The triangle tip surface has been called an "elevator" in other Kasper documents I've seen.I guess I have fumbled the ball on this, since I promised to post my idea on how the control system might work.
Sometimes reality gets in the way of having fun! (By the way, if anyone is low on stress, I have plenty to pass around.:nervous
Anyway, I have been thinking about the problem, and came across this diagram of the KasperWing control hookup:
Not, the same scheme as the Falter 1, since the KasperWing uses tip rudders, but I see several mixers in there. And this is just one wing. This would be duplicated on the other side. I believe the Kasper wing uses the tip rudders along with elevons. But there appears to be something on this diagram that looks like flaps.
Hold on a bit...
Took another closer look at the diagram. There are 4 horizontal control surfaces. Starting from the tip and working inwards, my guess is that they are: Aileron, elevator, "flaperator", "flaperator", and flap.
I am intrigued by the possibility of a tailless design, similar to the Mitchel B-10, KasperWing, or Nickel's Falter 1. Except with a rigid wing and pod. LSA size. Two seats preferably side-by-side, if the change in CG with 2 people can be accommodated. Otherwise, it would have to be tandem. But the Hoerner PUL-10 is side-by-side, so I know it is possible.
I could if I had a dictionary in my lap. If you could actually read the fuzzy picture you could use Google translate..... anyone able to translate the German?
Exactly right.I am guessing that the adjacent inboard and outboard portions open in opposite directions (diferentially) to give rudder/yaw control ?
Another steering possibility is connecting rudder pedals to left & right wheel brakes .. Steering with the brakes and and letting the nosewheel caster freely .. perhaps not the most elegant, but many planes use this arrangement effectively.If you want a steerable nose wheel you are going to have a problem with the scheme as shown on the Falter 1 or KasperWing. This is because each rudder pedal is independent, and hooking them to the steering will negate this. One solution is to have springs to hold the rudders so that they work in only one direction, allowing the rudder pedals to work as in a 'normal' plane. Personally, I don't like the idea of springs.
Another solution is to use tip rudders, as in this page from Nickels book:
View attachment 30858
Note that both tip rudders are displaced, but one is more so than the other. This can be achieved by a differential bellcrank, like is used for differential ailerons. This would allow the rudder pedals to be coupled together and tied to the steering...
I'm not sure, but I believe this is just a conceptual drawing to illustrate his main point. So I don't think you can draw any conclusions from the relative size and direction of the arrows.Note the force vector from the left tip rudder in the picture is almost aligned with the CG...
I think it would certainly reduce drag and inertia---no 'potential' about it.Tip rudders can be very effective for yaw control, but one of the main motivations for the Falter 1 design was the elimination of vertical surfaces, potentially reducing drag & inertia.
Conceptual, yes, but the Frise nose feature he is describing creates much greater drag when deflected outwards than when deflected inwards.I'm not sure, but I believe this is just a conceptual drawing to illustrate his main point. So I don't think you can draw any conclusions from the relative size and direction of the arrows.
Not necessarily .. it's not as easy as simply eliminating vertical surfaces .. you have to replace them with something else that performs the same function.I think it would certainly reduce drag and inertia---no 'potential' about it.
-yes,in "Tailless aircraft" it is discussion about longitudal stability...I don't remember the details at the moment, but Nickel discusses this problem, what causes it, and how to avoid tuck. I think it has something to do with the CG being too far to the rear, IIRC, but don't hold me to that.