nestofdragons
Well-Known Member
May i know why you think this? Glideratio 27 is not bad for a hangglider. It is even very good.
Flying wing as cheap and simple option for basic fun flying.
- Thread starter Hot Wings
- Start date
Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:
nestofdragons
Well-Known Member
Monarch is a very proven aircraft of Jim Marske. At the end of the manufacturing period of the Marskes the plans were there to install a engine of a Monarch. Sadly never was really build. Reason might be that it was fa too easy to start it by a scooter tow.
rotax618
Well-Known Member
G’day Nestofdragons, the Swift is indeed a thing of beauty and a very sophisticated design, to achieve sufficient control over aeroelasticity on such a lightweight high aspect slender swept wing is quite an achievement, and is far outside of the specifications and aims of this thread. If you compare the structural and aerodynamic complexity with Sockmonkeys Possum, there is no comparison, the Possum has an 18-20’ span 1/2 dozen ribs (all the same size) a thick un-tapered low stressed spar or spars, no twist, and a minimal pilot enclosure hanging below the wing.
erkki67
Well-Known Member
What might be worth the discussion is which LAR might be ideal for such a square wing 1:2 or 1:4 or anything in there between.
my ideal is roadworthy with a maximal width of 2500mm or even better with a 20’ container inner dimension width and lenght.
so this one could have the wing span increased a bit but the depth reduced of the airfoil.
this if the airplane is to remain monoblock.
if the wing would be made in 3 parts, the situation changes a bit, with folding down or up outer panels, it would fit a 20’ container anyway.
so this one with an LAR of about 1:3 with up folding the outer panels And a very long landing gear!!!
my ideal is roadworthy with a maximal width of 2500mm or even better with a 20’ container inner dimension width and lenght.
so this one could have the wing span increased a bit but the depth reduced of the airfoil.
this if the airplane is to remain monoblock.
if the wing would be made in 3 parts, the situation changes a bit, with folding down or up outer panels, it would fit a 20’ container anyway.
so this one with an LAR of about 1:3 with up folding the outer panels And a very long landing gear!!!
I totally agree. Has anyone had a look at the Eska-1? It flew very well at altitude besides being a GE craft. If anyone likes the idea, I have the blue print of it. It is also not difficult to build and it will fly with a 30-50 hp motor.
erkki67
Well-Known Member
How does that bird look a like?
Mike W
Well-Known Member
Thank you very much. At least I don't just talk about it.
nestofdragons
Well-Known Member
I like the more compact design of the lowwing. But i have to admit that the highwing has advantages: wings can easily drop for storage. Landinggear is very easy to make and is short. View of pilot is better.
my only suggestion would be to try to keepfuselage as less high as possible. Pilot a bit more recumbent. If his head fits a bit in wing, eyeline just under wing is already saving height.
erkki67
Well-Known Member
What is the aspect ratio of your wing, and what is it’s surface?
how do you store and transport it?
rgds Erkki
erkki67
Well-Known Member
If it would be for high performance, the Horten birds are unmatched, but for the pure joy of sightseeing they are nonsense.
A bit more supine yes, why not, but with square type wing of not deeper than 2000mm or so, and a wingspan of 6000mm
Mike W shows that a pure wing can fly beautifully, and this would be a perfect match for a tractor bird.
á Fritz fuselage and Rudder with either a Sockmonkey or Mike W wing, sounds great to me.
Sockmonkey
Well-Known Member
I went with the high wing so the upper surface could be clean to make use of it's full area in order to keep the wing loading low, which is vital for a slow LAR plane, and to keep the wing construction simple as a high wing can be done without dihedral.
WonderousMountain
Well-Known Member
Wow,
That looks really survivable!
If you are looking for super low aspect ratio,
I'd suggest a three elements foil. Two fixed
Identical planks, & an all flying surface. Seems
Easier than a deep truss that needs to be built up
an supported. Not that I don't love diamond wing.
LuPii
That looks really survivable!
If you are looking for super low aspect ratio,
I'd suggest a three elements foil. Two fixed
Identical planks, & an all flying surface. Seems
Easier than a deep truss that needs to be built up
an supported. Not that I don't love diamond wing.
LuPii
Mike W
Well-Known Member
erkki
My wing is 23 ft span , Cord is 5.5 Ft, AR is 4.18 and the Aerofoil is Fauvel 14.
The wing is fabric covered with a ply LE. The fabric is attached with fabric cement and dope and is stitched at the reflex to ensure that it does not separate.
I store the aircraft in my garage with the wings stacked along each wall and the fuselage on it's wheels in between.
The wing is in two halves which spigot into a slightly larger tube located across the fuselage. It is located in a f glass bush in the center and is secured by a 5/15 dia pin at the outer support. See pic for details.
Initially we transported the aircraft on two trailers with two cars. I have now modified my Son in laws van to transport the wings on the roof rack with the fuselage on my motorcycle trailer towed behind. See pic. It was a bit of a struggle to unload the wings from the top of the van, we found it easier to undo the attaching U bolts and slide the assembly off backwards.
Flight testing has been held up with the pandemic. In the mean time I have doubled the opening of the somewhat sluggish rudders and added springs to the steering mechanism so that both rudders will open together as drag rudders to increase the decent rate during landing. We hope to commence testing in the next month.
Attachments
erkki67
Well-Known Member
Thank you Mike for this explanations, I m still wondering why you went with the pusher and not tractor, as the pusher is prone to eat all kind of debris thrown up from the landing gear?
why did you go with the 14% and not the 17%Fauvel airfoil?
what do you think about the eventual side effects of the idea of Sockmonkey’s plank, either the sit on top or sit below the wing and a central rudder?
what about a 3 piece wing for an easier transport?
why did you choose a tubular spar instead of a built up one, as with the tubular one you have a bit of material where you don’t desire it?
rgds Erkki
why did you go with the 14% and not the 17%Fauvel airfoil?
what do you think about the eventual side effects of the idea of Sockmonkey’s plank, either the sit on top or sit below the wing and a central rudder?
what about a 3 piece wing for an easier transport?
why did you choose a tubular spar instead of a built up one, as with the tubular one you have a bit of material where you don’t desire it?
rgds Erkki
erkki67
Well-Known Member
Mike, can you keep us or me informed about your progress with your flight testing?
erkki67
Well-Known Member
What do you think about an aspect ratio of 1:3 wing a wingspan of 6m or 6000mm and 2000 airfoil with a tractor layout, with 3, 2000mm panels?
Aerowerx
Well-Known Member
I won't answer for Mike, but in general a pusher prop improves lateral stability, similar to adding more rudder surface on a conventional plane. Tractor props reduce stability.
With a tailless aircraft you need all the help you can get.
Sockmonkey’s concept could work as a pusher though for me the motivation would not be stability but rather the ability to use a modern paramotor engine off the shelf. Put the engine behind the pilot operating in a generous slot or simply leave off the rear fuselage fabric and fit a large all-moving rudder.
nestofdragons
Well-Known Member
In general all people think like this when designing a Flying Wing. But ... Marko Stamenovic, a new rising star in Flying Wing world, once gave me a list with all the benefits of having a tractor prop on a flying wing. He convinced me to use a tractor prop on my SilverDragon project. And ... i totally believe him. At first he added some very tiny fins to keep it stable. The last design totally didn't need them anymore. The fuselage looks a bit like the Verhees Delta.
rotax618
Well-Known Member
Pushers are more difficult to design, to achieve any efficiency the inflow to the prop must be kept undisturbed, pushers are always far noisier than tractors the noise being inversely related to the prop clearance to any upstream part of the aircraft structure, the prop is far more prone to damage from fod, pusher engines are more difficult to keep cool, it is harder to design a reasonable rotation angle and maintain prop clearance....etc....etc, but they look Cool like a mini jet.
