Quantcast

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

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,421
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Nose gear, help, youuuuuu said nose gear arrrghhhhh! 🤪
My fingers still hurt from typing that. However, as per an age-old saying, there are them who have groundlooped and them that will. That 6 or 8 foot long fuselage with no mass is gonna be a b***h and no fun to land.

There's a time and place for everything, even nosewheels.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,493
Location
Rocky Mountains
There's a time and place for everything, even nosewheels.
That may have been true in the transition years. With modern technology if we can manage to fly statically unstable aircraft and normal humans can fly model helicopters inverted we should be able to tame a short wheel base tail wheel?

Simple and cheap? That can be argued.
 

blane.c

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
4,492
Location
capital district NY
How hard it is to handle will be directly proportionate to take-off speed and landing speed the lower the speed the less it will be an issue.

As light as this thing is maybe just put roller skates on erkki67 and let him adjust landing gear position to suit himself?
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,545
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
Ground handling argument I'll leave to you guys, but I don't think you'll have a "bunt" issue because you've got aerodynamic pitch control instead of the cyclic weight shift ( tipping the wing = tipping the fuselage , ditto tipping rotor ) you have in a Gyro.

There were several crashes from "bunting" during the very early "ultralight" days, when people bolted go-cart engines to hang gliders. When they hit low gravity by maneuvering or turbulence, engine thrust, if not aligned with the CG, dominated. There's a parallel with Gyros. Same problem, different "wings".

You will need adequate pitch authority both at full throttle & gliding, true. But that should be a basic requirement in any case.
 

rotax618

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
1,035
Location
Evans Head Australia
Before you go much further with Sockmonkey’s design you should build a simple foam RC model, use a common fuselage and try different wing planforms (rectangular, circular, semi-circular and elipsoid). Since the wing has a very short span a few different size ribs shouldn’t be a problem. You will most likely find as Charles Zimmerman did that the rectangular shape is the least efficient and is the least stable at high angles of attack.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,893
Location
Europe
Before you go much further with Sockmonkey’s design you should build a simple foam RC model, use a common fuselage and try different wing planforms (rectangular, circular, semi-circular and elipsoid). Since the wing has a very short span a few different size ribs shouldn’t be a problem. You will most likely find as Charles Zimmerman did that the rectangular shape is the least efficient and is the least stable at high angles of attack.
Before you go much further with Sockmonkey’s design you should build a simple foam RC model, use a common fuselage and try different wing planforms (rectangular, circular, semi-circular and elipsoid). Since the wing has a very short span a few different size ribs shouldn’t be a problem. You will most likely find as Charles Zimmerman did that the rectangular shape is the least efficient and is the least stable at high angles of attack.
How about the Aerovironment's Helios foil..concept has similarities.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,421
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
R/C model testing is absolutely the best possible way to determine if an overall aircraft configuration will be safe, controllable, etc. on a low ""homebuilder" budget.

There are formulas and calculations that allow you to adjust the weight of the model to be in correct proportion to the full size version. All of that is known and proven to be reasonably accurate.

A 1/4 or 1/3 size model of these small single seat design idea will be easily built and provide very important information.

The other choice is to use millions of dollars worth of computer software and hundreds of hours of computer simulation time. Please trust me that a foam model will cost far less.
 

rotax618

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
1,035
Location
Evans Head Australia
I am not advocating that you will get a perfect simulation from a model, but if you use it to compare planforms and get an idea of low speed handling and CG then it is worthwile.
 

erkki67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
2,376
Location
Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
Trikes are pretty short coupled nose gear birds, right?! They don’t have stability issues for ground handling. So if we take this in mind, the flying of the plank is the only mystery to solve.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,893
Location
Europe
R/C model testing is absolutely the best possible way to determine if an overall aircraft configuration will be safe, controllable, etc. on a low ""homebuilder" budget.

There are formulas and calculations that allow you to adjust the weight of the model to be in correct proportion to the full size version. All of that is known and proven to be reasonably accurate.

A 1/4 or 1/3 size model of these small single seat design idea will be easily built and provide very important information.

The other choice is to use millions of dollars worth of computer software and hundreds of hours of computer simulation time. Please trust me that a foam model will cost far less.
I am inclined to agree with you.
 
Top