Time to define 'flying wing and other tailless aircraft' [Archive]

TheAeronut

Jul 08, 2004, 04:48 PM

ARRGGHHHHH!

I had hoped that it would not come to this, then I forgot the subject all together. If I remember correctly the full title for this forum in the proposal was 'Flying Wings and other Tailless aircraft'.

There now seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a Flying Wing. It would appear now that the proper title of this forum should be 'Zagi type flying wings'. By the moderators recent (re)definition of flying wing, we could not discuss most full scale flying wings, like fighter aircraft and other (tailless) deltas like the Concorde, as well as possibly the majority of model 'flying wing' designs. It would appear that the presence of a fuselage will disqualify any aircraft from this forum. This did not appear to be an issue until recently. By the current definition a number of the threads in this forum must be moved to other forums.

It was my understanding that this forum was to be fairly inclusive and encompass pretty much any aircraft that did not have a seperate horizontal stabilizer. Many aircraft do not have enough wing volume and thus require a fuselage to house flight equipment and in the case of full scale, a pilot and/or passengers. Heck! The e-power Zagis (tm) have a _fuselage_ to mount their batteries and motor!!! It may be encompassed within the chord of the wing, but that thing sticking up from the wing root is not any part of a 'wing'.

A short discussion on aircraft components:

Wing: Sort of a requirement for an aircraft.

Fuselage: A structure used to house pilot, passengers, cargo and flight equipment. Sometimes also used to connect other components to the wing (like engine(s) and stabilizers. Often ignored in the model world for its aerodynamic effects, but it is part of the total aeordynamics of the aircraft.

Powerplant(s): Internal combustion engines (piston, turbine and rocket) and electric motors are the the main alternatives here. Propulsion is not a requirement for aircraft, as there are many gliders out in the world. Indeed, fixed wing aviation started out unpowered and remained so until the Wright Brothers succeeded in combining airframe and power plant for sustained self-powered flight.

Vertical stabiliser: Perhaps the most difficult of ancilliary equipment to remove from aircraft and retain aerodynamic stability... Considered to be a 'tail' part, but ignored as such for the purposes of almost all flying wings. Tiplets on conventionally swept flying wings are primarily for yaw stabilisation. Tiplets are often used for the same purpose on plank style flying wing (which often have a fuselage for battery & receiver mounting and balance purposes).

Horzontal stabiliser: The bane of the flying wing enthusiast! Flying wings do have horzontal stabilisers in aerodynamic terms, they are just integrated into the wing itself. A seperate horzontal stab may be aft as in a conventional craft, or forward in the form of a canard.

I will freely agree that a conventional aft horizontal stab has no place in this 'flying wings' forum. A would also agree that a canard does not really belong here. I do feel that disqualifying aircraft from the 'Flying Wings and _Other Tailless Aircraft_' forum because they have a fuselage is purist, exclusive and inappropriate. If you are to disallow a fuselage, then it would seem that you MUST disallow any other surface or object that is not wing, including any vertical fins, tiplets and whatever (ignoring motors and propellors). Again, this narrow definition eliminates most model and full scale flying wings including many of the Horten wings, almost all (if not all) of the Lippisch wings, and most of the Northrop flying wings. Even the Northrop B-2 Stealth Bomber would be eliminated, as it has a fuselage. That bump on top of the center section in certainly not there to enhance the lift or stability of the aircraft.

Oh Well, enough for now. Any further comments or discussion?

J.P.

MikeC

Jul 08, 2004, 05:20 PM

A flying wing is an aircraft with NO HORIZONTAL STAB. It can either be a plank or a swept wing. That is the standard definition.

Jim Marske has been building flying wing planks for about 30 years and knows the difference. Martin.Hepperle the well known airfoil designer clearly states that planks are flying wings. If anyone wants to look at the german Nurflügel (flying wing) sites they will see that both planks and swept wings are treated equally as flying wings.

Planks use reflexed airfoils to do away with a horiz. stab.

Swept wings use wing washout to do away with the need for a horizontal stab.

Some sailplanes flying wings use a combo of both washout and reflexed sections to to achieve good flying characteristic.

MikeC

Jul 08, 2004, 05:24 PM

One other point. My first flying wing was built from plans of a plank hand lauch sailplane designed by Keith Shaw. It had a fuse and a vertical fin on the end of a small fuse. He described it as a flying wing.

MikeC

Jul 08, 2004, 05:41 PM

and from the man that designs flying wing airfoils ---

http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/index.htm

and select flying wings from the choices on the left.

DaveGherardini

Jul 08, 2004, 05:53 PM

well, for starters it was discussed and decided before the forum was made permanent buy the administers of this bussiness. They decide what goes where and i think they do a great job. Never will everyone agree what a a tailess ac will look like, But to say a N9M dont quailfy? See there now, To me, this is an excellent representation of a flying wing. Also, no ofense, but a Zagi type label for the forum? Why would you say this. It is a fact that there are more foamy wings on the market than any other type, but Zagi is just one brand. And it wasnt the first foam flying wing manufactured for the market just the most sucsessful. Foam has only been around since the late 60's and early 70's.
I would not want the responsibility of deciding what goes where but it defintly woundnt be a stressful job. Its all in sharing our stuff with each other. Theres always a spot for any type of aircraft. And most aircraft will fit in multiple forums.

Buzz_Man

Jul 08, 2004, 06:39 PM

A short discussion on aircraft components:

Wing: Sort of a requirement for an aircraft.
By this definition a hot air balloon or blimp isn't an aircraft, right?

I know the military categorizes fixed wing vs. rotory wing aircraft to designate airplanes vs. helicopters, but I always thought there were various categories of aircraft, some which are completely wingless. I thought a wing was simply defined as a portion of a winged aircraft which provided lift when air passed over it - right?

A flying wing is an aircraft with NO HORIZONTAL STAB.By this definition would a Hyperfly would be a flying wing, or are the stabilizer paddles considered to be a horizontal stab even though they're rotory? I guess if they are, then the Hyperfly isn't a flying wing.

Speaking of wings, I was very happy to learn my Japanese neighbor just bought his girlfriend a wing. He's been living in the US for about three months and his English isn't very good so it was hard for me to understand his enthusiasm, but turns out, he's also getting married soon.

Rotozuk

Jul 08, 2004, 07:04 PM

On a slightly different track... I tend to think the real use of this thread is to share designs and questions related to tailess (horizontal that is) aircraft as these types tend to have their own common little issues that a tailed plane doe not have to deal with.

For the most part that involves our flight surfaces, CG, sweeps, and air foils. And can get into the different radio mixings, etc.

Lets face it, there are a lot of catagories we can file our planes into here at RCGroups. I could probably post my current project in any one of 6 different areas, but I thought this one made the most sense. It is most related to the design constraints of a flying wing.

I consider Delta, Plank and "normal" flying wings all the same. All you are doing is fitting a different plan form or moving the vertical stab around.

I will go oout on a limb and say that I feel that is someone that had a question about a pitcheron setup felt like posting in the wing forum, I think he could be on topic, or be off topic. Just depends on the what he is sharing. Radio setup would be identical to a typical wing setup.

-Wayne

raptor22

Jul 08, 2004, 10:11 PM

The whole point of alot of people supporting the creation of this forum is to collaborate on solving the problems of tailless aircraft. Doesn't the description say other tailless aircraft? If you look into the controversial foum about the creation of this forum people specifically agreed to the allowance of planks and aircraft such as the Bird of Prey (which definitely has a fuse and vertical stab).

If anyone is disputing the vertical stab of a plank, I would like to mention that most flying wings have a stab or other vertical surface; even if its int he form of winglets.

--Alex

gouch

Jul 09, 2004, 06:16 AM

I asked the same question over in slope in the flying wing bird sloper thread that used to be here , about what is the definition of a flying wing. After reading aeronuts excellent post and the info on Martin Hepperles' extremely informative site, I have my answer.
Thanks guys for the info, and my sanity lives a bit longer :D My opinions of what makes a flying wing seem to be confirmed by aeronut and Martin Hepperle, and that's good enough for me!

Maybe the mods could update their thoughts on the matter? Not meaning to poke sticks at them, but if they can agree on what the experts are saying, then the rest of us "hams" will have a standard to work from.

I have read posts where people are saying it's not all open and shut about what makes a flying wing, but after reading the info, I beg to differ.

Cheers
Paul

leccyflyer

Jul 09, 2004, 07:09 AM

It's a bit of a moot point really, given that the forum definition includes tailless aircraft as well as flying wings sensu stricto.

Concorde is a flying wing? That's a real stretch ;)

Concorde is (was) a tailless* ogival delta winged aeroplane. That means you could make a case for it to be discussed here- though a better place, IMHO, would be whichever of the scale or jets forums would be most appropriate for the particular model. If one wanted to discuss the aerodynamics of the wing then we have always had a perfectly serviceable modelling science forum.

Threads like this one merely demonstrates that the entire concept of a separate flying wings forum was flawed in the first place- there is as much cross forum posting about flying wings as ever there was, and there always will be, except now you have to check in seven forums instead of six.

Brian

* assuming tailless refers to the lack of a separate horizontal stabiliser and thereby discounts Concorde's vast vertical fin

ScYcS

Jul 09, 2004, 07:57 AM

Brian,

I know you are opposed to a flying wings forum and you were from the very beginning. However, the last couple weeks we saw excellent posts in this forum and the knowledge is not spread wildly over whatever how many forums. You can visit this forum and finally have info on flying wing style aircraft without going through literally thousands of other posts about Foamfly frogs and whatnot (nothing against the frog, it's a great flyer i heard).

According to your logic, we should have no "jets" forum, no "waterplanes", no "vintage design" or "parkflyers" or any specific forum at all and it all should be one big giant mess (maybe called "aircraft"??). I completely disagree with your assumption about the way this board is structured. Of course there are cross postings and of course there always will be. However, judging the forum after not even 8 weeks and saying it is basically useless, no, you actually see it as a burden, is completely wrong and even more so coming from a moderator.

Just my 2 cents.

gouch

Jul 09, 2004, 09:01 AM

I gotta agree with ScYcS here.

Here's the problem I have. The mods that mod this forum seem to hate being here from what I gather, esp Brian, after reading your comments. Why mod it then? pass it on to someone who WANTS to do it. If you have a problem with this forum take it up with Mr Bourke, rather than us.

I didn't really care for the flying wing forum as such either way, but I was hoping I would be able to find wing info without searching through a ton of pages in foamies and parkflyers, as those forums are VERY busy and it was easy to miss posts as only a couple of hours later it's on the second page. In this context it has worked for me so far. This is why I gave it the thumbs up.

I do however believe that there ARE too many different forums, but with the huge following on RCgroups, what else can you do?

As for me having to go to the seperate forums, it isn't hard. As i've said before, stick the individual forums into your favourites. Simply click the forum you want to go to and wala! it's done. I haven't been to the main home page for ages. I have 20 different forums in my own little forums sub menu in my favourites. Very simple system for a simple guy!

Back on topic:

I'm not getting into another discussion with you brian as to whether the concorde or even your beloved vulcan ;) is a flying wing or not, just because it uses a delta planform with a fin, does not remove it from the base meaning of a flying wing.

If the vertical fin is what's cheesing you off, how many planes (real or rc) would be classified as a flying wing? one, two? three max? there goes every plane posted on this forum so far.

Just one more whinge. :p
I posted a specific battery question, regarding a specific wing, regarding the balancing issues I might have with using said specific batts. It was moved to power or batts or somewhere. I got one reply from the owner of the same plane and he answered it nicely, so no worries there,(he found it before it dropped off the wings page) but if another user wants to look for the answer, he won't find it here :confused: This was a specific wing question and it was moved.

Don Sims

Jul 09, 2004, 01:35 PM

Moderators for this forum listed for all to see at the bottom of the page:
Mark Wood, Don Sims

Bri is a supermod and like everyone else is free to express his opinion as long as it's within the site guidelines. Bri has been up front about this from the beginning and I also noticed that he was instrumental in getting the forum moved to this location and out of the dreaded trial forums so he has been more than fair about the new forum.

If MW or I decide to move a thread because we feel it will get more attention to help out a member don't sweat it. If folks decide to post threads about wings in other forums don't sweat it. We have this forum and speaking for myself, I'm happy to be here.

As I've said before, the mods are volunteers and don't have the time to move every wing thread here from every other forum. I have foamies also and I definately have zero plans to move the thousands of wing related threads here nor spend my valuable surfing time moving new threads here.

Mark and I volunteered to moderate this forum and were not pushed into it. Both of us fly wings and enjoy the things. You guys need to please chill down before I close this thread.

Don

ScYcS

Jul 09, 2004, 01:43 PM

TheAeronut

Jul 09, 2004, 02:33 PM

Perhaps the forum title needs to be changed to 'Tailless Aircraft including Flying Wings'?

This has been a civil discussion, including my previous reply post that for some reason did not make it into the thread. This thread was inspired by the actions of moderator Mark Wood when he moved the thread about the bird-like flying wing to slopers because

quote
------------------------------------
Moving to Slope! (not a flying wing)

mw
------------------------------------
unquote

Apparently Mark had forgotten the 'other Tailless Aircraft' part of the forum description that did not make it into the forum title. Easy enough to do I guess, as almost all recent discussion has centered around the typical swept tapered flying with tiplets.

I most sincerely mean no offense to Mark Wood. I appreciate the volunteer job that he and Don Sims are doing for us on this forum. Thanks to Mark, Don, Brian and indeed Jim Bourke for providing us with this excellent place to share information and experience about R/C aircraft.

J.P.

Don Sims

Jul 09, 2004, 02:50 PM

Don, i don't think anything got out of hand in this thread yet. Like Brian is allowed to express his opinion, so are we to agree or disagree with it.

So far this has been a very healthy and moderate discussion imho....

I beg to differ, if your definition of a "Moderate" discussion includes the insultive post above mine perhaps it's time for you to review the site guidelines. That post is far from moderate and if it referred to members of this site, I would have close it without discussion.

There is no place for insults or provoking of other members on the site. At no place did I say other members couldn't discuss the issue, my problem is HOW it's done and as long as it's within the site rules as the first several posts were I kept out of the discussion. When the threads turn in the direction this one was taking it is time to post a warning.
Don

ScYcS

Jul 09, 2004, 02:58 PM

Forgive me when i ask what you mean with insultive? To be honest with you, english is not my native language and i don't see the insult in any of the posts, but it might be that i miss it because of my lack of english.......

Rotozuk

Jul 09, 2004, 03:09 PM

I'll state again, I think this forum is a good thing as it will help promote the good design of flying wings. For example the post about fast flying wings may develope a new "high speed" flying wing design. Planks (also a flying wing) currently hold strong to this area, but in general most wing designs have used very thick airfoil sections to contain the radio gear.

The aerodynamics for a wing are different enough to have their own section. Hopefully discussions will start building up, and who knows what nice designs might come from it. We have seen this happen in most every other section of the website.

Moderators have a tough balancing act. I respect the work they do in keeping this BBS a great tool.

-Wayne

gouch

Jul 09, 2004, 08:14 PM

The one above don's would be mine. Why don't you just say the thread by that whinging gouch bloke :D

I would like to know where I was insultive? I wasn't meaning to be, I just answered Brians post in the way I thought it needed to be. He came here and bagged the forum itself :confused:

I didn't insult him in any way that I can see, I didn't realize until don mentioned it that he isn't a mod on this forum. Going on the amount of involvement he has had in the creation of it I just assumed he was.

If it was me not agreeing with his definition of a "flying wing" then I was only stating facts as I understand them, and that's how I remain. We agree to disagree, fine, but why did brian come here and incite anger by writing this

Threads like this one merely demonstrates that the entire concept of a separate flying wings forum was flawed in the first place- there is as much cross forum posting about flying wings as ever there was, and there always will be, except now you have to check in seven forums instead of six.

That's always going to start something, don't you think?

I have always had good and fair dealings with Mark, Brian and you Don, but my post was to reply to certain misconceptions Mark (and brian) as to what makes a flying wing. I feel the original thread poster had every right to start this thread and his post was very informative and educated.

Don, honestly, I would like you to point out to me (and others as it appears) where I over stepped the boundries in my thread. If it was
this

Here's the problem I have. The mods that mod this forum seem to hate being here from what I gather, esp Brian, after reading your comments. Why mod it then? pass it on to someone who WANTS to do it. If you have a problem with this forum take it up with Mr Bourke, rather than us.

I stick by my theory of wanting to be here. BUT as I mentioned earlier, I wasn't aware that brian wasn't a mod here, but I have now learnt it's not the case and I do apologize to brian for that, but the fact any mod goes into any forum and posts what I beleived to be an insult to everyone who visits here was out of place.

As a mod and I understand that you guys don't get paid, and for that I applaud you guys for even contemplating taking on a job like this for no money, but the surely you can see how brians post was going to do nothing else than inflame people, and for that IT should have had the warning in my eyes.

Also, I have seen many replys to negative comments in threads all over the site by way of "if you don't like the thread, go away", that don't get a look at, and I feel that is how it should be, so it keeps out the negative stuff in threads , and I can't see the difference here.

Cheers, honestly :D
Paul

gouch

Jul 09, 2004, 08:29 PM

I just noticed Mark is no longer mod here :confused:

Maybe it is time to start paying you guys for putting up with all the crap :)
If your boss is making money, why not you guys? ;)

This is why this thread was started by aeronut as far as I can tell, so everybody knows what this forum is actually for. I wasn't sure until I did some research on it either.

Buzz_Man

Jul 09, 2004, 08:47 PM

If I didn't like it here I'd get a refund and then leaf.

:)

DaveGherardini

Jul 09, 2004, 09:09 PM

Ha Buzzman,, im glad to see some humor inserted in this thread, it needs it, So far its been a non-productive thread(havent learned anything about building or flying) and we have lost a Mod? That stinks....Gouch is right,,J Bourke needs to anty up more for our mod's...if it werent for Moderators we wouldnt even have this place to share/Bragg about our stuff...

Buzz_Man

Jul 09, 2004, 10:15 PM

I'd volunteer to be a moderator, but I don't think I'd meet the minimum qualifications. Isn't the IQ requirement like in 3 digits or something? Whoa! I better just stick to building and flying.

I think it'd be a bit excessive to have a "Superfly" thread, a "Zagi" thread, et cetera, but having a Flying Wing thread is totally cool. I can't understand how anyone could be opposed to something like that, but honestly, I could care less if they are. It's here, let's enjoy it while it lasts. The way I see it, being here is sort of like driving a car on public roads - it's a priveledge. We all agreed to obey and follow the rules when we signed up. When you're dealing with "the public", you have to have rules and blah, blah, blah. There is no "perfect" group of people anywhere - even in the realm of e-powered wing lovers (though IMO, we're closer than all the other forums - ha).

I discovered this new thing a while ago - it's called "a life" and it doesn't allow me to get too annoyed with . . . well, with stuf that's not worth getting annoyed about. Perhaps, in my old age, I'm just starting to mellow a bit.

For me, that's a very good thing.

Happy flyin',

Buzz

raptor22

Jul 09, 2004, 10:20 PM

If we've lost a mod, I'll volunteer to fill the gap and keep it all running.

--Alex

surfimp

Jul 10, 2004, 12:26 AM

My understanding was that the creation of the Flying Wings forum would not require the removal of all discussion of flying wings from the other forums, but rather would provide a centralized point to discuss all aspects of flying wing design, construction and flying. In that sense, it would inherently overlap with the specialized discussions in each of the main forums (i.e. Slope, Electrics, Jets, whatever) but would feature directed on-topic (i.e. only about flying wings, no matter how they were powered or unpowered) discussion.

The thought that all talk of any type of flying wings would have to be segregated into the Flying Wings forum is depressing, and did not seem to be part of the original specifications for creating the Flying Wings forum. Did I miss something?

Steve

FoamCrusher

Jul 10, 2004, 12:41 AM

OK....under the present definition, would this be a wing or not?

FC

gouch

Jul 10, 2004, 02:08 AM

My rant above was only to answer what I thought to be that don said I was being far from moderate. My initial questions on the whole "flying wing thing" and what isn't, was more a technical query than anything else, which was the initial topic after all, and has been answered, for me at least.
If Mark left here because of the "issues" a couple of us have brought up, then so be it. I can't change it, and Mark is probably happier for it anyway.

I'm sure he'd rather be flying his planes (or shooting maniquins of a few of us!) :eek: rather than be here listening to this crap.

I'm sure this thread wasn't started to critisize anybody or start a war here, it was to know exactly what is a flying wing technically. This thread turned sour when Brian came here and bagged it's whole existence. That is a pity.

The question from foamcrusher is a classic example that some guys, me included for certain models, don't know what is acceptable here. The BOP is another one that I would have thought to be ok. This is why the thread was started, I'm guessing, and you will probably continue to see these types of questions pop up till the cows come home, not to stir trouble, but because people just don't know. This was how I got sucked into this discussion to begin with.

And rather than the negative people out there who are sniggling away thinking, "I told you this forum wouldn't work, yous' are all fighting about it" would instead give some positive info to it, it might just be a happy succesfull forum. Maybe a sticky is required?

So to answer your question foamcrusher, I don't know, and I don't really care anymore :D. I'm going back to slope where ALL my planes can be posted!
Nice plane by the way.

Buzzman: you are dead right, If we don't like it we would leave, but I love all of it here on RCgroups, just sometimes things that irk you, well, irk you :D
Before "wings" was here, I would post elsewhere, no biggie.But seeing as though it was voted to be here by the users, I'm here to support it, not criticize it.

Cheers
Paul

leccyflyer

Jul 10, 2004, 02:50 AM

OK....under the present definition, would this be a wing or not?
FC

Not a flying wing (in my opinion), it's a tailless aeroplane and therefore a legitimate subject for discussion in this forum. That's a really nice colour scheme for keeping orientation as well, my pal used to have a delta in that same colour scheme and without the sharp contrast you would never have known which way up she was- which was quite important at the speed she used to fly.

This discussion is a fine example of a storm in a teacup. The forum exists and members should just use the forum, and not get over stressed on whether something is or isn't a pure flying wing- that's why the tailless aircraft portion is in the forum title. We could go around and around with this and even produce a little "Is this a Flying Wing?" thread, the end result of which might be a committee-designed definition of what a Flying Wing is for the purposes of this forum, but it won't stop

a. members posting about Flying Wings in other forums, meaning if you want to read all the Flying Wing info that you are still going to have to check those forums

and

b. the occasional thread being posted in here on a model that doesn't fit the definition (whatever that is) or has nothing whatsoever to do with a particular model type- such as the threads on pusher props and UPS that are active at the moment- neither topic is Flying Wing specific.

That was the point I was making in my post. I wasn't bagging the forum as suggested, I don't "hate being here" and in case anyone has the bizarre idea that I "hate" wings I'm looking at two of my models here in my room which are true flying wings and one tailless aeroplane, all of which would be legitimate subjects for discussion in this forum.

Brian

TheAeronut

Jul 10, 2004, 02:50 AM

FoamCrusher:

That qualifies as a flying wing design in almost anybody's book.

Gouch:

Please feel free to join in here in the Tailless Aircraft and other Flying Wings :) Forum...

This forum is good for the general dissemination of Tailless specific issues, so anybody with a thread idea that has a main focus here regardless of other disciplines involved - Please include us in the conversation. Hopefully we will all learn something new.

J.P.

gouch

Jul 10, 2004, 03:43 AM

The forum exists and members should just use the forum, and not get over stressed on whether something is or isn't a pure flying wing- that's why the tailless aircraft portion is in the forum title

We aren't getting overstressed, people like to know where they stand. by the mods moving out certain posts it became clear that confusion would develop as to what really this forum was for, and I'm not the only one. This thread, whilst some may think useless, I think will help for future use.

My ONLY reason for being in this thread to begin with was I really wanted to know EXACTLY what a flying wing was TECHNICALLY. That's it, nothing else mattered. Not anyones idea of what constituted one but the actual meaning of the word. The rest of it has blown out of proportion.

It does seem odd though that it' seems it's only the mods that can't/won't accept the technical explanation. They CAN and DO have vertical fins. Because people question your ideas of a "wing" does not make them troublemakers or the like.

Surfimp has posted an extremely good explanation over in slope in the flying wing bird thread, (The one that was moved) and from what I have read here from aeronut, I now know what makes a flying wing technically a flying wing.

I know you don't hate wings, and that thought honestly didn't cross my mind, but I wasn't the only one who thought your first post was a bit ordinary.

Aeronut: I like this forum, I get more info than I give, but I'm learning!

Cheers, and don't hate me Brian, I don't need the wrath of a supermod!! :eek:

Paul

P.S I'm sick of typing "flying wing" :D

FoamCrusher

Jul 10, 2004, 10:28 AM

That tailless plane is a S&B Me-163c Komet of EPP foam, so it has more in common with the Zagi/Unicorn/Wing Warrior clan than might be expected at first look. It flies more like a wing than a R/E plane too, with very mild stall behavior, little to no tip stall, but much faster than my Unicorn, even with the same motor and prop.

I'm glad I can play here ;) If I couldn't, I would have pulled out my Unicorn (see pix)

The color scheme was designed for my older eyes, so I could keep track of the orientation. It is Ultracoat on top and black packing tape on the underside. If I were to do it again, I would use Ultracoat on both top and bottom since the tape, even with a 3M type spray, doesn't stick too well. The nose color should come all the way back to the cockpit - it is too small to see other than when the plane is close in, and that's not when you really need to see it :eek:

The bright yellow-green worked so well on the wingletts of my Unicorn, that when I built the Komet I went with that as the top color. I have been very satisfied with it, since it is highly visible even at long distances, and with the Komet it gets to long distances quickly.

FC

raptor22

Jul 10, 2004, 02:21 PM

Tony Oliver

Jul 10, 2004, 07:12 PM

Can I join in here?

I've been reading this thread and can't really see the problem. Don't 'define' it. Doing such a thing invariably confines the subject; gets people like me to find cracks between the rules; gets everyone het up and accused of immoderate language. I can't see the value of semantics when the reason for separating these excellent and fascinating aircraft from the humdrum, run-of-the-mill tailplane toters is because we have taste and discernment.

......and I fly tailless aircraft as I don't like building tailplanes.

The pic below is a composite of some of my aircraft which seem to cover most of the arguments one way or another. The only one I think could be doubtful is the Mugi because of its horizontal bit at the trailing edge in the centre. It's purely functional in that it keeps the fins up and I use it as a carrying handle. Its only other use seems to be to create drag.

I'm also a moderator of Engines, Scale Boats, and Dock Talk. Not exactly partial.

raptor22

Jul 10, 2004, 07:17 PM

THat black one on the top right is pretty tight.....I like it.

--Alex

DaveGherardini

Jul 10, 2004, 07:22 PM

Ha Tonyo,,,nice planes man,,i especilly like the zugini.... any more pics of that bird? is it coro or is it tissue covered?

gouch

Jul 10, 2004, 08:24 PM

SLIMER ALERT :D :D

Tonyo there is NO problem, why is everybody having issues with me wanting to know what defines them? :confused:

I'm not getting involved with what should be here and what shouldn't, I got drawn into that earlier, I just wanted the definition as I've already said a gazillion times before.

As far as your collection goes, the cool one on the top left, the zippy?, does it use a reflexed airfoil? It looks from the shot that that it's a "normal" foil? did you scratch it or is it a kit?

Have you or anyone upscaled the mugi? I've made the std size one as a sloper, but would like a bigger e powered one.

and I fly tailless aircraft as I don't like building tailplanes

That's another reason I fly my wings too as I can never seem to get my fuselages straight :D But I am slowly getting better!

Tony Oliver

Jul 11, 2004, 08:52 AM

No criticism intended gouch.

It just seemed that the detail wasn't as important as the spirit of the thing.

As for the models - the black wing is a pre-publication version of John Rutter's 'Titch' which was published in one of the UK mags. John lives where I do and I saw him flying the original with his usual flair and panache. He let me copy the model and it's as good as it looks. A Kontronics400 with the Rondo esc on the back plus a 7-cell NiMh AA pack is ideal. Goes like a rocket, and slopes well too. After an accident (I put the pack in the wrong way and moved the cg forward as a result) it was damaged. I removed the inner two panels to reduce the span by about 6 inches or so. Went like an even faster rocket. The model has an MH section (can't remember which, off hand) and is trad construction, covered with 1/16 balsa then glassed.

The Zugini is Correx and uses one sheet plus a bit. It's bigger than most so A balsa spar was contact glued top and bottom to stop it bending. My pal used a blue foam spar, full depth for the same reason. I've mentioned it before in one of the forums but the loading is around 2 to 3 oz/sq.ft. and has flown off the slope when the full-size duvet flyers were reading 40mph on their wind meters. Very versatile model.

The Zippy is a flat bottomed section and it isn't named that for nothing. It's actually zipped together. The wing is hinged along the centresection at the flat bottom surface and the top is a glued on zipper. It all folds up, inc 2ch tx, into a box about 18x10x10 inches. It was a free plan and is beautifully thought out by the designer. There's not much in it you could call conventional. Now about 20 years or more old? (the model, not the designer!)

Tony

gouch

Jul 11, 2004, 09:42 AM

The Zippy is a flat bottomed section and it isn't named that for nothing. It's actually zipped together. The wing is hinged along the centresection at the flat bottom surface and the top is a glued on zipper. It all folds up, inc 2ch tx, into a box about 18x10x10 inches. It was a free plan and is beautifully thought out by the designer. There's not much in it you could call conventional. Now about 20 years or more old? (the model, not the designer!)

Tony

Now that is a very impressive design. Never would I thought a zipper :eek: would be used in building a plane!!! Very different indeed!

Tony Oliver

Jul 11, 2004, 09:54 AM

As it seems of interest, I'll start a separate thread with some pics of the interesting bits. Probably tomorrow.

Meanwhile in answer to Dave's request for Zugini pics (and a layout drawing for construction). The drawing was done for another forum a while ago. the red bit was to change the original design so treat it as being hatched like the rest. The two halves are joined with wooden toothpicks in the flutes and a strenghthening piece glued over.

FoamCrusher

Jul 11, 2004, 04:53 PM

Tony Oliver

Jul 11, 2004, 06:22 PM

Ah, the dreaded typing error!

The name is Rutter. I think the model was in Quiet and Electric Flight magazine so it should be available from their plans service. I had a quick look but it seems to be unavailable tonight. Try in the morning?

Tony Oliver

Jul 17, 2004, 08:03 AM

Apparently Traplet have changed their website address yet again.

The Address is now http://www.traplethouse.com/

A search on the model name 'Titch' will get it.

Tony Oliver

Jul 17, 2004, 08:38 AM

....and back to the topic - are canards included as 'tail-less'?

leccyflyer

Jul 17, 2004, 12:05 PM

....and back to the topic - are canards included as 'tail-less'?

Ooooooooooooooh.......................

well if they were, then that would mean I could post this picture here and it would be on topic ;)

surfimp

Jul 17, 2004, 01:09 PM

Canards are horizontal stabilizers located in front of the main wing rather than in behind it as in a conventional design. Since they have separate horizontal stabilizers they are not flying wings, nor tailless.

Steve

surfimp

Jul 17, 2004, 01:18 PM

I've been reading this thread and can't really see the problem. Don't 'define' it...

...The pic below is a composite of some of my aircraft which seem to cover most of the arguments one way or another. The only one I think could be doubtful is the Mugi because of its horizontal bit at the trailing edge in the centre. It's purely functional in that it keeps the fins up and I use it as a carrying handle. Its only other use seems to be to create drag.

All of the planes you posted pictures fit the definition of "tailless flying wing" perfectly: none have separate horizontal stabilizers and all have self-stabilizing (in terms of pitch) airfoils. The number and location of the vertical fins is irrelevant. Also, the Mugi's fin setup is not controversional; the fin design is not intended to provide pitch stabilization, and the plane (when balanced properly) flies fine without it--I have a great flying pure nurflugel version with no fins whatsoever.

Thus, there's absolutely no problem with the definition of tailless flying wing aircraft, it's been in effect since the 1930s and 1940s. "Tailless" means no horizontal stabilizer providing pitch control. It may be a somewhat ambiguous term, but nevertheless this is how it is. Whatever confusion arises is easily solved by brief study of the history of flying wing aircraft design.

Steve

leccyflyer

Jul 17, 2004, 01:33 PM

Just out of interest does anyone happen to know what is the literal translation of nurflugel?

TheAeronut

Jul 17, 2004, 02:28 PM

The literal translation of Nurflugel is 'Only Wing'. Very descriptive of a pure flying wing!

J.P.

Tony Oliver

Jul 17, 2004, 02:49 PM

Brian - I think, from my distant learning of a smattering of German, that it means 'only wing' although 'wing' is only one translation of 'flugel'.

....and that was the most weak excuse for posting a pic of the Typhoon!

Steve - tail at the front? That would seriously worry birds and fish! As for tail-end-charlies, they wouldn' know where to look.

I wasn't questioning what a flying wing is, more the second part of the thread title. No one wins at semantics, but it's fun! Just another oddball model which doesn't have a dedicated forum.(and doesn't need one, Brian)

Meanwhile, here's a wing.

FoamCrusher

Jul 17, 2004, 04:32 PM

Apparently Traplet have changed their website address yet again.

The Address is now http://www.traplethouse.com/

A search on the model name 'Titch' will get it.

Thanks Tony. Got it.

FC

raptor22

Jul 17, 2004, 09:38 PM

Is than an oblique flying wing? Odd....

--Alex

Tony Oliver

Jul 18, 2004, 03:23 AM

I don't know much about it, but it's a test vehicle for an alternative to swing-wing aircraft. Possibly it's a 'swing engines'!

Only a guess, but I suppose if it can take off as a normal high aspect ratio then swing into a swept config it can have the best of both worlds but with a solid wing - no hinge mechanism to add weight and stress concentration.

The control surfaces must create a problem - some clever mixing needed to allow the same drag each side andnot have assymetric effects on the lift. Can Futaba and JR transmitters cope?

I don't think I'll build one. Yet!

leccyflyer

Jul 19, 2004, 05:02 AM

Thanks guys.

"Only wing" works perfectly for me as a description of the fundamental aspect of what makes a flying wing.

Incorporating other tailless aircraft into the forum descriptor provides for discussion of other aircraft that share some of the characteristics of a flying wing sensu stricto whilst having such mutually exclusive to the "only wing" characteristics, such as a proper fuselage. So everyone should be happy.

Feel free to remove the Eurofighter Typhoon photo if necessary Tony ;)

Brian

Tony Oliver

Jul 19, 2004, 08:21 AM

Move the Typhoon? No way - it's a wing with only a waggly bit at the sharp end.

We could change the title to 'Unstable models' or some such, but it's OK as it is for what it's meant to provide.

JMP_blackfoot

Jul 20, 2004, 01:54 AM

We could change the title to 'Unstable models' or some such, but it's OK as it is for what it's meant to provide.

Unstable ? :confused:
Having built and flown a few Horten type wings, I can vouch for the fact they are generally as stable or more than many "normal" airplanes.
Maybe create the word "Unstabilizered" ? :o

Tony Oliver

Jul 20, 2004, 04:39 AM

JMP - you misunderstand me. I fly wings - often. In general ,wings are not unstable, but I was referring to Brian's Typhoon. Like all modern fly-by-wire fighters they are inherently unstable and if a model is built with the same cg position and flight characteristics they are unflyable.

As far as Hortens are concerned, one flies regularly in the UK shows at around 1/2 scale with two turbojets to power it. Quite a sight to see, but oddly enough that seems to have some problem according to those in the know about the model. No problem that I saw though.

I like the word 'unstabilizered' but washin/washout and such come into it and are stabilisers in their own way. There was the Short Sherpa in the 1950 for example. This aeroplane had what was termed at the time an 'aero-isoclynic wing'. It had a fairly conventional fuselage with a swept fin, a swept, tapered wing with the outer 1/3 as a wholly moveable tip for lateral and pitch control. It was jet powered.

It takes all sorts to prove a point and I think this forum is near unique in the subject matter.

JMP_blackfoot

Jul 20, 2004, 08:48 AM

Okay, got it ! :)
The Hortens had designed and built a wing with similar control arrangement to the Short Sherpa, although with a difference : the axis around which the wing tip rotated was canted (is that the word ?) 45°, causing the negative going wing tip to move backwards while the positive going tip moved forward, thus helping the turn.
This machine reportedly never was flight tested, however.

You must have guessed by now that I am am an unconditional fan of the Horten designs.

There is a very interesting book about flying wings and tailless aircraft :

Title : Les ailes volantes
Histoire mondiale des ailes volantes
et des avions sans queue
Author : Alain Pelletier
Editor : E.T.A.I
Language : French
ISBN 2-7268-8444-X

Tony Oliver

Jul 20, 2004, 01:18 PM

Sans queue? My French doesn't run to that. Does it mean without tailplane or something like that?

I've not had much to do with the Hortens, but I totally agree with you about anything 'without the flat bit at the back'. Fascinating and so very modelable (?).

I did mess around with tailless freeflight competition models for a short while but in comparison with conventional layout models they were lacking in performance. I was disappointed in that as at first I thought it was because they were too stable. However even destabilising them by moving the CG aft and making compensating changes, they still were not comparable. Since radio and particularly slope soaring came in, the wing's come into its own I think that's a great development for many reasons. Even on a basic level they look good.

'ware the line in the sky!

Tony

Rotozuk

Jul 20, 2004, 02:34 PM

JMP_blackfoot

Jul 20, 2004, 03:33 PM

Sans queue? My French doesn't run to that. Does it mean without tailplane or something like that?

It means literally "Tailless"

I did mess around with tailless freeflight competition models for a short while but in comparison with conventional layout models they were lacking in performance. I was disappointed in that as at first I thought it was because they were too stable. However even destabilising them by moving the CG aft and making compensating changes, they still were not comparable. Since radio and particularly slope soaring came in, the wing's come into its own I think that's a great development for many reasons. Even on a basic level they look good.

'ware the line in the sky!

Tony

I think it's in the maneuvering ability that they shine. And what a sight they are in the sky!

Herewith a couple of pictures of our latest design acording to the Horten formula. 32 grams, KP-OO, 1 LiPo 145 mAh.