounted and also the rudders.
 

Jay Kempf

Curmudgeon in Training (CIT)
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,900
Location
Warren, VT USA
Both Dean and Scott were unhappy with the airfoil choice for the Opal, NACA 6 series if i remember, they were going to change it.

.
This thing you say: this is the devil in the details. 2D airfoil performance and especially those that claim NLF are to be suspect when it comes to stall break or even the flow behavior across the drag bucket limits. 3D wing arrangement can fix a lot of that. But if the airfoil is bad to begin with weird characteristics will propagate to the entire AOA regime.

So, what airfoil or airfoils would solve the twitchiness? And what spanwise arrangement would enhance even more? Tricky questions.
 

erkki67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
1,971
Location
Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
But the thing is to keep the span as short as possible and square as possible, to simplify its construction. I wouldn’t mind to have the engine up in front as a tractor or as a pusher. Further to keep two inline wheels as a MLG , why not a bush mainwheel with a smaller secondary wheel.
 

sigrana

Active Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
28
Location
Australia
(Moved from "Affecting Thrust, Propeller". See photo there for an image of this aircraft.)
PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL ENOUGH TO USE THE REAL NAME OF THE CRAFT : FACET "OPAL" (not opel).
KINDLY RENAME THIS THREAD!
(Moved from "Affecting Thrust, Propeller". See photo there for an image of this aircraft.)



Perhaps you might know one thing that I can't see in the available photos. I looks like the aircraft has elevons extending from outboard of the vertical stabilizers to near the tips, rather than separate elevators and ailerons. Do you know which configuration was in use? Some of the stuff in Nickel & Wohlfart's book suggest that separate surfaces might be desirable in a flying plank, and I was wondering what the Opel's designer was using.

The other piece of information I'd like to know was the approximate aspect ratio. Looks mighty small, although he appears to be making use of that to increase the chord and maybe get a little more pitch damping out of the wing. I'm completely guessing on that latter - any thoughts?


Perhaps you might know one thing that I can't see in the available photos. I looks like the aircraft has elevons extending from outboard of the vertical stabilizers to near the tips, rather than separate elevators and ailerons. Do you know which configuration was in use? Some of the stuff in Nickel & Wohlfart's book suggest that separate surfaces might be desirable in a flying plank, and I was wondering what the Opel's designer was using.

The other piece of information I'd like to know was the approximate aspect ratio. Looks mighty small, although he appears to be making use of that to increase the chord and maybe get a little more pitch damping out of the wing. I'm completely guessing on that latter - any thoughts?
 
2
Top