nestofdragons
Well-Known Member
May i know why you think this? Glideratio 27 is not bad for a hangglider. It is even very good.The swift is a neat looking flying wing with what looks like good performance BUT simple it is NOT.
May i know why you think this? Glideratio 27 is not bad for a hangglider. It is even very good.The swift is a neat looking flying wing with what looks like good performance BUT simple it is NOT.
Thank you very much. At least I don't just talk about it.. You mean this one.But I would take the monarch any time.
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.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.
View attachment 99326
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.
View attachment 99328
so this one with an LAR of about 1:3 with up folding the outer panels And a very long landing gear!!!
What is the aspect ratio of your wing, and what is it’s surface?Thank you very much. At least I don't just talk about it.
If it would be for high performance, the Horten birds are unmatched, but for the pure joy of sightseeing they are nonsense.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.
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.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.
erkkiWhat is the aspect ratio of your wing, and what is it’s surface?
how do you store and transport it?
rgds Erkki
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.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?
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.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.