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

[Victor Bravo]

(Commanding voice of The Brain)
{voice actor Maurice Lamarche doing a combination of 80% Orson Welles and 20% Vincent Price}

" We now return you to your original programming..."

A flying wing design for cheap and simple fun flying is not going to be any tail-sitting, tilt-rotoring, swing-wing-ing, Mighty Morphing Transformer. It's not going to be a carbon Horten wing with an aspect ratio of 25, and Mister Scott's Dilithium Drive, or a hybrid electric Tesla coil-Jacob's Ladder plasma drive.

Felix the Cat's magic bag with the miracle battery is just plain not here yet, and it won't be here (or cheap/simple) for a few years. There are of course several high-tech German racing sailplanes that have incredible performance with electric, but that is neither simple or cost-effective for an average coupon-clipping cheapskate like most of us.

Come on you guys, that odd-ball s**t is for a different thread.

Mr. Whittaker's MW-9 plank is relevant to this subject. The Debreyer Pelican and perhaps other powered Fauvel derivatives, the Al Backstrom Powered Plank, and perhaps a newer simpler take on the Facet Opal would be relevant here. Some of Sockmonkey's flying wing contributions to the "motorcycle of the air" and "VP-21" threads are probably relevant.

The half-scale YB-49 with six small turbojets, and making a manned version of the MacCready / AeroVironment Helios are not.

I'm not trying to suggest limiting this thread to those specific choices, but I think that we should keep to the original spirit.

 

[Topaz]

... I'm not trying to suggest limiting this thread to those specific choices, but I think that we should keep to the original spirit.

That spirit would notably be more on-topic for this particular thread.

 

[jedi]

And with this comment another new thread is born. My intent is a continuation of the VP-21 and Flying Motorcycle of the Air related threads but focused on only the flying wing option as a solution. For the purposes of this thread lets define a flying wing fairly loosely.

It can be any combination of:
Flying plank
Swept wing, either positive or negative
It can have a defined fuselage
It can have vertical surfaces for yaw control
It can have external control devices - such a junkers style flaperonl/elevons.
It can be a pusher or a tractor
It can be a BWB

Based on the other threads like this it should also be/have:
Easy and cheap to build
Build-able from plans or CAD files yet possible to produce in kit form for a 'reasonable' price
Trailer-able and/or capable of being stored outside
Large enough to fit an average US male
'Reasonable' performance
Not weird looking or intimidating to a pilot or non-pilot

============
Let the Idea tossing begin :ban:

As this thread approaches 100 pages it may be time to refer to the OP and ask what are the mission specifications?

It occures to me that a typical weight shift trike is well within the above specification. Is a flex wing acceptable?

I like the idea of a pitch stable (flying wing like) wing with weight shift for trim and an aft mounted surface (elevator) for aerodynamic pitch control. The wing could be flex wing or rigid wing or a combination of each.

 

[Hot Wings]

As this thread approaches 100 pages it may be time to refer to the OP and ask what are the mission specifications?

My mission specifications are a little different than a VP-21 replacement in flying wing form. But for the purposes of this thread I don't think it should be limited by my wants/needs.

My wants:
ABS as a building material. That is Anything But Spruce. I really like working with wood but it just isn't a practical or cost effective material for those of us that have to depend on shipping to get our wood.
Trailer-able. Can go from road to flight in under 10 minutes with all automatic control hookups.
Inexpensive to operate. That means low fuel burn, durable with easy maintenance and storage in a typical garage stall or the 20 ft sea can.
Easy, quick and inexpensive to build. I know - pick any 2. .............This is what leads me to the flying wing.
Good view from the cockpit. This leads me to a pusher. I'm willing to accept the standard pusher 'problems'.
Able to be built to part 103 parameters would be a nice bonus, but not required.

I'm also currently limited to 200 sq ft of building space with some dry cold storage on the side. This is leading me to a composite wing inspired by the Debreyer Pelican and AV-36 with an industrial V-twin.

Edit:
Flex wing, to me, seems like a viable path for some. I'd prefer an enclosed cockpit.

 

[Hephaestus]

" We now return you to your original programming..."

Sorry I must have worded it funny, because I had referenced the dobsons physical layout - not the vtol or anything crazy. Because it largely is flying wing, with a minimal fuselage...

Some people go way off into crazy ideas

 

[mcrae0104]

Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

I think so, Brain, but how are we going to reinvent the Affordaplane into a more homogeneous project?

 

[Hephaestus]

I think so, Brain, but how are we going to reinvent the Affordaplane into a more homogeneous project?

We're all going to send fritz alcohol and pc upgrade parts and lure him back... And stop asking when he's going to post more

 

[Victor Bravo]

I think so, Brain, but how are we going to reinvent the Affordaplane into a more homogeneous project?

The same way we reinvent it every night, Pinky... try to take over the discussion thread!

 

[Ventura]

Debrayer isn't interested in ... I think there is more of a market for it than there is for the AV-36. In our modern world a composite version of that seems to make a lot more sense than the wood AV-36. The have a slightly different mission but there is enough overlap to make me happy with the smaller plane.

Yes.

I am not an engineer, however the Pelican looks like an AV. 36 just with clipped wings?

 

[Victor Bravo]

Yes, the Pelican is a clipped wing Av-36 derivative.

My version, if I were to build it, would be in aluminum sheet metal and aluminum tube & gusset structure, fabric covered, and with a little more power than what Debreyer was trying to get away with..

 

[erkki67]

And my derivate would be inspired by the Pelican only, with a tractor engine and squared panels, whereof the outer panels have the Elevons and are tilting slightly upwards.

 

[Ventura]

Could be that the Pelican was just another modification of this (lower part)

RETROPLANE.net :: Voir le sujet - Projet Retro pour moteur électrique

Forum Retroplane.net - Le site des maquettes planeurs retro, plans, astuces de construction, documentations, photos, videos, et la rencontre annuelle VDP RETROPLANE

www.retroplane.net

?

I am looking for a kind of nosewheel operation, closed cockpit and weight at or below 115KG. A kind of AV 36 derivate could provide it.

 

[Ventura]

Yes, the Pelican is a clipped wing Av-36 derivative.

My version, if I were to build it, would be in aluminum sheet metal and aluminum tube & gusset structure, fabric covered, and with a little more power than what Debreyer was trying to get away with..

That is exactly my idea.

 

[Victor Bravo]

And my derivate would be inspired by the Pelican only, with a tractor engine and squared panels, whereof the outer panels have the Elevons and are tilting slightly upwards.View attachment 105748

Erkki, on your layout, the pilot's butt is going to have to be at the same location as the spar. Any further forward and you are going to have a forward-swept wig, which causes all sorts of other design issues.

 

[Sockmonkey]

This is one of the reasons I generally favor a high wing for this. Also, you can get away with using solid straight spars with no dihedral.

 

[Hot Wings]

And my derivate would be inspired by

The AV-22 might be a better starting point?

 

[erkki67]

Erkki, on your layout, the pilot's butt is going to have to be at the same location as the spar. Any further forward and you are going to have a forward-swept wig, which causes all sorts of other design issues.

The pilots butt shall be behind the spar, to counterweight the engine.

engine wise, I would go to anything between 30 and 40hp

 

[Victor Bravo]

The pilots butt shall be behind the spar, to counterweight the engine.

I'll be happy to provide a list of the problems that causes. Do you want those listed alphabetically or chronologically?

I actually have several flights in a very small aircraft where the pilot sat in the middle of the wing between the front and rear spars. Definitely not something for a fun sport plane where safety, visibility, and convenience are of any value.

Erkki, I apologize, I am not trying to "shoot down" any of your creativity.

 

[erkki67]

The ideas of mike W with a tractor engine was just what I was looking for.

 

[erkki67]

Or the birds of Sockmonkey!