Another swept wing design

[kral27]

Building another airial photography plane that can carry a heavier load (i.e.: 500-1500 grams appx.).

Basic requirements:

1. Non-Conventional
2. Must have exceptable glide performance (engine off). Not looking for anything more than reasonable (i.e.: along the lines of the way a Miss2 glides is fine for me.).

3. Must be able to hold a pattern and demonstrate some resistance to modest interuptions.

4. Something fairly large (2m to 2.85 max) for good visibility and the higher RE numbers associated with larger cords which makes airfoil selection much easier as your options are easier to find.

5. Tight Turns, Tight Turns, and more tight turns....

6. Will be overpowered to get to altitude as quickly as possible and at the same time to serve as a safety net when much turbulence is present on the field I fly from. This usually requires higher speed finals. In addition I am surrounded by appx. 38m obstacles at a field that is about as wide as a Golf Course.

7. The most important thing is that when you fly the plane it flies with a majestic presenence seldom seen. This is vague but just use you imagination and I'm sure we all understand what I mean by this to some degree.
(The Telemaster Senior has a little of this trate to it.)

I'll add any more details as they come to memory as it is getting late here.

[Cory]

Before I vote, what will be the point of making this wing? Is it just to have a unique looking wing? Is this going to be powered, glider, fast, slow, etc? I would vote differently depending on your design goals.

[BMatthews]

For a bird like glider I like 1 and 4. 5 has possibilities but I'd make the arc in the middle a little more pronounced and the recurve at the tips a little more aggresive. 5 would be excellent as a flying wing.

2 and 3 are just too wiggly.

[ghoti]

I would not use any of them. Bill

[eflightray]

I would iron the creases out of the plan and build a proper wing.

It needs a #6 - None of the above.

[kral27]

These are just a few ideas. The purpose of this entire project is discovery. As far as my personal tastes go. I like a plane that can hold a patern with little assistance and can fly in tight spaces during the landing phase. The swept tips seem on a design that I have flown seem to allow a much higher AOA during approach compares to a plank wing.

[kral27]

The simulated props on this illustration are intended to display options only and do not represent any commited decision. Single engines are simply more affordable unless you start to get into the really big AXI's. This plane will most likely be at that 50/50 point in reference to the twin or the single pusher. The twin may be less expensive but not by a significant value to effect final decision. If it were to be a twin the props must counter rotate (left engine swings opposite of right). I threw the counter-rotating props in there for the hell of it.

[ghoti]

The function of a wing is to provide the downwash needed to keep the plane from falling. Why would all that curvature contribute to that? The multiple curves make construction difficult and the wing weaker. Bill

[kral27]

Perhaps I've gotten used to not building plank wings but realize they end up being much stiffer and lighter than the plank types. It's not that hard and just requires a little wood bending (soak and dry). It's all about creating a plane that is a true pleasure to fly. Something that flies in a way that makes it somewhat mystical in the way it moves in the air that surrounds it. So far I've had a sample taste of this feeling and once you get that feeling it is not so easy to let it go.

I know this beyond all convention but this is the only way to find out as I cannot expect someone to do it for me. This is why I spend little to no time building wings that resemble anything that the market offers as it would be easier to just buy it.

I'm superficial and at the same time expect things to fly as well as they look. So far thing look pretty good and am greatful for this experience and all the people on this forum who have helped make it happen. Special thanks to those providing the links for the CG software as well.:)

Here is an update to address the post BT Mathews posted:

[kral27]

The function of a wing is to provide the downwash needed to keep the plane from falling. Why would all that curvature contribute to that? The multiple curves make construction difficult and the wing weaker. Bill

These wings are quite stiff and perhaps it's due to my construction methods which are a blend of conventional and creative inspiration.

[GeeW]

Torsionally- I would think it difficult to get something that wont disappear into flutter as the speed comes up.

[kral27]

in terms of speed. In order to get any sort of speed out of the wing currently tested it must be placed into a dive. The test wing uses a NACA6409 airfoil. The next wing is considerably larger at 107dm2 so I may go with a combination of the Drela airfoils.

In addition the wing may appear to be a single peace but it is actually a composition of sections which are to be determined for the next wing (in terms of how many). This makes the wing extremely stiff and light but so much so that you must make arrangements for a little flex to prevent fractures from developing over time.

The really strange part is that the most difficult part during the build (the first time) was to get the clamps from springing loose when joining the panels. This issue is no longer applicable.

The single most important thing to keep in memory is that once the panels are joined together the wing becomes so stiff that attempts to create washout with a heat iron are somewhat impossible. Therefore it must be built in prior to the joining process.

[BMatthews]

Torsionally- I would think it difficult to get something that wont disappear into flutter as the speed comes up.

It's more work to make a wing like this but from a torsional standpoint it's no worse than a simple plank shaped wing that uses the same ribs, spars, leading and trailing edge stock sizes. In fact the curve to the rear may actually aid in damping flutter.

Obviously this sort of planform whimsy isn't for everyone. But I like the originality of it and done with some simple grace to the lines (as in not TOO wiggly :D) I think it's got some serious possibilities for making models that are both different and nice to look at in the air.

Anyone remember the rubber free flight models of George Perryman? It took him a while but folks finally came to see them as beautiful.... mind you most of them were seeing it while he was up on the winner's podium... :D

[kral27]

Decided on this design and may or may not make modifications to it. Thanks for the input as well.:)


Update: I decided to remove the illustrations so if you wish to see them feel free to request. The reason: some of my older designs began showing subtle signs of influence via larger manufacturers. Tough call to make but will stick to my intuition at all times.

[kral27]

above. Just working on side view and all the fine details to minimize waste and maximize quality. If you wish to talk me out of it I would love to hear any detailed remarks. In addition, remarks with citations would be even more appreciated but not necessary. At the same time, talking me out of this would perhaps be more difficult then selling a freezer to an inuit. :D

I flew my older version of this one today and discovered some impressive qualities I've not seen (i.e.: very high AOA at super slow speeds with rock sold stablity). This of course requires a little more power but still impressive to see in the air. I'll try another run in a a few hours.

[kral27]

available upon request...