What are the advantages of the reversed wing tips (as compared to the Icon A5)?

The finished article will (and now has) have sponsons following the example of the Boeing 314, Dorniers, Flywhale , Seahawker, etc. And yes Icon has them and even tried to patent this 80+ year old concept( for you Icon fans out there). It will also house retractable landing gear, thus amphibious. Honestly this aircraft is being targeted at the same market as Icon and thus constrained by the mandates of that category. I can tell you vehemently , EVERY effort is being made wherever possible to make it as dissimilar as is safely and sensibly possible. I definitely try not to copy anyone else's handiwork. Many of those differences(some not yet revealed photos) are done with sound aerodynamic advantages in the choices made. Goal here is to be better than Icon if achievable. The Icon is a great looking craft and if some fans are troubled by this exercise, Im sorry. However I , for one, am driven by the premise that one should always strive to be better if not in aesthetics,than aerodynamics, hopefully both. The full scale icon has taken far too long and cost far too much to develop. I know, having designed and developed a far more sophisticated kit plane ( Orion Canard,4-6 place 400hp ,retractable carbon fiber canard aircraft). The tips are done this way to be , in my opinion , better looking and are positive enough ( angle of attack ) to plane and deflect the wing tip should it get low enough to contact the water, mind you it cant be very rough, but then it IS an LSA category aircraft and is not intended for rough weather and subsequently water conditions. I do appreciate the interest and comments and suggestions, which is why I have posted this. It truly does help me in the design process, identifying peoples concerns, opinions, likes, dislikes. and even , many times good or better ideas, none of us, me included , have all the answers. As such this platform brings forward this type of hopefully CONSTRUCTIVE dialogue. I am noticing ,however, from the replies that most all positive dialogue comes from non US citizens. This troubles me, has the US become overrun with folks who no longer create but instead tear apart and diminish all who do, I hope not or as a country we truly are in trouble. Better to use this energy and knowledge creatively I think. Nuff Said!!! Thanks to all who are out there showing concern, appreciation, and help. Keep the input coming.

Originally Posted by canardjeff

The finished article will (and now has) have sponsons following the example of the Boeing 314, Dorniers, Flywhale , Seahawker, etc. And yes Icon has them and even tried to patent this 80+ year old concept( for you Icon fans out there). It will also house retractable landing gear, thus amphibious. Honestly this aircraft is being targeted at the same market as Icon and thus constrained by the mandates of that category. I can tell you vehemently , EVERY effort is being made wherever possible to make it as dissimilar as is safely and sensibly possible. I definitely try not to copy anyone else's handiwork. Many of those differences(some not yet revealed photos) are done with sound aerodynamic advantages in the choices made. Goal here is to be better than Icon if achievable. The Icon is a great looking craft and if some fans are troubled by this exercise, Im sorry. However I , for one, am driven by the premise that one should always strive to be better if not in aesthetics,than aerodynamics, hopefully both. The full scale icon has taken far too long and cost far too much to develop. I know, having designed and developed a far more sophisticated kit plane ( Orion Canard,4-6 place 400hp ,retractable carbon fiber canard aircraft). The tips are done this way to be , in my opinion , better looking and are positive enough ( angle of attack ) to plane and deflect the wing tip should it get low enough to contact the water, mind you it cant be very rough, but then it IS an LSA category aircraft and is not intended for rough weather and subsequently water conditions. I do appreciate the interest and comments and suggestions, which is why I have posted this. It truly does help me in the design process, identifying peoples concerns, opinions, likes, dislikes. and even , many times good or better ideas, none of us, me included , have all the answers. As such this platform brings forward this type of hopefully CONSTRUCTIVE dialogue. I am noticing ,however, from the replies that most all positive dialogue comes from non US citizens. This troubles me, has the US become overrun with folks who no longer create but instead tear apart and diminish all who do, I hope not or as a country we truly are in trouble. Better to use this energy and knowledge creatively I think. Nuff Said!!! Thanks to all who are out there showing concern, appreciation, and help. Keep the input coming.

I'm re-reading the entire post and quite unable to support your notion that USA comments "tear apart and diminish" your work. You offered up a design that owes much to the Icon, which I do like. If I painted a woman who happened to bear a similar level of similarity to, say, Mona Lisa, it would be pretty silly of me to take offense to someone pointing this out. Perhaps the rest of the world is less familiar with the Icon? No matter. Press on and good luck. Microsoft made a mint copying Macintosh. Go for it!!!

Originally Posted by Renfield

I'm re-reading the entire post and quite unable to support your notion that USA comments "tear apart and diminish" your work. You offered up a design that owes much to the Icon, which I do like. If I painted a woman who happened to bear a similar level of similarity to, say, Mona Lisa, it would be pretty silly of me to take offense to someone pointing this out. Perhaps the rest of the world is less familiar with the Icon? No matter. Press on and good luck. Microsoft made a mint copying Macintosh. Go for it!!!

No one is being singled out here as the anti-christ, it was a generalized observation. Sorry if you feel otherwise, not my intentions. I would however argue the aircraft could be stated as owing more design influence in body shape to a modern day streamlined Republic Seabee than the Icon with its hard and sharp cornered automotive inspired styling. Keep active on here, please,I value all opinions as it helps predict and understand the human element in the purchasing decision and what pushes peoples buttons. I as well like the Icon very much , just trying to give them a run for the money so to speak . My activity in the full scale world parallels what my late father and I did in our very serious ( very active competitively) pursuit of the model hobby, that is we built mostly scratchbuilt original designs of our own doing for better looks, uniqueness and performance advantage ( raced R/C Formula One Pylon ( 200+ mph) very succesfully in the seventies, eighties, and early nineties, as well as scale ducted fan models, no turbines when we were active), not to mention exploring new and unique design territory and characteristics. You might check out my personal website www.v-raptor.info to get an idea of what i've been up to over the years. Thanks again for your input

No worries here, canardjeff. I ask about the wingtips because of the stills on their website showing a wingtip drag in great detail. I haven't tried it with my parkzone icon yet , but it looks amazing.

Your Y tail might be just the ticket for reducing the dreaded dutch roll? I read many complaints regarding this! When mine tries to wag, I add a touch of throttle.

Originally Posted by Renfield

No worries here, canardjeff. I ask about the wingtips because of the stills on their website showing a wingtip drag in great detail. I haven't tried it with my parkzone icon yet , but it looks amazing.

Your Y tail might be just the ticket for reducing the dreaded dutch roll? I read many complaints regarding this! When mine tries to wag, I add a touch of throttle.

Renfield
Designing something " new" is fun but it involves a lot of " Fence Walking" so to speak choosing where to make concessions , looks over performance and vice versa. Also it is a battle trying to make something different. My good friend Dave Platt ( yes, Mr. Scale ) said once to my father and I , " how can you do something new? Everything has already been done". In many ways this is true. Even Rutans work has been preceeded by and based upon many similar earlier concepts. Look at a lot of the late WW 2 design activity. Hell, Leonardo DaVinci drew rubber powered canards in the 1400s ( and Helicopters). We call Rutans "amazing epiphany" feathering system on Space Ship One a dethermalizer in the free flight world and even rigged one to a servo on a R/C assist Texaco plane long before Space Ship One was thought of. Not dissing Burt, just making a point supporting Dave's statement. Icon did a terrific job ( it is taking way too long though ) and really stirred up a lot of emotion (1000 depositors). But it is time for another player in the game. Does your model Icon really wag it's tail bad? I've read others making the same complaint and people claiming it has inadequate tail volume. The real one doesn't seem to exhibit this in any of the videos I've watched. A friend of mine , Len Fox, is a pro test pilot and conducted the spin testing on the real Icon. He says it flies very nicely, naturally he will be doing the test work for mine and will provide great comparative assessment. Thanks for the tip on the Icon water ops photos. What I find pleasing is it is as I related in an earlier reply , glassy smooth water. Wing tip would probably trip in rougher water, as would mine which contacts with a similar angle of attack to the water. Only time will tell on the Y-Tail, the model is only a couple days away from flyable. Will find out soon, hoping for the best!!!!!
There is always something to be learned when you try to be different, sometimes good surprises, sometimes bad, thats what makes designing your own stuff so much fun. If nothing new is ever attempted, how can we advance as a whole?

Regards
Jeff

Only time will tell on the Y-Tail, the model is only a couple days away from flyable. Will find out soon, hoping for the best!!!!!

Good luck with the maiden Jeff, please let us know how it goes ... with more pics and maybe a video if possible

Cheers

Lockey

Originally Posted by canardjeff

Renfield
Does your model Icon really wag it's tail bad? I've read others making the same complaint and people claiming it has inadequate tail volume. The real one doesn't seem to exhibit this in any of the videos I've watched. A friend of mine , Len Fox, is a pro test pilot and conducted the spin testing on the real Icon. He says it flies very nicely, naturally he will be doing the test work for mine and will provide great comparative assessment. Thanks for the tip on the Icon water ops photos. What I find pleasing is it is as I related in an earlier reply , glassy smooth water. Wing tip would probably trip in rougher water, as would mine which contacts with a similar angle of attack to the water.

No, not bad at all. I read a lot about the dutch roll tendency. Mine will "wag" on a fast descent with no power. I add some throttle and it's gone. Nothing unmanageable, but I find it interesting that it has gained so much traction with the online community. People who've never even flown the plane write as though that is a deal killer. The biggest negative to this model is its tendency to spin - exactly what the full size does not do. You've got to fly the model like you stole it.

My suspicion is that Icon would've gone with a V or Y except for the need to accommodate folded wings?

The warning on the Icon water testing photo said it all, I suppose. Looks cool but don't try this! Yet I know that on some glassy smooth day at the lake, I will.

Good luck with the maiden!

Get a video and good luck

Jeff.
You designing good looking plane. I have one question. Are you concerned that without any deflection plates or the sponsons, on takeoff the water will be sucked into the prop.
Original Shearwater had this unique shaped fuselage that shielded the prop, but at the cost. The drag from that area on other vice clean design made the plane un-economical. The Shearwater company abandoned that version and is in process of working on new, much cleaner design. I wish them and you all the best with the planes.
Despite of that, I love flying my R/C version of original Shearwater. Here is the vidio with my model flying.

Laddie Mikulasko's Shearwater (3 min 3 sec)

Laddie, love your Shearwater, any chance of the plans for this one?

Thanks

Lockey

Lockey.
The Flying Model Magazine is selling the plans now. Here is the website.
http://carstensbookstore.com/shearwater.html

Originally Posted by LADDIE

Jeff.
You designing good looking plane. I have one question. Are you concerned that without any deflection plates or the sponsons, on takeoff the water will be sucked into the prop.
Original Shearwater had this unique shaped fuselage that shielded the prop, but at the cost. The drag from that area on other vice clean design made the plane un-economical. The Shearwater company abandoned that version and is in process of working on new, much cleaner design. I wish them and you all the best with the planes.
Despite of that, I love flying my R/C version of original Shearwater. Here is the vidio with my model flying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9hCakUYF_k

Hello Laddie ,
Thanks for your concern. The design does have fuselage mounted sponsons which will handle lateral water stability and they make a great shield for water spray to prop . They were not yet ready to mount to fuselage when the pictures were taken. They require a rather stout structure going thru fuselage as on the real one I hope to mount the retractable gear in the sponsons retracting rearward into sponsons behind step with a gear door only covering area forward of step( still scheming and designing this aspect of real craft). additionally I have to add and contour epoxy/micro balloons on hull chine to create a downturned spray rail forward of sponson.More updated pictures coming soon as well as test flight this week sometime. Sprayed primer last night to help waterproof , will fly in primer then fully finish and detail cockpit ( have to pull a clear canopy off foam and glass one presently used for test flying) as per intended on real one later. Thanks for your compliments and suggestions.

Jeff

I noticed a few posts concerning the Bonanza V-tail... I just finished reading the results of the official FAA investigation into whether the Bonanza's tail was weak or structurally insufficent. In a nutshell, the earliest Bonanzas had the highest incidence of strucural failure, later attributed to probable overspeed/overstress of the then new & slippery airframe. Over the years Beechcraft enlarged & beefed up the tail, adding thicker skin in some areas, sub-spars and thicker root ribs among the other more well known mods such as leading edge root cuffs that prevent stabilizer deflection at high g loads. They also added 14% to the chord of the stabs starting with the C35, if I recall correctly. The findings indicated that as long as the airplane was operated within published limits on ALL versions of the Bonanza, the airframe (tail included) was safe.

The V-tailed version of the Bonanza was about 3 MPH faster than a standard tail, due to less interference drag with 1 less surface intersecting the fuselage. Skin drag wasn't a real player.

Sorry, just wanted to share a bit of info for those that care

So I would say faster, prettier, but prone to dutch roll... and surely mired in controversy.

Test flight went great, airplane flies beautifully as if on rails . will be doing video next flight and hopefully water tests later in the week as well if wind lays down. will post video when completed. Only have one set of batteries so basically one flight per outing and two hours on charger.

Jeff