Flying wing as cheap and simple option for basic fun flying.

[erkki67]

Sockmonkey, do you have the dimensions and a 3 view available for the taildragger

 

[rotax618]

Unfortunately a taildragger with such a short couple is far more likely to flip on it’s back under braking, also a tricycle UC can provide a greater rotation angle for a given UC length with the mains being located further aft.
I recon Sockmonkey has nailed it - now who is going to build a 1/3 model for testing?

 

[Sockmonkey]

Sockmonkey, do you have the dimensions and a 3 view available for the taildragger

It's a sketchup model, so yeah I can show those. Added more rudder.

The wing is 3 meters by 6 meters, so the other measurements can work off that.
One of the reasons I chose the 6 meter span is because if you do it in wood, the main spar can be one piece. Also the assembled wing would just fit in a shipping container when the little hoener tips come off.

 

[erkki67]

You might require some rudder surfacer in the upper prop slipstream as well

 

[Victor Bravo]

Sockmonkey your little LAR plank looks interesting, but I have to tell you that on landing it would make a Luscombe Phantom look like a basic student trainer.

 

[addicted2climbing]

It's a sketchup model, so yeah I can show those. Added more rudder.

The wing is 3 meters by 6 meters, so the other measurements can work off that.
One of the reasons I chose the 6 meter span is because if you do it in wood, the main spar can be one piece. Also the assembled wing would just fit in a shipping container when the little hoener tips come off.

You added rudder!!!, seems like its overcompensating a bit...with that thin prop tube will this be electric? Or bury engine in thick wing?

 

[Sockmonkey]

Sockmonkey your little LAR plank looks interesting, but I have to tell you that on landing it would make a Luscombe Phantom look like a basic student trainer.

So the tricycle gear was better then? I was fine with either one.

You added rudder!!!, seems like its overcompensating a bit...with that thin prop tube will this be electric? Or bury engine in thick wing?

Eh, it's a short-couple rudder so big is good.
Engine buried in the wing.

 

[nestofdragons]

The sketchup model looks good. One suggestion: between the elevons use that part of the trailing edge as a possible trim surface. Still easy to make and might be helpfull in landings to keep elevons in neutral position. I guess they will be more effective that way. Or am i wrong? I am not the engineer in this group.

 

[nestofdragons]

Pretty Skyscooter!
How about folding that tail boom sideways ... so that it lays under the wings' trailing edge?

I will suggest your idea to the designer/builder. Thanks.

 

[Sockmonkey]

If done like so with a low engine, it's possible to nutcracker the wings for storage and trailering.

Either way, it's gonna need struts if we go with that super-narrow fuselage.

 

[poormansairforce]

That's enough wing area for a 2 seater! Hmmm.....

 

[Victor Bravo]

So the tricycle gear was better then? I was fine with either one.

I would bet that it would be almost un-manageable as a taildragger.

 

[rotax618]

The wing is thick enough to be a cantilever, a couple of cables would be sufficient to brace the fuselage to the wing and could be easily removed for folding. The wing could be made to pivot lengthwise on the fuselage at mid span and chord for storage.

 

[WonderousMountain]

I am pretty sure it's a ladder wing.
Also it's powered by a 300cc twin turbo flat twelve.
and no, don't brace a LAR wing, that's silly.

 

[cluttonfred]

I feel like we're making Sockmonkey into a dancing monkey with all these change requests, but he's being a good sport. ;-) I like the strut-bracing and the fuselage-mounted engine. An industrial V-twin with Ace redrive or a bottom-mounted engine (like a Sky Pup) could be used to raise the prop hub to allow a larger prop. Speaking of the Sky Pup, the horizontal beam gear (maybe nested square aluminum tubing instead of wood and 20" or 24" plastic bicycle wheels for ground clearance would suit this well. Exending the fuselage to the wing trailing edge would reduce the short-coupled ground handling that worries VB and allow for a more normal all-flying rudder with some balance area ahead of the rudder spar above the wing.

 

[rotax618]

There are a myriad of solutions to every problem, that is why an aeroplane can be described as a million compromises all flying in formation. A low engine will require a long UC and will require quite a bit of down thrust but if there are good reasons to mount the engine on the fuselage firewall other than it looks cool then OK. Struts or wires will be required if the fuselage is to be a mere profile to be sat on rather than in, to brace the structure for taxying and landing loads, the further back you can place the rudder will make the aircraft more stable in yaw and pleasant to fly. I think a fuselage more like the HM14 would provide better ‘all weather accomodation’, there is little benefit in the narrow fuse, you want to go fly a Drifter without the pod for a couple of hours and see how cold and windburnt you get.

 

[Hephaestus]

20" or 24" plastic bicycle wheels for ground clearance would suit this well.

Stay away from the plastic ones... Walk through Walmart or a bike shop and see how many fat Tire options you can find they've started appearing on kids bikes too.

 

[Sockmonkey]

That's enough wing area for a 2 seater! Hmmm.....

True, however the low AR cost some span efficiency while the reflex costs some lift, and I want to keep the wing loading low and takeoff run short while using a small cheap engine.

I would bet that it would be almost un-manageable as a taildragger.

Probably true.

The wing is thick enough to be a cantilever, a couple of cables would be sufficient to brace the fuselage to the wing and could be easily removed for folding. The wing could be made to pivot lengthwise on the fuselage at mid span and chord for storage.

I kind of hate cables. It's an esthetic preference rather than a practical one, but in this case it probably doesn't matter which you use. As short as the fuselage is, rotating the wing isn't going to get you enough to be worth it. Removing the wing would totally be worth it space-wise, but that's a rather large and awkward hunk of acreage for on person to manhandle out on the runway. Nutcracker-ing it in the middle would increase the height, but the width would be less than two meters when folded, which would be worth having, and could be done by one person using a single latch without having to lift anything. Hassle is a bigger deciding factor than most people think until they get the thing out there.

I am pretty sure it's a ladder wing.
Also it's powered by a 300cc twin turbo flat twelve.
and no, don't brace a LAR wing, that's silly.

If we go with the profile fuselage, the wing will need some sort of bracing to keep it from wobbling because that would put a lot of stress on the mountings.

I feel like we're making Sockmonkey into a dancing monkey with all these change requests, but he's being a good sport. ;-) I like the strut-bracing and the fuselage-mounted engine. An industrial V-twin with Ace redrive or a bottom-mounted engine (like a Sky Pup) could be used to raise the prop hub to allow a larger prop. Speaking of the Sky Pup, the horizontal beam gear (maybe nested square aluminum tubing instead of wood and 20" or 24" plastic bicycle wheels for ground clearance would suit this well. Exending the fuselage to the wing trailing edge would reduce the short-coupled ground handling that worries VB and allow for a more normal all-flying rudder with some balance area ahead of the rudder spar above the wing.

Where's my fookin' banana?
Seriously I love you guys.
It's actually flattering that that everyone has something to say because it tells me I'm on the right track with something people would be interested in building and flying.

There are a myriad of solutions to every problem, that is why an aeroplane can be described as a million compromises all flying in formation. A low engine will require a long UC and will require quite a bit of down thrust but if there are good reasons to mount the engine on the fuselage firewall other than it looks cool then OK. Struts or wires will be required if the fuselage is to be a mere profile to be sat on rather than in, to brace the structure for taxying and landing loads, the further back you can place the rudder will make the aircraft more stable in yaw and pleasant to fly. I think a fuselage more like the HM14 would provide better ‘all weather accomodation’, there is little benefit in the narrow fuse, you want to go fly a Drifter without the pod for a couple of hours and see how cold and windburnt you get.

In the models I've drawn up, even short gear gives plenty of ground clearance for a 1.5 meter prop.
Mounting the engine on the firewall makes it easy to access and makes it possible to remove or fold the wing.
Now my personal preference would be for at least a minimal cockpit because of the aforementioned wind burn and such. I would also make the thing two-axis as having the rudder mostly below the wing will cause it to naturally roll into the turn anyhow, and cut down on parts. I would also keep the wing fixed because it's already pretty compact. I'm going for maximum cheapness here. The flying chicken coop. Cheep cheep cheep.


Heh, I should name it the moody chicken.

imgur is being a jerk and won't let me upload my latest revisions, so gonna have to wait a bit on that.

 

[cluttonfred]

This sort of plank design is actually perfect for experimenting with two-axis (elevators + rudder) control. As long as you plan for a control mixer to add elevons later if desired, you’re good either way.

 

[rotax618]

A span of 16’-18’ would have adequate wing area for a single seater, 5’ to 6’ of the outer wing panels could be folded down using a modified upside down Mignet Flea system with the elevons on the outer panels. To go flying you would have to simply raise the outer panels and push in the locking pin, the elevon pushrods could simply rotate.