New sauce of the Winton Opal?!

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

erkki67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
1,998
Location
Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
05358137-B9F8-4D5E-BB4C-2FE6573D4C51.jpeg

This was a record braking hot rod, not meant to be distributed to a larger community.

39F94BA2-FEDE-4DD7-B4EA-A6E7B275A2A4.jpeg

the Second is a layout of Fritz, so my thoughts were the following;

getting the vertical stabs back on the wing instead of behind it, for sure it would never compete with an Facet Opal in therms of speed, but for sure would be a nifty little flyer fitting almost into a garage.

the whole thing built with a thick Fauvel F4 Wing Airfoil.

FBF063F0-C2FE-46C1-A2C5-131653BCAD5E.gif

A straight wing, no tapered wing tips, like the red bird.

An easy to fly one piece aircraft

this would be a FritzPlank

what do you think?
 

FritzW

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,893
Location
Las Cruces, NM
Now you've done it! The red wing is VB's, ...he's probably hyperventilating in a paper bag right now, trying to calm down enough to unleash a post on you :roll:
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,291
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Fritz can have the credit (up until the millions of dollars start rolling in). He took a napkin sketch and turned it into a neat thing that got a lot of us pretty inspired.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,008
Location
Rocky Mountains
getting the vertical stabs back on the wing instead of behind it,
Pick one. Depends on the value assigned to the various trades. If you decide to put the tail on a stick for damping and control power why not put both axis back there?

Or maybe twist those tails 90 degrees and put a mixer in the wing? The tail booms could still fold...........
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,410
Location
Canada
Good suggestions about mounting both vertical and horizontal controls on tail booms because that will make pitch oscillations much longer frequency.

Why are inverted V tails so rare?

Finally, if you fold tail booms to lay along the wings’ trailing edges, you can reduce folded width to the 8 feet needed for trailering.
 

Bill-Higdon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
599
Location
Salem, Oregon, USA
View attachment 79160

This was a record braking hot rod, not meant to be distributed to a larger community.

View attachment 79161

the Second is a layout of Fritz, so my thoughts were the following;

getting the vertical stabs back on the wing instead of behind it, for sure it would never compete with an Facet Opal in therms of speed, but for sure would be a nifty little flyer fitting almost into a garage.

the whole thing built with a thick Fauvel F4 Wing Airfoil.

View attachment 79162

A straight wing, no tapered wing tips, like the red bird.

An easy to fly one piece aircraft

this would be a FritzPlank

what do you think?
Red one Brings to Mind Mad Max Beyond the Thunder Dome :gig:
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,291
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Making any of these little flying wings a taildragger creates a series of difficulties that very quickly destroys all of the simplicity of the original idea. It's a **** shame, but that is what my sketchpad told me very clearly.

Winton's Facet Opal was more complicated than it otherwise had to be because of the landing gear. The rest of the project was super simple.

Today you could build a simple hot wired fiberglass wing and mount it to some sort of salvaged sailplane fuselage, and do this type of aircraft very quickly in either IC or electric -

If it wasn't for the !(#*%$ landing gear.

Making a landing gear that keeps the propeller out of the dirt, and is not ugly, and is not complicated, and is not draggy... is difficult.

The Facet Opal is the reason I bought an unused sailplane fuselage pod (RS-15, thanks BoKu for bringing it to the ESA auction).

The easy solution (on one level) is a turbofan, because you could use a standard sailplane retractable main gear and mid-span outrigger poles with small wheels. But the jet creates its own problems on other levels, fuel efficiency, purchase cost, heat management, etc. etc.

Dolly Parton is famously quoted as saying "It takes a lot of money to look this cheap". For the small flying wing, I would say "It's very complicated to build an airplane that looks this simple".
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
2,102
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
Sandpiper 37807661-480px.jpg

This long legged main landing gear would provide adequate propeller clearance. The trick is to keep it close to the CG and use pilot legs for the nose gear. This makes ground maneuvering much easier and can eliminate the need for brakes.

VB your glider experience in SGS 23 should convince you that pitch control is adequate at low speed for a foot launched nose gear to be adequate.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,008
Location
Rocky Mountains
Making any of these little flying wings a taildragger creates a series of difficulties that very quickly destroys all of the simplicity of the original idea. It's a **** shame, but that is what my sketchpad told me very clearly.

Winton's Facet Opal was more complicated than it otherwise had to be because of the landing gear. The rest of the project was super simple.
So why bother with a taildragger version? I'm almost one of those "Real pilots don't need a training wheel up front." kind of guy but for the mission that these little planes are designed for it really doesn't add much utility - if any.

The bicycle gear has some very attractive benefits. Simplicity and weight being two. But the traditional tri-gear setup can be made to work on a FW too. The prototype U-2 had retractable tri-gear and it wasn't all that complicated or heavy. If you think ground handling with only differential brakes is acceptable the nose gear gets even simpler. Something like found in a BD-5, without the overkill strut, is about as simple as it gets.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,291
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
+1 on Erkki's comment. Main wheel on the keel, underneath the pilot, adds another degree of safety and pilot protection. A rock or a tree stump has to get through the tire and wheel and axle and axle mounting structure in order to harm the pilot. The wheel also will attempt to roll over the obstacle and move the pilot up and over the rock rather than drag the rock through the pilot. It also results in one component doing two or three things that you need. It is also the lightest option, the lowest cost option, and the lowest drag option. On small lightweight aircraft like we're discussing, all of those benefits are important.
 
Last edited:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,291
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
I had originally sketched this out and placed the engine closer to the CG, because I was planning on the Briggs & Stratton engine. Not the lightest option but cheap and reliable.

Bringing the pilot and engine closer together, and close to the CG, would yield a lighter aircraft with better flight handling. But of course this would require an extension shaft.

I had originally assumed that a belt reduction with some amount of slippage and a spring loaded slack-side idler pulley would probably resolve the TV issues. However, Billski pointed out that this was not guaranteed to work at all, and that a significant amount of engineering would be needed to push the TV range out away from the range of flight operations.

Fritz was incredibly kind enough to make really beautiful renderings from this sketch (and other sketches of mine and several other participants in the Flying Motorcycle thread). We were assuming the use of the small block V-twin engines, likely the Briggs 23HP base engine, bumped up to 30HP.
 
2
Top