Aerowerx is right, for the corresponding wing which goes down the ailerons must go up to push the wing down, so we pull the whole wing half down.
So the pushrods needs to be crossed at the stick.
You need to look at it again and follow it through its motion. I don't know if the throw amounts are correct or if the forces are viable....Or attached ahead of the wing pivot point.
I still don't see it.You need to look at it again and follow it through its motion. I don't know if the throw amounts are correct or if the forces are viable....
Ok, here ya go.I still don't see it.
Could you possibly redraw with the deflection, using the same dimensions for all the components, and in the proper relationship?
Another thing I wonder about is that the push-pull force is being applied at an angle to the wing. Doesn't that require a lot more force than if it is at a 90 degree angle?
The center is supported by the A-frame struts.You know what, they're right. The forces will be far less than a cantilever wing. But there will still be bending loads in the center.
There are other benefits. Less twisting force on the fuselage while banking. The downwash from the fore wing increases the lift on the aft wing. That's how fleas can stay level while climbing and descending. That means the half of the fore wing that deflects it's trailing edge down to increase it's lift will also increase the lift of the aft wing on that side so both contribute.Just seems like a needless development risk that offers little perceptible benefit over simply putting ailerons on the rear wing.
Looking at this, the "benefit" is a reducing the roll-control system by 2-4 pullies and about six feet of cable. The "cost" is breaking the spar at the middle of the span, large pressure leaks through the centerline when rolling - with the attendant increase in induced drag, and potentially wrenching control forces on the stick in gusty conditions.
I just don't see that it's worth it, myself.
Thank you, but I still don't get it.Ok, here ya go.
The amount of force the pilot needs to apply doesn't seem to be that much, but the proportions and exact positioning can be tweaked a bit.
Let me be clear, I'm not advocating or rejecting this idea. I just wanted everyone to be on the same page. The forces due to the angles will be different, that is certainAnother thing I wonder about is that the push-pull force is being applied at an angle to the wing. Doesn't that require a lot more force than if it is at a 90 degree angle?
That's actually the far better idea, if one simply can't handle ailerons on the rear wing for some reason. Rutan tried this on one of the EZE prototypes and had very poor results, but then the canard on the EZE's was a very small surface, relative to the wing. It would take a lot of calculation and probably some additional testing, but the fact that a "flea" derivative has much larger front wing might make this possible. You'd still have the added complexity of a mixer, but that's an individual choice.... Honestly if you don't want to split the fore wing, just stick full length flapelevons on the fore wing instead of the rear one. They will still do all the things you need.