Flynano - Page 11 - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Feb 13, 2018, 03:32 AM
Tony Audsley Retired Locksmith
Lockey's Avatar
Thanks for your words of wisdom Tom .. it is much appreciated

If I am right, you are suggesting that the rear wing should have positive incidence (up at the back) which is the same as me having so much up elevator

As it is now, both wings are set at zero incidence whereas the Skycar, the rear wing has about 6 degrees of positive incidence at the root )front wing is set at zero)

Lockey
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Feb 13, 2018, 09:13 AM
Retired CAD guy
birdofplay's Avatar
Lets not forget that the CG is quite likely to be at or slightly forward of the STEP.


To make this design similar to the Skycar you would have to lower the nose of the aft wing.
Feb 13, 2018, 09:15 AM
When cows fly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lockey
Piss off with your flaps ... joking of course David .. but then you know that would wind me up .. didn't you

Glides well BUT I am holding lots of up elevator

Lockey
I would NEVER do that Lockey
Feb 13, 2018, 10:11 AM
Tony Audsley Retired Locksmith
Lockey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by birdofplay
Lets not forget that the CG is quite likely to be at or slightly forward of the STEP.


To make this design similar to the Skycar you would have to lower the nose of the aft wing.
Right on both counts Bob, wonder how it would go just twisting the wing (like the Skycar) where it touches the fuselage

Lockey
Feb 13, 2018, 03:32 PM
Registered User
tspeer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lockey
Thanks for your words of wisdom Tom .. it is much appreciated

If I am right, you are suggesting that the rear wing should have positive incidence (up at the back) which is the same as me having so much up elevator

As it is now, both wings are set at zero incidence whereas the Skycar, the rear wing has about 6 degrees of positive incidence at the root )front wing is set at zero)

Lockey
I would call that negative incidence for the rear wing, but we're talking about the same thing. Rotate the whole wing (or the root) to get the same effect as the elevator. Then you have all the elevator control authority at your disposal for maneuvering.
Feb 13, 2018, 03:33 PM
Registered User
tspeer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lockey
Right on both counts Bob, wonder how it would go just twisting the wing (like the Skycar) where it touches the fuselage
I think that's a good way to do it.
Feb 13, 2018, 07:24 PM
Tony Audsley Retired Locksmith
Lockey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tspeer
I would call that negative incidence for the rear wing, but we're talking about the same thing.
If it were the front wing I would call it negative incidence .. but as its (i guess) really the horizontal stabilizer, I would call it positive incidence but .. you are right really

Lockey
Feb 14, 2018, 01:09 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by tspeer
I'm not surprised changing the thrust angle isn't very effective because the thrust line is so high and the prop is so far back. Whether you point the prop up or down isn't going to make an appreciable difference to the distance between the thrust line and the c.g. It's going to have a strong nose-down moment from thrust no matter what.
Yep, that's exactly why I went to great lengths to assure the motor on my box-wing was about midway vertically between the upper and lower wings (see pic below).
The real Flynano is a seaplane, so getting that prop way up was a priority. Of course, you end up needing tons of incidence on the rear wing as a result - very inefficient.
But your plane is not in water (yet). Maybe for the land version it would be easier to simply mount the motor in the rear and lower down (rather than messing with the rear wing incidence?
Feb 14, 2018, 04:46 AM
Tony Audsley Retired Locksmith
Lockey's Avatar
Shame on you Nuteman you know I like to keep things as scale looking as possible

Anyway mate, I have done the mod to the rear wing so lets see how it goes now

Lockey
Feb 14, 2018, 06:53 PM
Retired CAD guy
birdofplay's Avatar
BEST of luck tomorrow !
Feb 15, 2018, 10:31 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lockey
Shame on you Nuteman you know I like to keep things as scale looking as possible

Anyway mate, I have done the mod to the rear wing so lets see how it goes now

Lockey
The issue I see with that approach is this: With the inboard portion of the wing at lower AOA than the outboard portion, you run the risk of outboard stalling before inboard, which may lead to dropping a wing ("tip" stall) at just the wrong moment
Feb 15, 2018, 11:32 AM
Warbirds Lover
Dreamcatcher's Avatar
Hi !
Congrats for that lovely bird Lockey !

I would have tried to move the CoG backward a bit before to play with the wing
Feb 15, 2018, 12:18 PM
Registered User
tspeer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuteman
The issue I see with that approach is this: With the inboard portion of the wing at lower AOA than the outboard portion, you run the risk of outboard stalling before inboard, which may lead to dropping a wing ("tip" stall) at just the wrong moment
On a canard or tandem wing aircraft, the forward wing has to operate at a higher lift coefficient than the aft wing for speed stability. So it should stall before the aft wing. I don't see tip stall being a big issue for the aft wing because the plane should nose down before the aft wing stalls.
Feb 15, 2018, 12:22 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by tspeer
On a canard or tandem wing aircraft, the forward wing has to operate at a higher lift coefficient than the aft wing for speed stability. So it should stall before the aft wing. I don't see tip stall being a big issue for the aft wing because the plane should nose down before the aft wing stalls.
Let's hope so, but in this case, the forward wing has wider chord - so the rear wing has lower Reynolds number - maybe leading to stall sooner than we'd like...
Feb 15, 2018, 10:08 PM
Tony Audsley Retired Locksmith
Lockey's Avatar
Thanks for all you input guys .. I am certainly no expert when it comes to aeronautics so I do like it when experts are willing to chip in and give their help and advice .. although it does seem that we have a slight difference of opinion with this one

Not sure if you saw this one on the Skycar .. which is a similar configuration, I did the plans for this one to be built from Depron, and a friend of mine built it and although he has only flown once, it did seem to fly as predicted by the original designers. (see PDF) .. it has a similar twist and incidence on the rear wing

As soon as I get a calm day I will re-test the Flynano and report back

Lockey
Last edited by Lockey; Feb 16, 2018 at 03:30 AM.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Product FlyNano - A truly amazing recreational aircraft coming soon ! - First flight ! OzparkPilot Australia 43 Jul 05, 2012 08:56 PM
Discussion Flynano! Hope someone does an electric version Ruffin Ready Scale Kit/Scratch Built 0 May 11, 2011 12:54 PM