UFO- Useless Flying Object

i'm surprised no one has mentioned any of Snyders Arup designs?? the podiatrist who found that the shape of the felt heel lifts in a show seemed to glide well....

 

And some people find an aspect ratio of 1.0 to be too...high!

 

Yes, but like I said, I wasn't smart enough to put the rudder inside the wing planform, thus my experimenting had shorter relative cords, which made it hard to get an adequate wing area.
But now, adding in what I learned from David Rowe's plane I think the attached drawing would give more vortex lift and a better l/d ratio.
The shape I drew in blue, has more vortex along the span,
(C and D compare vortex span).
Area B is to mainly get lift there instead of vortices. This can add a couple units to the L/d ratio.
But, you would have to be careful with the vortex drag, and not lift the nose to high without sufficient power, altitude and speed.
This all, is my amateur opinion, mainly again from Xflr5 in Vortex Lattice Mode.

 

More footage of the "Flying Flounder" above (first 60 seconds of the video anyway). The landing and the takeoff really show how much AOA they can handle. ...and the complete lack of visibility at high AOA. To take advantage of what a very low AR wing can do, I think the pilot needs to be under the wing.

[video=youtube;i8y5suPs1uE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8y5suPs1uE[/video]

 

Some years ago I asked David about plans, he said that he used a nail, a six foot length of string and a piece of chalk to draw the plans on the hangar floor, it is a twelve foot diameter circle. He also said that the CG was about 25% of the centreline chord.

 

Incidentally, this 12' diameter single-seater or even a larger 14' or 15' diameter two-seater could make a great "UPS plane," meaning a kit plane in which all the component parts are short enough to ship via ordinary parcel service, no freight service necessary. Maybe in fabric-covered aluminum tube and gusset with a few key part in premolded composites?

 

The solution to visibility is either sit under the wing or ..

Add some clear panels underneath and also take advantage of cheap and simple cameras with a screen. **** cheap and reliable these days. That could allow for a view in any direction in any part of the flight profile- which is good idea not matter the design.

And it keeps the cool looks.

 

Here's a sketch. Any comments?
Would you need a camera or window on top?
EDIT: On second thought, I think you might have serious blocked vision of where you were headed, in a turn.

 

Sort of a short Flaglor Scooter with a round wing, I like it.

 

I attached a sketch for a similar idea some time back in another thread, only mine was a reverse Zimmerman.

 

Visibility would be very limited on several of the postulated configurations.


BJC

 

http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=5873 classic.

 

What are the advantages/disadvantages of putting the engine on the LE vs. the nose of the fuselage?

I'm thinking a parasol with the disk mounted as a "free wing" might solve some of the high AOA issues on landing. ie. tilt the whole disk up about 20 degrees for landing.

 

The flying stop sign is ALMOST a top contender. If you change that outer leading edge angle from 45° to 50°, you should get the vortex lift.

 

This lines up with something I was thinking about before. Essentially a gyrocopter with a disk wing on top instead of a rotor. Having the disk wing on a gimbal also makes it easy to design and experiment with since you can just copy a standard gyrocopter with minimal changes.
Simply connecting a pair of struts from near the wingtips to the stick lets you control pitch and roll. Heck, you could use a hang-glider type control bar.

 

I really don't think you want a "free wing" on a Nemeth-type parasol, meaning the wing seeks it's own best angle of attack so you'd need the pitch control on the rear of the wing with perhaps a fixed horizontal stab to keep the fuselage aligned with the airflow. On the other hand, a variable-incidence wing with the pitch control still at the tail but the main wing incidence variable (though fixed at any given moment) might work well and would not be hard in a strut-braced parasol. Supermarine Dumbo meets Flying Flea meets Nemeth Umbrellaplane!



I think the main reason to put the engine on the wing and not the nose would be to maximize slipstream effect, for example if you added a large slotted flap for low speed instead of relying on very high AOA vortex lift.

 

I've been playing with a way to mount a "belly pod" cockpit and I needed this much of a mock up to see how it'll work. I got this far and thought it looked pretty cool.

...there're lot's of problems but fixing them is half the fun.

 

I'm kind of thinking in this direction.

Between the high wing, parachuting effect, big tires, and protected pusher prop you could land this thing darn near anywhere.
Only two-axis controls but the rudder and pendulum effect would give you a little proverse roll when yawing.

 

Keep going Sockmonkey,

That holds some promise- and just looks cool and efficient. Add some streamlined wheel pants and smaller wheels but thin ones. Make the pants a thin like on a solar racer and they can be directional stability as well.

 

That would go really nicely with the Art Deco styling I've been getting into lately.
I can just see this couple emerging from it:

Wouldn't work with modern lardasses though.