Author Topic: WHAAAADOYATHINK? (Read 3062 times)

Shultzie · « **on:** June 15, 2012, 06:47:28 PM »

Interesting design...CLPA? I wonder?

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2012, 07:06:25 PM »

I be;ieve this falls under the category of WHAT THE F$%^!?!?

Howard Rush · « **Reply #2 on:** June 15, 2012, 07:48:58 PM »

Nope. Wrong category.

Chris_Burgess · « **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2012, 09:38:30 PM »

DO IT! I WANNA SEE PICTURES!

Shultzie · « **Reply #4 on:** June 16, 2012, 02:34:00 PM »

Quote from: Chris_Burgess on June 15, 2012, 09:38:30 PM

DO IT! I WANNA SEE PICTURES!

The daily Avwebcast has quite an extensive article and photos of this concept model....and one of their main engineering designers is also a R/C flyer GONEWILD!
Also kinda reminds me of an old Phantom Works NASA project concept model

Amazing what goes on in the minds of airplane design freaks!

Chris_Burgess · « **Reply #5 on:** June 16, 2012, 04:43:59 PM »

Sorry, I should have specified, I wanna see pictures of a control line PA bird done like that.

Shultzie · « **Reply #6 on:** June 17, 2012, 01:03:53 PM »

CHRIS..
GO FOR IT....DRAW SOME KIND OF CONCEPT MODEL OF YOUR OWN?

Chris_Burgess · « **Reply #7 on:** June 18, 2012, 10:23:23 AM »

I'm trying, when I get my plans finalized i'll post pics!

Serge_Krauss · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2012, 05:13:18 PM »

The Stanford group has published several papers on "non-planar" wing forms, and the conclusion (as I've mentioned) is that "box planes" with reasonable gap will have about 146% of the efficiency of an elliptically loaded monoplane wing. I think it a worthwhile (read that enjoyable) thing to try to design a composite box biplane CL stunter with or without additional tail. 'built in place for leadout guides.

SK

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2012, 05:20:47 PM »

Think like a drastically modified Manx Cat!!???

Howard Rush · « **Reply #10 on:** June 19, 2012, 07:51:11 PM »

Quote from: Serge_Krauss on June 19, 2012, 05:13:18 PM

The Stanford group has published several papers on "non-planar" wing forms, and the conclusion (as I've mentioned) is that "box planes" with reasonable gap will have about 146% of the efficiency of an elliptically loaded monoplane wing.

For induced drag, considering nothing else about the configuration. One seldom has the objective of designing an airplane to maximize one specific thing at the expense of the airplane as a whole. This particular configuration is, in my opinion, hokum. Here's another one with a slicker Web site: http://www.stavatti.com/COMMERCIAL_AEROSPACE.html . I get these things about once a week. They always claim some revolutionary breakthrough, and can usually be identified as a hoax by not having as much wingspan as they ought to.

Shultzie · « **Reply #11 on:** June 20, 2012, 08:59:23 AM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on June 20, 2012, 07:20:18 AM

Don,

That rendering of the aircraft in your first photo, has everything it needs to work well as a model.

You said there was an article and other drawings/photos?

Could you Post them.

Charles

the designer of that plane in the first photo is a brand new new sport aircraft design by one of the most talented aerodynamic engineers that has gotten lots of interest on the his new design concept was featured a couple of weeks ago on the daily www.avweb.com
I just broke two bones in my right wrist last sat. playin' tennis with my son ryan....so typin' n' wipin' my------------with my left paw is horrifical' to say the least.
I will try to post a few links to that story here soon as I can find it.
really beautiful design huh?'
Although this www.flynano.com isn't the link to that first photo...in some way also reminds me of that same design platform

Howard Rush · « **Reply #12 on:** June 20, 2012, 03:49:16 PM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on June 20, 2012, 07:20:18 AM

That rendering of the aircraft in your first photo, has everything it needs to work well as a model.

You could fly it in scale in case anybody ever builds a full-scale version. This could happen. P. T. Barnum once said that a potential investor in such a project comes into the world every sixty seconds.

proparc · « **Reply #13 on:** June 21, 2012, 01:46:42 PM »

That cockpit work is going to kill you Shultzie.

Shultzie · « **Reply #14 on:** June 21, 2012, 02:53:34 PM »

Quote from: Howard Rush on June 19, 2012, 07:51:11 PM

For induced drag, considering nothing else about the configuration. One seldom has the objective of designing an airplane to maximize one specific thing at the expense of the airplane as a whole. This particular configuration is, in my opinion, hokum. Here's another one with a slicker Web site: http://www.stavatti.com/COMMERCIAL_AEROSPACE.html . I get these things about once a week. They always claim some revolutionary breakthrough, and can usually be identified as a hoax by not having as much wingspan as they ought to.

Howard!
That Stavatti-spagettio' web link is a hoot n' a Haaa'ler....INTERESTING SOUP! thanks for the link!

Shultzie · « **Reply #15 on:** June 21, 2012, 02:59:02 PM »

Quote from: proparc on June 21, 2012, 01:46:42 PM

That cockpit work is going to kill you Shultzie.

YES! PERHAPS MORE WAYS THAN ONE!
I can only imagine how hot that interior would be sitting in a long line up of planes on a runway,waiting in 100+degree summa time heat!

Chris_Burgess · « **Reply #16 on:** June 21, 2012, 04:09:44 PM »

what about that as a twin electric push pull, might make for better weight distribution, who knows...

Serge_Krauss · « **Reply #17 on:** June 23, 2012, 12:27:41 AM »

Quote from: Howard Rush on June 19, 2012, 07:51:11 PM

For induced drag, considering nothing else about the configuration. One seldom has the objective of designing an airplane to maximize one specific thing at the expense of the airplane as a whole. This particular configuration is, in my opinion, hokum. Here's another one with a slicker Web site: http://www.stavatti.com/COMMERCIAL_AEROSPACE.html . I get these things about once a week. They always claim some revolutionary breakthrough, and can usually be identified as a hoax by not having as much wingspan as they ought to.

Why would one be designing to one specific thing here. The box wing configuration seems to have advantages in not losing energy during maneuvers. That doesn't say much about the rest of the plane's configuration. When I first read this data, I got out my old 1928 (Rev. 1936) Engineering Aerodynamics by NACA's Walter Diehl and analyzed the configuration at a practical gap using his methods. My value came out within a percent or two of Kroo's, without the aid of CFD. The configuration has some advantages, and with modern composites, is buildable fairly light with smooth contours, without the structural problems and interference penalties of older structures. I don't see a problem with playing with this idea; even though gap/span ratio is relevant, span choice doesn't seem seriously limited. - SK

Howard Rush · « **Reply #18 on:** June 23, 2012, 01:19:46 AM »

Quote from: Serge_Krauss on June 23, 2012, 12:27:41 AM

Why would one be designing to one specific thing here.

That's my point: The wing has, among other things, structural and aerodynamic considerations. One picks an optimum. You can trade span against some alternate wingtip doodad: even a biplane. I don't think these guys did this. They just picked one parameter that's so revolutionary that its benefit would swamp everything else. This particular configuration takes all the bending in one wing. Why didn't they connect the upper wing, even with a broomstick, take advantage of the structure, and save half the weight? Isn't that obvious?

You are welcome to build a stunt biplane, but I don't think you'll like your score on a blustery day. If a stunt plane needed a 50% reduction in maneuvering drag, one could merely reduce the span loading by 18%, an easier-to-paint alternative to a biplane. For electrics, where battery weight goes down with induced drag, that reduction might not be much change to the design.

Edited to reduce stupidity.

Shultzie · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2012, 10:29:59 AM »

Quote from: Howard Rush on June 23, 2012, 01:19:46 AM

Why didn't they connect the upper wing, even with a broomstick, take advantage of the structure, and save half the weight? Isn't that obvious?

RIGHT ON HOWARD! I WAS THINKIN/ BOT' that very same thing?

Avaiojet · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2012, 11:18:27 AM »

Designs like those featured in the photos above have been around since at least the 80's that I know of.

R/C models have been successfully built and flown from similar designs.

One would really have to know their math to find the correct MAC'ers and the correct CG, like on the aircraft in the first photo, sure, a guess could be made but trial and error with actual flight won't work.

These designs are interesting.

Charles

Howard Rush · « **Reply #21 on:** June 23, 2012, 05:29:35 PM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on June 23, 2012, 11:18:27 AM

R/C models have been successfully built and flown from similar designs.

One would really have to know their math to find the correct MAC'ers and the correct CG, like on the aircraft in the first photo, sure, a guess could be made but trial and error with actual flight won't work.

These guys made an RC model. I'll bet they used trial and error.

Avaiojet · « **Reply #22 on:** June 23, 2012, 06:03:22 PM »

Quote from: Howard Rush on June 23, 2012, 05:29:35 PM

These guys made an RC model. I'll bet they used trial and error.

Do you know what size the R/C model was?

I imagine you could fly the thing nose heavy and change the weight each flight until the model felt comfortable.

Something to keep in mind.

Charles

Chris Wilson · « **Reply #23 on:** June 24, 2012, 05:23:41 PM »

Quote from: Shultzie on June 23, 2012, 10:29:59 AM

RIGHT ON HOWARD! I WAS THINKIN/ BOT' that very same thing?

Probably because its all about room for the prop disk.

You may well find that the upper wings are much further back than the main plane so as to act as a stabiliser, as in a straight planform attached to to a lower swept one.

Any structural joiner may interfere.

Howard Rush · « **Reply #24 on:** June 24, 2012, 09:02:29 PM »

Quote from: Chris Wilson on June 24, 2012, 05:23:41 PM

You may well find that the upper wings are much further back than the main plane so as to act as a stabiliser, as in a straight planform attached to to a lower swept one.

Any structural joiner may interfere.

That could be.

Shultzie · « **Reply #25 on:** October 23, 2012, 04:40:48 PM »

HERE IS AN UPDATE ON THE SUCCESS TEST MODEL FLIGHTS OF THIS AMAZING SYNERGY NEW DESIGN CONCEPT!

Serge_Krauss · « **Reply #26 on:** October 23, 2012, 09:25:12 PM »

As posted by one of you above, similar embodiments have been around for some time, actually the early 1970's. Questions posed or implied seem to have easy enough answers.

1) Why compromise the entire plane to build it around one perceived advantage? You don't have to. Joined wings can be used in many configurations, and choice need not be pragmatic. The hobby is supposed to be fun.

2) Why isn't the wing braced or joined at the fuselage to take advantage of the lightness and rigidity such a configuration? Perhaps root bending moment isn't a problem for him. It would be possible to do so, but probably choice of the pusher prop got in the way. Anyway, it appears that the designer just wanted to try an ideal and see what results, in this case to have wing, "stabilizer" or second wing, and vertical stabilizer from one continuous surface. What's the harm in trying something interesting that one likes. At least he's not as foolish as some aviation pioneers and experimenters, who did themselves in through sheer ignorance - and that includes at least a couple modern people/groups with history and engineering backgrounds that should have guided them away from disaster. At least this guy has a fairly large RC rig. The question for me is not so much why he wants to try this, but whether he has scaled the dynamics like volume, area, power, loadings, speed, etc. to an educated compromise, or just built a big model. Designing traditional cruciform vehicles has its limits in holding interest, without some new goal or material to study.

A little adventure is a good thing.

SK

Shultzie · « **Reply #27 on:** October 24, 2012, 11:17:53 AM »

Quote from: Serge_Krauss on October 23, 2012, 09:25:12 PM

As posted by one of you above, similar embodiments have been around for some time, actually the early 1970's. Questions posed or implied seem to have easy enough answers.

1) Why compromise the entire plane to build it around one perceived advantage? You don't have to. Joined wings can be used in many configurations, and choice need not be pragmatic. The hobby is supposed to be fun.
The question for me is not so much why he wants to try this, but whether he has scaled the dynamics like volume, area, power, loadings, speed, etc. to an educated compromise, or just built a big model. Designing traditional cruciform vehicles has its limits in holding interest, without some new goal or material to study.

A little adventure is a good thing.
SK

Thanks Serge! Yes! A LITTLE adventure is a good thing....however I wonder how this model would survive some REPETITIVE FATIQUE TESTING?

Jim Thomerson · « **Reply #28 on:** October 25, 2012, 06:47:15 AM »

I have, somewhere, Aeromodeller plans for a joined wing free flight, called, I think, Ace of Diamonds.

Avaiojet · « **Reply #29 on:** October 25, 2012, 08:24:31 AM »

I shared emails with the designer, Jim McGinnis. He gave me his blessings and permission to build a CL model of his great design, "Synergy."

It's my bi-plane stunter that I mentioned a bit back. It's a great design and a fine looking aircraft.

This would be a scale model also.

Charles

Shultzie · « **Reply #30 on:** October 26, 2012, 01:19:01 PM »

Thanks for contacting Jim....and also for modelmakinMANIN' UP! in going foward in building such an awesome project!

May the Light from above from shine down upon your project n all the balsa shavings and dust you ride in on!!!! AMEN!

Avaiojet · « **Reply #31 on:** October 26, 2012, 02:32:32 PM »

Quote from: Shultzie on October 26, 2012, 01:19:01 PM

Thanks for contacting Jim....and also for modelmakinMANIN' UP! in going foward in building such an awesome project!
May the Light from above from shine down upon your project n all the balsa shavings and dust you ride in on!!!! AMEN!

Shultzie,

I owe you a thank you for introducing that photo of Mr. McGinnis' design.

Otherwise I would have never known. Thank you.

Jim and I also talked about EAA, GA and his Synergy design, not to mention some of the changes, that would have to be made, for successful CL flight. The airfoil was one of them, obviously. There are others, but I'll wait for that when I do the build.

It is an unusual design and requires some thought in the building process. I've built unusual models in the past for R/C and it's easy to add weight.

I would like to build this model correctly the first time.

So, it starts in CAD, and I'm doing everything I can to construct this fine model without the change in overall appearance and with construction methods that will offer strength and the saving of weight.

Last I checked, the model will be 50" in span but I believe I can bring it up to 56" to 58" which may help overall performance.

Thanks for the reply.

Charles