Thread Tools
Jun 03, 2019, 06:32 PM
Registered User
Scratchbuildrc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlcrlee
I personally think it is a poor design in concept and details. For one thing, the 3-surface stabilization fore & aft reduces by ca. half the load on EACH of the 2 fore & aft stabilizers, requiring much more critical control-surface steering movements and thus less controllability and less stability. A very STUPID idea for anything but a highly advanced computer controlled jet fighter!


Much better:

1. Full size:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq683tglYy0







2. Essential simplicity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poGh3ZlE0Qo
I wonder if the shape of the fuselage had anything to do with it. Those canard seem rather small and the fuselage looks like it could generate some weird lift given how flat it is..
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 04, 2019, 04:17 AM
Registered User
Exactly! Plus ....

1. 3-surface really requires active AS: note that the fwd-stab ("canard") on jet fighters is very SMALL and actually/actively used for FLOW-CONTROL, like slats,, not as an elevator-stab!



2. By using both front and a rear horizontal stabilizers, knowing that the horizontal stabilizer on a canard-type aircraft MUST be loaded enough aerodynamically to be effective, EACH of the two stabs has much less load on it, rendering EACH much less effective both for control AND/OR stabilization.

3. The vertical fins & rudders are too short/small & close to the root & WIDE-FRONT body (easy stall without a HUGE rear horizontal area), causing them to blank out at higher AoA .... as in turns!

4. No visible washout! (vs lots of twist in the Speed Canard).

Why I posted more effective and thus much better Canard (-Aircraft) examples above.


"Use What Works"


or die
Jun 04, 2019, 06:04 AM
I Look, Listen, and Learn
Timbo383's Avatar
The spoke wagon wheel works but I am glad that I have rubber run flat tires instead. It's experimentation that gives us better usable items and sometimes there is a hefty price to pay as in someone's life.
And yes, I do see some flaws in the plane design, but sometimes it's the combination of the flaws is what works.
And keep in mind that they still haven't determined yet if it was pilot/builder error or maybe a malfunction even.
Last edited by Timbo383; Jun 04, 2019 at 06:23 AM.
Jun 04, 2019, 06:21 AM
I Look, Listen, and Learn
Timbo383's Avatar
Double post.
Jun 04, 2019, 07:23 AM
Registered User
Everything on that plane (the Innovator) is really closely spaced ("close coupled") AND its got that wide, flat fuselage that is generating lift.
That means a lot of complex interference/interaction between all those surfaces (as xlcrlee pointed out). At low speed and/or a marginally over-aft CG that could mean trouble.
From the description of the pilot observer on the ground, it certainly sounded like classic aft-CG/low-speed related control issues - basically, at least a partially stalled airplane.
Of course, we're all guessing at this point...
Jun 04, 2019, 07:37 AM
Registered User
Scratchbuildrc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuteman
Everything on that plane (the Innovator) is really closely spaced ("close coupled") AND its got that wide, flat fuselage that is generating lift.
That means a lot of complex interference/interaction between all those surfaces (as xlcrlee pointed out). At low speed and/or a marginally over-aft CG that could mean trouble.
From the description of the pilot observer on the ground, it certainly sounded like classic aft-CG/low-speed related control issues - basically, at least a partially stalled airplane.
Of course, we're all guessing at this point...
Wonder why there was no parachute...
Jun 04, 2019, 08:25 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratchbuildrc
Wonder why there was no parachute...
If you mean a ballistic parachute for the plane itself, like on the Cirrus (and others), then that's not cheap or easy to implement. Also, this is a pusher airplane - so probably even more difficult to implement reliably.
Plus, at 200 feet of altitude, it's unlikely (if not impossible!) it would have deployed in time anyway.
Jun 04, 2019, 09:04 AM
Registered User
Scratchbuildrc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuteman
If you mean a ballistic parachute for the plane itself, like on the Cirrus (and others), then that's not cheap or easy to implement. Also, this is a pusher airplane - so probably even more difficult to implement reliably.
Plus, at 200 feet of altitude, it's unlikely (if not impossible!) it would have deployed in time anyway.
ah, true
Jun 22, 2019, 07:00 AM
Living the dream
KiwiKid's Avatar
On a cheerful note - here's another one of John Woodfield's creations and lovely videos (made by his wife)

RC Canard Glider. Tail first flying. (1 min 41 sec)
Jun 23, 2019, 01:45 AM
who has rabbit ears down
Captain Canardly's Avatar
Thanks KiwiK! looks like I need to "get out more around here!
Kinda looks like slats to me too! Very interesting!
Latest blog entry: My "Kubiak" Collection
Jun 23, 2019, 09:17 AM
Registered User
that guy is amazing he flies so well no power required I've played in the wind with some of my old timers it's harder than it looks
Jun 23, 2019, 06:15 PM
who has rabbit ears down
Captain Canardly's Avatar
I run a 100% crash rate myself! it was 1988 for my last round on the slopes!
Latest blog entry: My "Kubiak" Collection
Feb 27, 2020, 08:58 PM
All generalizations are bad
I filled out and submitted one of those a couple of months ago. Nobody ever even read it. I truly do not think the FAA likes us.
Feb 27, 2020, 09:28 PM
who has rabbit ears down
Captain Canardly's Avatar
Yes! Thanks for the ping, as I have myne filed a few days ago!
Latest blog entry: My "Kubiak" Collection


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools