More of my random designs

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,744
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
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.
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.
Funny thing is, sketchup is actually ideal for creating faceted shapes like that.
Structurally, a fauxcetmobile could also be made of lots of short bits held together with a latticework of cables inside. All struts would be in pure compression with the cables handling all the tension. When the cables are loosened, and the fuselage allowed to collapse, a full sized plane could fit in a closet.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,373
Location
North Carolina
The aspect ratio is too low. You'd have to scale it up to get enough span for induced drag not to be an issue, the wing area is then huge. One could be made to fly, but not very well within 103.
 

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,744
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
The aspect ratio is too low. You'd have to scale it up to get enough span for induced drag not to be an issue, the wing area is then huge. One could be made to fly, but not very well within 103.
That's meant to be a head on view of the largest cross-section of a tensegrity fauxetmobile.
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
1,936
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
"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 will try to answer any Sea Era questions.

Limited damage in stall/spin from 20+ feet was due to good,non typical, seaplane hull design. Aircraft rigging of the Sea Era needs adjustment to correct right wing drop at stall.

Aerodynamics of the above configuration were developed into a workable design configuration with the incorporation of variable incidence of the flapped Hershey bar forward wing and modifications to the delta aft wing to trigger vortex lift transition at a defined angle of attack to prevent unwanted pitchup at the vortex lift transition.
 
Last edited:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
6,766
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Actually, upon further thought, it seems like it may be possible to do a 7/8 size ultralight version of what he called a "Smoothmobile", using the riveted aluminum tube method for structure, using the very light/small tube hand-formed "ribs" like the Robert Baslee Nieuport wings do.

I suspect that the Smoothmobile is a lot more efficient than the original slab version, but Mr. Wainfan would probably know a lot more about that than I would...

The "wing section" is pretty thick, which means the structural truss could be pretty light. There are lighter engines now than what was used on the original FMX, so perhaps there is weight savings to be found there.

But I have no clue about whether it could meet the stall speed requirements of part 103, no matter how light it is. A single landing gear, like the Verhees, could save some weight possibly too.

BW, did you ever look into a slightly smaller ultralight-ish version of this?
 

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,744
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
Cool idea but I'm not seeing the tensegrity part. (the compression members are touching)
I suppose it's not "pure" in that sense, but the solid members are all only experiencing compression forces, which is the main advantage of that kind of setup.

One thing I should point out about my not-a-sea-era-seaplane is that being a species of tandem wing, the fore wing is what's keeping the nose up, so the aft delta doesn't need to sacrifice any lift by being reflexed. That means it's providing more lift for it's area than tailless deltas do.
 

mm4440

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
185
Location
LA area, CA
Low AR wings can work really well If they are built light. With a lot of wing area that makes cloth covering most attractive. Milt Hatfield told me that the Arup S-4 had the best LG arrangement, the earlier ones were taildraggers. It had a nose wheel for low drag take off and a tail wheel for landing. The main gear was placed so it would sit happily in either position. I owned an S-2 replica. It was over weight but would be worth redoing a lighter version like the Little Bird. It would be great if Facetmobiles fly again.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,373
Location
North Carolina
Actually, upon further thought, it seems like it may be possible to do a 7/8 size ultralight version of what he called a "Smoothmobile", using the riveted aluminum tube method for structure, using the very light/small tube hand-formed "ribs" like the Robert Baslee Nieuport wings do.

I suspect that the Smoothmobile is a lot more efficient than the original slab version, but Mr. Wainfan would probably know a lot more about that than I would...

The "wing section" is pretty thick, which means the structural truss could be pretty light. There are lighter engines now than what was used on the original FMX, so perhaps there is weight savings to be found there.

But I have no clue about whether it could meet the stall speed requirements of part 103, no matter how light it is. A single landing gear, like the Verhees, could save some weight possibly too.

BW, did you ever look into a slightly smaller ultralight-ish version of this?
Mr Induced Drag says no ****ing way to less span in a 103 Fauxetmobile. Full size at 103 weight may well stall at 103 speeds, but it will have the drag of a parachute. Some guesstimates suggest ~40hp would be needed to maintain level flight at 24kts and 500lb full size. You are keeping the 503? Don't forget to add a restrictor because 103 Fauxet will want to blow way past 55kts. 7/8 won't meet stall, will glide like a brick and will want to cruise at ~100kts.


Interesting fact, the Concorde would sink even at full power without stalling if the nose was pulled high enough. It was hardly lacking in thrust...

Mr Wainfan, I would like to apologise for the all the butchering of the name of your Facetmobile. I think that any Facetmobile-like aircraft not designed by you would be a Fauxetmobile, and lots of other people here simply can't spell.
 
Last edited:

LittleBird

Active Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
34
Location
Harrisonville, MO. USA
Low AR wings can work really well If they are built light. With a lot of wing area that makes cloth covering most attractive. Milt Hatfield told me that the Arup S-4 had the best LG arrangement, the earlier ones were taildraggers. It had a nose wheel for low drag take off and a tail wheel for landing. The main gear was placed so it would sit happily in either position. I owned an S-2 replica. It was over weight but would be worth redoing a lighter version like the Little Bird. It would be great if Facetmobiles fly again.
Do you have any photos of the S-2 replica? Did you build it? If so, what did you use for plans/drawings? Thank you.
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
1,936
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
........

One thing I should point out about my not-a-sea-era-seaplane is that being a species of tandem wing, the fore wing is what's keeping the nose up, so the aft delta doesn't need to sacrifice any lift by being reflexed. That means it's providing more lift for it's area than tailless deltas do.
The straight fore wing and delta aft wing creates a pitch instability issue that needs to be considered.

The fore wing as a typical two Pi lift slope curve while the aft delta wing has a reduced swept wing lift slope curve. This issue does have possible solutions.
 

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,744
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
The straight fore wing and delta aft wing creates a pitch instability issue that needs to be considered.

The fore wing as a typical two Pi lift slope curve while the aft delta wing has a reduced swept wing lift slope curve. This issue does have possible solutions.
So how do I address that issue, while factoring in how the downwash from the fore wing passes over it?
 

mm4440

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
185
Location
LA area, CA
Do you have any photos of the S-2 replica? Did you build it? If so, what did you use for plans/drawings? Thank you.
It was pre digital and I am not sure if I can find them. It was built from pictures in a Sport Aviation article by a character at the airport I learned to fly at, Sky Manor in NJ. Search ARUP in the Archive and Little Bird.
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
1,936
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
So how do I address that issue, while factoring in how the downwash from the fore wing passes over it?
First let me clarify one issue. The Sea Era has the delta wing lifting body center of pressure ahead of the straight Hersh bar wing. The CG of the aircraft is located three inches forward of the Straight wing leading edge. That is about negative 5% MAC, very much outside the CG range of normal aircraft. The aircraft is currently being rebuilt and will probably be flight tested with the CG farther aft. It has gained 13 pounds, most of which is in the tail booms. The aircraft has no pitch up tendency at stall (unlike the 737 Max and other aircraft with a broad fuselage area forward of the CG like the Cessna T 37 twin jet trainer).

Your question is a good one and one that I am interested in discussing. I favor the aft delta wing configuration. Look at any bird and you will see the practicality and usefulness of that configuration. If there is a simple answer it eludes me at the moment. There are many solutions to any problem. One must pick and chose and then test the solutions to determine how well they work and see what additional issues are created.

I think it is safe to say that the solution lies in the control system. Note that canard deltas and swept wing aircraft (long easy) have solved this issue as have the birds. Other aerodynamic solutions may be possible. Free flight models are a useful experimental tool. The first step is to identify the problem and then to determine if it is actually a problem that needs attention.

My post #51 was merely intended to point out a potential problem. You are invited to start a new thread for further discussion.
 
Last edited:

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,744
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
First let me clarify one issue. The Sea Era has the delta wing lifting body center of pressure ahead of the straight Hersh bar wing. The CG of the aircraft is located three inches forward of the Straight wing leading edge. That is about negative 5% MAC, very much outside the CG range of normal aircraft. The aircraft is currently being rebuilt and will probably be flight tested with the CG farther aft. It has gained 13 pounds, most of which is in the tail booms. The aircraft has no pitch up tendency at stall (unlike the 737 Max and other aircraft with a broad fuselage area forward of the CG like the Cessna T 37 twin jet trainer).

Your question is a good one and one that I am interested in discussing. I favor the aft delta wing configuration. Look at any bird and you will see the practicality and usefulness of that configuration. If there is a simple answer it eludes me at the moment. There are many solutions to any problem. One must pick and chose and then test the solutions to determine how well they work and see what additional issues are created.

I think it is safe to say that the solution lies in the control system. Note that canard deltas and swept wing aircraft (long easy) have solved this issue as have the birds. Other aerodynamic solutions may be possible. Free flight models are a useful experimental tool. The first step is to identify the problem and then to determine if it is actually a problem that needs attention.

My post #51 was merely intended to point out a potential problem. You are invited to start a new thread for further discussion.
Done and done.
https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/threads/aft-delta-tandems-and-the-people-who-love-them.31964/
 

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,744
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
forgot to add this guy.
Pou type with a sparatt fore wing so the left and right halvess tilt independently of each other. That gives you pitch and roll control with one system. That means no moving parts aft of the pilot and no control runs. Just a pair of pushrods from the stick to the wings. Fewer moving parts, and fewer parts overall. Fixed fins on the aft wing for directional stability.
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
1,936
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
Post #56 above is close the the Spratt configuration. Spratt's aft wing was a large V tail. It also has the Pou heritage. It should be a good configuration. Substituting the aft delta for the straight aft wing may be a positive change.

Those that have split the left and right halves of the Spratt control wing have reported a very strong roll response. You may want some sort of flexible or controllable interconnect.

I like the aft delta pusher seaplane with the Pou/Spratt fore wing. Keep up the original thinking and follow through with results and comments. I like the small simple motorcycle of the air concept of post #56 also.

Generally the gap between the fore wing halves of post #56 would be a strong negative but I think it may have an advantage with the aft delta configuration as the aft wing can ride the upwash from the fore wing center section gap and recover the losses with some pitch stability improvements to counter the aft delta pitch stability issue mentioned elsewhere.
 

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,744
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
Generally the gap between the fore wing halves of post #56 would be a strong negative but I think it may have an advantage with the aft delta configuration as the aft wing can ride the upwash from the fore wing center section gap and recover the losses with some pitch stability improvements to counter the aft delta pitch stability issue mentioned elsewhere.
I think the instability was an issue because the delta in question wasn't really an aft delta, but an extension of the main wing root. The Rutan Vari Viggen had a true aft delta and flew fine.
 
Group Builder
Top