If my memory serves well, it was the designer/builder who crashed it and had a very long recovery in hospital.Did the designer crash?
I’ve heard of one gentleman crashing it, but according the designer , the builder and pilot integrated non approved modifications to his build , which led to the crash.
The later, I’ve only the designers point of view.
But the overall concept remains intriguing, but I’d add a ruder to it like the ULX from Argentina.
To start with it doesn't follow the Sprat formula. Take a look at the 1968 Spratt Patent and compare that with the control of the Sprat103.but the design, what is wrong with that or not?!
That is being very kind.The designer was described as having a rather big ego.
That is the whole point of the Spratt - the wings should never stall - either one. Unlike the Flea formula the pilot has no direct control of the AOA on a true Spratt. If the forces are handled properly then for other than inverted flight a Spratt should be self-correctingat least momentarily, when the front wing stalls.
That's something I hadn't thought of when messing with my 2-axis Spratt/Flea hybrid.There is a lot of myth and hyperbole surrounding freewing designs and a lot of people who see one or another approach as the magic bullet. There is no reason that the Spratt controlwing couldn't work as a simple two-axis aircraft as long as the CG was placed such that the tail was lifting and the wing loading substantially higher on the front wing than on the back wing. The problem I see with the Spratt design is that you lose control in both axes, at least momentarily, when the front wing stalls.
For that reason I prefer the Mignet approach, which is not a true freewing because the incidence of the front wing is set by the position of the stick or yoke, though it approaches it (and Mignet claimed some alleviation of the rough ride in turbulence) if the pilot keeps a light hand and allows the wing to absorb the buffeting. The advantage of the Mignet approach is that the separate rudder (whether actuated by stick or yoke or pedals) provides directional/lateral control regardless of the front wing's state and you are unlikely to get a wildly asymmetric stall of the front wing since it's all one piece with no control surfaces.
I really like what Frusha's got going here. Had been considering that for my amphib but wasn't sure if I'd like being committed to the cafe racer position for the duration of a flight.
There are examples of conventional aircraft with spilt, variable incidence wings for roll control such as Daniel Darby’s non-Mignet “-chel/-chelle” designs: Cubchel, Scoutchel, Demoichelle, etc. They all have pivoting wings for roll control and au have never heard of any strange or dangerous behavior, but the approach hasn’t really caught on either.
I need to correct myself. ****, yes, it has independant rotating front wing halves. +2 to -4 degree rotation possible. Sooooorry Cluttonfred.Fred, to my knowledge the designs of Daniel Dalby have not independant rotating front wings. The Flying Fleas by his hand have a normal totally front wing rotating. This Cubchel has a fixed front wing.
I need to correct myself. ****, yes, it has independant rotating front wing halves. +2 to -4 degree rotation possible. Sooooorry Cluttonfred.
Hihi. I didn't expect that answer. Ok, i need to adjust my telling. Can any other rigid wing airplane do this? Euh ... i guess now a helicopter pilot will reply with "did you know that helicopters have rigid wings too."The video Flying Flea lesson 8 mentioned :
"... flew a figure 8 above an American football
field without crossing the lines .
Try that in another airplane !... "
I can do that , with my Paraglider ; does it count ?
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: