I've put together a document that hopefully summarizes some of the stuff that I discussed on the video introduction for the new plane design. The attached document summarizes some of the development process, and then discusses some of the performance improvement details. I've a LOT of technical data, am just showing a few bits to demonstrate the performance improvement with the separate flaps and ailerons as compared to flaperons. This is a non-trivial gain in performance. Not so coincidentally, one also gets a gain in handling qualities and agility.

This is a living document, I am likely to add to it as time permits.

Great explanation of design process and benefits of new plane.

"the greatest benefactors will be the typical pilot rather than the very
top end competitor. It is so easy to fly, and easy to fly well."
That is what it is all about!!

Snipe 3, the force will be with you....

Thanks for taking the time to put that presentation together, Joe.

A few questions from a design perspective:

1. How are the poly joints being reinforced to take launch loads?
2. How are the (admittedly pre installed) servo wires being routed in the wing? Given that the connector comes out the front of the wing, where do the wires go through the sheer web?
3. In the instructions, it is advised to use a 2S battery, laid out above the servos. Why 2S and not a long 1S as used in the CX5 Pro fuselage?
4. While I appreciate the thought behind the pre-installed harness, if one wanted to use a different wing connector, say, a Deans 4 pin or a spring pin set up, how firmly mounted is the existing connector? Is the polarity noted on the current connector?

To add to that question:

5. When you modified the Snipe 2 to test the concept, how did you reinforce the polyhedral joints in the prototype?

Thanks,
Wayne

Originally Posted by flyinghedgehogs

A few questions from a design perspective:

1. How are the poly joints being reinforced to take launch loads?
2. How are the (admittedly pre installed) servo wires being routed in the wing? Given that the connector comes out the front of the wing, where do the wires go through the sheer web?
3. In the instructions, it is advised to use a 2S battery, laid out above the servos. Why 2S and not a long 1S as used in the CX5 Pro fuselage?
4. While I appreciate the thought behind the pre-installed harness, if one wanted to use a different wing connector, say, a Deans 4 pin or a spring pin set up, how firmly mounted is the existing connector? Is the polarity noted on the current connector?

Originally Posted by wdwimbish

To add to that question:

5. When you modified the Snipe 2 to test the concept, how did you reinforce the polyhedral joints in the prototype?

Thanks,
Wayne

I've 5 minutes before I am supposed to accompany my loving wife to a ballet.

Suffice it to say that I'll answer in more detail later, maybe even with pics.

1) The primary issue is the kick loads when the fiber direction changes. The key is to have sufficient material to transfer the vertical loads between the upper and lower spar cap at the change in dihedral. I am comfortable in saying that this is sufficiently over-engineered on this model. There is a web (I call it a rib) on the face of the foam at the dihedral joint to carry the out of plane loads.
2)I will have to get back to you on this one...I think I know, but that is the path of sounding stupid as I am not certain.
3) I am using a 1s battery. Somebody with a Y gene that actually reads instructions???
4) My connector has about 3 cm of spare wiring... I was supposed to glue it in, I've not done that as yet. Not certain as to the rationale for changing the stock plug. Enlighten me.
5)My Proto Snip was tacked together with CA. Then I put +-45 along the skins, and then used some uni above and below the spar (outside of wing , nothing inside. I've pics, but have no time left.

Gotta go, seeya, bye

This is the funniest thing I've found.

Yes that’s very easy to relate to! I’ll look forward to reading the detail

Here are a few pictures showing the detail of my Snip dihedral modification. Yes, I coulda/shoulda done a bit better, it was meant to be an experiment!

Hi Joe , thank you for sharing your design paper!
According to tech data Yoda has a reduced wing area comparing to Snipe. I'm missing info how it was incorporated into those improvements
Regards, Vitali

Thanks for your thoughts and analysis info, Joe.

1. I think slide 13 should say "for THERMAL condition"... edit?

2. Did you do any airfoil tweaks? (I think maybe not?) So where do the differences in CDf (CDp, zero in your AVL output) come from? Reduced wetted area? Reduced interference drag? Oh I see: you say as much on slide 10.

Nice. I look forward to trying one.

On a slightly more serious note, one can see that I did not use a huge amount of material in joining the tip onto the wing. I think I mixed about 1.4g of epoxy ( my epoxy is 50:20 by weight) to do the job on both tips and had sufficient excess to make extra wet and use paper towel to squeeze out the excess while leaving a reasonable amount in the pot. This joining style is the same process that we used over 20 years ago to make the dihedral breaks in polyhedral rudder/elevator dlg wings. I're really tried to throw it hard... well, extra hard... to test the test wing. No worries.

Originally Posted by vitas

Hi Joe , thank you for sharing your design paper!
According to tech data Yoda has a reduced wing area comparing to Snipe. I'm missing info how it was incorporated into those improvements
Regards, Vitali

My objective function suggested that a small reduction in area (more directly stated, area outboard should be reduced for overall improvement in overall performance due to improvements in thermal performance).

In terms of the analysis I put forward in the pdf, the "Snipe" and the "Yoda" analyses were done with the same wing loading so as to get best comparison.

Other than that response, what are you asking?

i was just curious if reduced in drug, etc was also result of reduced wing area, not only 4 sevo wind with double V

Originally Posted by floquet

Thanks for your thoughts and analysis info, Joe.

1. I think slide 13 should say "for THERMAL condition"... edit?

2. Did you do any airfoil tweaks? (I think maybe not?) So where do the differences in CDf (CDp, zero in your AVL output) come from? Reduced wetted area? Reduced interference drag? Oh I see: you say as much on slide 10.

Nice. I look forward to trying one.

1) Title is correct, first bullet needs edit

2a) small airfoil tweaks. Some due to increased control surface %. Some due to Vladimir pressuring for increased launch performance.

2b) The Cdf is developed via a summation of the airfoil data as integrated with the potential flow analysis so as to understand what alpha/cl one should be using to get the cdf from the xfoil result for the Re and trailing edge deflection.

2c and 2d) Reader has determined the answers