Quantcast

News from Daniel Dalby

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

b7gwap

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
279
Location
UT
I love Dalby’s work, but what is reacting drag/anti-drag loads on the wing here? Just the pivot mechanism for the “wingerons?” The single rectangular beam for the empennage makes me a little nervous too, but I’m sure Dalby sized it sufficiently.

Cute little thing.
 

Jay Kempf

Curmudgeon in Training (CIT)
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
4,034
Location
Warren, VT USA
Probably a long tube with sleeves over it. Seems a bit minimal. Plus that tail has no support against rudder fluttering. But with a free wing you can't really wire brace. Think this one needs a bit more thought. If it has flown well, I take it all back :)
 

Daleandee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
1,152
Location
SC
I like it.

Obviously this is just a concept drawing as there are still things to be figured out as others have mentioned already. I don't even see a spot for the glass panel ... 🧐
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,047
Location
US
I love Dalby’s work, but what is reacting drag/anti-drag loads on the wing here? Just the pivot mechanism for the “wingerons?”
There are wires from the strut attach point on the wings to a spot under the seat, they are probably there to take drag loads. Maybe he plans some for the tail, too.
I'm all for saving weight, but I think he should splurge and include a left main gear. ;)
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,562
Location
World traveler
Daniel Dalby's monoplane designs typically have single struts with drag/anti-drag wires and all-moving wings that rotate in incidence for roll control. They are also typically of largely rectangular aluminum tube and gusset construction with foam ribs. Here's a photo of a Cubchel to show the system.

cubchel.jpg
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,047
Location
US
About those wingerons: It is interesting. Are there planes with higher wing loadings that have taken that approach? Maybe it becomes impractical at some point for structural reasons or control pressures get too high (pitching moments at various AoAs, etc).
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,305
Location
Thunder Bay
The American Flea Triplane used the lower/rearmost wings as wingerons. In that particular application they were said to be death traps if you weren’t paying enough attention in the pattern. I’ve seen a letter from a past manufacturer of kits urging the current owner of all the drawings (and two projects) to never, ever try flying one. High praise for the design from the guy who used to sell them!

I bet stall progression is an unpredictable mess on Dalby’s designs, unless some exceptionally forgiving airfoil exists for them.
 

erkki67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
2,185
Location
Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
The flea is no death trap, at least not since 1936, before that year, yes the flea had some design flaws which cost some pilots lives, but the flaws where corrected in 1936, it got spin and stall proove. No other type got such a good safety record since, not even the Storch!

regarding the wingerons of Dalby, I haven’t heard of any accidents of his concepts either, but you might have more informations regarding his constructions than I have, can you give me the sources of your craints?
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,305
Location
Thunder Bay
The flea is no death trap, at least not since 1936
Different Flea. I’m talking about an airplane completely unrelated to anything Mignet did.
1596457018623.jpeg
The bottom wings pivot as ailerons. Because of the amount of stagger on the wings I imagine if you apply any aileron at the stall the airplane will probably want to pitch up further. Seems like a bunch of these American Fleas were produced but none ever flew much, if at all. They were like the BD-5 of the thirties.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,562
Location
World traveler
Correct, while trying to capitalize on the "Flea" names associated with inexpensive light aircraft in the 1930s, and I believe initially promoted by some of the same investors who supported the short-lived American Mignet Aircraft Corp, the TC-1/Fleaship had nothing to do with Mignet at all.

That said, I don't think the all-moving bottom wings were likely the issue, or at least there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept. As long at the wings were adequately strong, and adequately stiff in torsion, and rigged with each wing getting a couple of degrees more incidence than the one below it it, the aircraft should have stalled progressively (top wing first) and with lateral control maintained throughout.
 
Last edited:
Top