Don

Thanks for the pointers.
I was trying to read the chapter about undercarriage in Andy Lennon book I found it hard work and your post summarised it well.

Tony

Tony

Steerable Nosegear. Here's a link to someone who has done it successfully These ones work off the rudder servo. You mentioned something about not using the rudder??

Or you could buy servoless retracts from Sussex Model Centre

Ordering from the States isn't too bad, but at these prices they stop your package on arrival in UK and charge you VAT on top.
HobbyKing in the US have the best deals, and Grayson Hobby will give you good advice if you email them.

I'm not actually speaking as an expert. More of an expert on belly landings in rough fields.

Keep us posted. It's an interesting project.

cheers

Nick

Laddie

Don, you described scenarios that actually do happen. Over many years designing and building the models, I experienced all of them. I feel that it is next to impossible to design perfect plane. Every design is the compromise.

Nice to hear from you Laddie and congratulations on your design and scratch build of the Polar 5 modern version of the DC-3. I feel that the DC-3 came close to being a perfect design for the 1930's.
Charles

Do canards have a place in delta jets?
Charles

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/11/ch...-flight-video/

Is this contraption going to fly?

528 sq in
40oz auw
360 watts
each plane has a 28" wingspan.

Each plane has a motor, speed controller and battery. Electrically, they have a common earth. The receiver is in the front plane. Signal and earth wires are carried from there to the other planes through the cf tubes. Inside each of the rear planes the ESC provides the power with all the red wires in common. I've tested that arrangement successfully.

So, the neutral point should be 2/3 towards the back and the c/g will be in front of that. The front wing has an incidence of +2 degrees compared to the other two.

Those 5mm cf tubes are not really rigid, but I'm hoping to fly gently on a calm day. I'm thinking of adding diagonal braces between the two tubes to the front plane.

Any advice will be welcome.

cheers

Nick

Nick, You have an overall canard there. Fly or not, you are to be commended for the mechanical, electrical and controls set up. Your original methods could be adopted by others for future devices. Thanks for sharing.
Charles

Nick.
I like your formation canard, really unusual

Charles
Congratulations for your 5000 posts thread.

Tony

Nick - that is truly awesome. There's been odd 'formations' over the years - have vague memories of seeing them in US paper mags, but cannot recall a 'canard' formation. One showed up over in England somewhen lately, but can't recall just when.

Have a feeling those diagonals could come in handy - the other formations I've seen had more direct model to model tubing connections than yours.

Good luck!

D

I remember seeing something similar in one of the mags many years ago, a four-plane formation of the Blue Angels' Grumman F11 Tigers in a diamond formation. The front and back ones were on a single lengthwise stick, with the other two on a single cross-wise stick that was pivoted to the middle of the lengthwise stick. The whole thing was a control line model that would take off and land with all four locked together. In flight, the pilot could release the two side planes, which would then do a continuous roll around the lengthwise stick holding the front and back airplanes. IIRC, there was a single engine in the nose of the lead airplane that powered the whole thing.

http://www.backyardflyer.com/ME2/dir...D5BDB7C4B3096F

Try that!

D

Perdu Tony

Charles
Congratulations for your 5000 posts thread.

Thanks, Tony. And you are the first of group six. We will move forward if modelers like you will continue to present ideas for discussion. RC Groups now has many canard threads and the world's models of them are more numerous than ever. Our subject matter encompasses both conventional and canard elements. I am pleased to see canard wings appearing on private and corporate designs.
Charles

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

As I see it, this type of flying machine is begging for front end control. The front half of it is being supported by side fins which are extensions of the wing. This brings the CG forward so that the rear controls can be more effective. The wing does not appear to have an airfoil. Could not a front delta canard wing give more positive and stable control especially on landing?
Charles

For the full story of how I came across, and then became fascinated by, this pioneering free flight model, click here.

I built a miniature R/C version for indoor use back in 2005. It was incredibly stable (see video clip here) but alas got eaten by a Shock Flyer after just a couple of sessions.

Anyway, I am beginning to feel that this particular itch is going to need scratching again soon and am contemplating building a bigger version for outdoor use so I thought that I would start by picking a few brains on this thread. Please feel free to chime in on any aspect that interests you but I do have two particular questions:

i) The indoor model was reluctant to turn. Not really surprising since the interplane rudders had very little moment arm. I did set them up with lots of differential so the inboard rudder created more drag which helped a bit. Ideas on a more positive form of directional control would be appreciated.

ii) Construction. The methods used for my miniature model won't scale up easily and those used on the prototype are beyond my skill (and patience!). Again, any suggestions much appreciated.

Thanks in anticipation,

Trevor

Originally Posted by Trevorh

...
i) The indoor model was reluctant to turn. .... Ideas on a more positive form of directional control would be appreciated.

Use those little rudders on the canard. Should give plenty of rudder authority. That will couple with the dihedral in the wingtips to give some roll control. You could also rig the wing for wing warping, like the Wrights used, to get direct roll control. Use the rigging wires between the trailing edge set of interplane struts. Find a book on the Wright's airplanes to get the details.

It's debatable how much good the rudders between the wings are doing, although they don't hurt. I'm not surprised that you didn't get much rudder control from them. OTOH, if you remove them, you might find that the plane is quite happy flying sideways, with little or no yaw stability.

Apparently the original airplane was a MODEL (8' 6" span, NOT full-scale) and a free flight, so control response probably was not an issue. The record was a flight of 51 seconds in 1914, which presumably could have been in a straight line. For your R/C model, doing turns or otherwise being able to steer it would not necessarily be a "scale maneuver".

Thanks Don, some good suggestions there. I wonder whether it might turn out to be easier to mount the whole canard on some sort of ball joint rather than make the forward fins individually moveable?

Originally Posted by Don Stackhouse

I'm not surprised that you didn't get much rudder control from them. OTOH, if you remove them, you might find that the plane is quite happy flying sideways, with little or no yaw stability.

I believe Mr. Stanger had that problem - hence the addition of the fins as in the picture attached.

For your R/C model, doing turns or otherwise being able to steer it would not necessarily be a "scale maneuver".

True, but then I suspect that landing without damage may not be a scale manoeuvre either! It does make you admire the spirit of these pioneers. Remember that he was entrusting his unique home-built petrol engine to this free flying contraption.