New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Sockmonkey, Jul 12, 2019.
Well, quote him, then.
Yeah the gear would have to be longish, but it would make bottom entry easier.
Was that warning “Hands up, or I’ll shoot” ?
There's a reason that tail planes have a lower aspect ratio than the main wing. It's not so they stall at a lower angle...
I think the high wing forward makes the most sense, however it's also a configuration that's hard to fit into our aesthetic of what an airplane should look like. Is that sketchup that you are modelling in? I used to use it, it got me up to speed so that when I jumped to Fusion, I wasn't a total newb. Sometimes I miss it for it's ease of quick idea documentation.
I've been thinking about the biplane/joined wing for a while. Here's a few sketches that I'm not satisfied with but are a different direction than most I think. I'm now working on a version that's been "Fauceted", ala the amazing Barnaby Wainfan.
Hard to find a configuration that allows use of a big, efficient prop, and doesn't through your thrust line way off.
Somehow this won't seem to let me embed this as an image (I'm sure it's me, not the site)
Went double extreme with this one in a streak of minimalism.
Lifting V-tail to double as a fixed rudder. 2-axis unless drag rudders were added to the fore wing.
He's just a sleeker version of this guy.
Still fond of this one. Smaller 4 passenger plane with a tailcone that hinges up for rear boarding. Same close-set twin tractors for minimal engine out asymmetry to be countered by split drag rudders.
Still think this one has promise as a practical seaplane.
Prop is guarded from spray, tandem so there's enough aft lift to have the engine back there, and the whole front wing is adjustable in pitch for takeoff and trim compensation for a varying passenger load. Plus it doesn't need to pitch the fuselage up for takeoff.
Yep, sketchup is my darling. 90% of the satisfaction I get from using it is when I find a way to get it to make particular shapes without making the join all choppy. It's limiting in that way, but making it work in the end is soooo good. Here you can see how using a stretched sphere for the nose alloweds a perfect connection to the wing root when both are the same vertical diameter.
Wouldn't that be easy nowadays to overcome with electric powertrains ?
You might have a winner here.
"Still think this one has promise as a practical seaplane.
Prop is guarded from spray, tandem so there's enough aft lift to have the engine back there, and the whole front wing is adjustable in pitch for takeoff and trim compensation for a varying passenger load. Plus it doesn't need to pitch the fuselage up for takeoff."
This reminds me of the experimental pusher seaplane, flying out of Seattle I think? It had a rough landing (that would have been the end of most home built) on video maybe 8-9 years ago. Stalled on landing due to low speed, touched a wingtip and was spun dramatically, but only minor damage I think.
It was interesting as a blended delta body, with a conventional wing merged, but the conventional wing could be adjusted in flight for landing. There conventional wing was merged with the body, so not a high wing as you've drawn. As I recall the designer realized that when the delta body reached the appropriate AoA for landing, the wing would be stalled, so the designer made it possible to change the relative angle of the wing, I guess pitching it down, relative to the body/wing. It was supposed to be a good flyer too.
I like the seaplane, it reminds me of a backwards Lippisch x112
In terms of getting the CG right, yes. For prop clearance it's still tricky because takeoff means tilting the nose up and the tail down, so you need a high-mounted prop or longer gear.
I think I know the one you mean, but I'm not sure.
Anyhow, in this case the fore wing is meant to boost the flow over the aft wing pou-style so it doesn't have to change it's AOA for takeoff/landing. The intended goal is to function well as a seaplane, be stable, and not at all aerobatic.
I used to be infatuated with WIGEs, but so many of the designs require more compromises than regular aircraft do.
I believe you guys are thinking of the Sea-Era.
Probably. Still think mine has the edge though, if that's not too arrogant of me.
I know this forum includes all the strange and exotic ideas you can eat for one low price... but if we could get Sockmonkey's focus off of the far-exotic, and somehow manage to masterfully mentally manipulate him back towards more accepted and "normal" configurations.... we might just have something here
Exploring why novel ideas won't work can often result in a novel idea that will work. Frankly, I find the standard configurations rather boring, though I'm building one... There are already thousands of conventional designs out there. Burt Rutan took an uncommon configuration and combined it with a new building method with great success.
I would suggest the OP starts buying and reading aero design books, though. Somebody will need to do the math on every new design... The Dover books are probably the best value for money. The NACA archives are free and have an immense amount of information.
I have plenty of normal stuff.
Open top Hatfield in war paint. The Little Bird is a proven design.
Use a pontoon from a bigger plane as the fuselage of a pusher-pou to turn it into a seaplane.
This guy is just a slight mod of the Deleanne Lysander.
So, most of this stuff isn't really that weird. It's more applying them to applications where they haven't been used but might be a good match
I agree Sockmonkey, there's many developments that stalled for reasons unrelated to the technology, and are now considered technological dead ends. It looks like the Faucetmobile almost fell into this category. Imagine if Barnaby had been killed in the crash of the Faucetmobile, would anyone be building one now?
I think an interesting exploration is looking at the Faucetmobile as a low poly version of a deltaish flying wing. The question I have is what's the best minimum panels/mesh size. In general Barnaby has broken the surface up into 2 or 3 major sheets (each side). As I understand it, the reason they are talking about honeycomb panels in the next development is because the large sheet size makes buckling in the sheets inevitable, but if the sheets were half the size they are now (and 2x as many), and each panel were bent to have a tab for riveting to the next sheet, that tab could also have flange bent down, acting like a stiffening beam. I wonder at what stage you'd have a strong and stiff enough surface to fly.
I have no opinion on that one way or another. A couple folks were trying to remember the name of a seaplane and I named it.
Since I discovered Coroplast, I have pondered if a fauxetmobile could be built from it. I'd want to 'tape' bent tab joins or worry about them peeling. It may work better to have one sheet bent to make the stiffener, the other crushed flat and lap jointed to it. A 103 fauxetmobile doesn't look very doable, however built, so it might be a later project.
Run the numbers on an aluminum riveted tube one with Oratex. May actually be doable???
Separate names with a comma.