You can see more pictures in this collection of Flying Flea meetings. Go see Pont sur Yonne for this one.Nest, that airframe is a good looking design. What happened when they mounted the engine?
Looks like a big hairy mole on a beauty queen!
Is there more info on this Pou?
Victor Bravo, is post 541 the same fuselage as the one in the 3D of Erkki67? Erkki67 refers to a Ranger design.WAIT A MINUTE !
OMFG am I brain-fart stupid or what!?
There IS a large tube running under the small portion of the fuselage already. So just sizing the diameter and thickness of that tube... as appropriate to take those interplane torsion loads... and boom, that issue is solved.
Sorry Fritz, my brain didn't catch up to this before I took a second look at the rendering in Post 541 !
or Romibutter!?Victor Bravo, is post 541 the same fuselage as the one in the 3D of Erkki67? Erkki67 refers to a Ranger design.
Erkki67, you say: "To reduce the torsion effect, both wing might be joined at the folding hinge"
I think that making a connection between both wings might prevent the wingtips of the rear wing go back and forwards, but i guess those connections are too horizontal to prevent wingtips of rear wing going up and downwards.
Hmmm, just me thinking out loud now. Would a single tube be not heavier to counter torsion than two rectangular tubes like in Butterfly? I seem to keep returning to the Butterfly a lot.