Author Topic: Willit Fly??? (Read 1011 times)

Jim Pollock · « **on:** June 11, 2007, 09:58:39 PM »

OK. Guys,

Here is a design I dreamed up the other day...... Take an Impact wing, and build a fairly short nose centered onto it with beams 16" apart and a canard wing between the beams. Twin booms aft of the wing about 17.5 inches long. With a conventional stab/elevator between fairly large twin rudders. (side area you know) have the canard wing about 3 inches in front of a 14" 3 Blade prop. This whole flying contraption sits on tricycle landing gear. The controls on the canard front wing work exactly like the stab/elevator except in reverse directions. With the Impact wing do you think it would even need any flaps? I don't, but if y'all do, I think about 3" tapered to 1" would work. For Power, of course a PA .75 or equivalent engine, even up to a Saito .90. I suppose what I've really done is designed what one may say
is a S U P E R W H I C H A W A Y. Anyone want to build one?

Jim Pollock

Shultzie · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2007, 11:00:25 AM »

Quote from: Jim Pollock on June 11, 2007, 09:58:39 PM

OK. Guys,

Here is a design I dreamed up the other day...... Take an Impact wing, and build a fairly short nose centered onto it with beams 16" apart and a canard wing between the beams. Twin booms aft of the wing about 17.5 inches long. With a conventional stab/elevator between fairly large twin rudders. (side area you know) have the canard wing about 3 inches in front of a 14" 3 Blade prop. This whole flying contraption sits on tricycle landing gear. The controls on the canard front wing work exactly like the stab/elevator except in reverse directions. With the Impact wing do you think it would even need any flaps? I don't, but if y'all do, I think about 3" tapered to 1" would work. For Power, of course a PA .75 or equivalent engine, even up to a Saito .90. I suppose what I've really done is designed what one may say
is a S U P E R W H I C H A W A Y. Anyone want to build one?

Jim Pollock

JAMES, JAMES, JAMES!
What kind of meds or brand of JAVA have you been takin???

Just razzin'-----------but know what???
Humm, StuntGrunters......I think I have what Jimmy's been havin?"
Creative minds...run in the strangest groooves in the tarmac!!!
JIMMY P....GO FER' IT!

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #2 on:** June 13, 2007, 09:29:15 PM »

I have given this some thought and believe that it would be a much better airplane if the powerplant
were E L E C T R I C!! The weight could be kept well under 60 ounces and having to spin the prop
to start the engine would be a thing of the past........Boy howdy Batman.....what a plane that would
be

Jim Pollock, ever questing for......emmm, ahhh, something anyway.......

phil c · « **Reply #3 on:** June 14, 2007, 07:19:00 AM »

It can be made to fly Jim. There was a similar layout published in Flying Models in the 60's. Whichaway, I think, by Walt Williamson.

A 60 oz. Impact needs flaps to get a decent turn. There's no subsitute for lift when you want to do stunts.

The canard will make the plane less stable, so it will need either careful tuning of the balance point or a larger stab behind the wing.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2007, 06:50:13 AM »

If I understand you correctly, you are going to have a stab/elevator behind the wing as well as a stab/elevator in front? If so leave the flaps stationary on the wing. On the canard that I built that Dick Sarpolous designed, I have the moving surface on the back edge of the wing cut way down on movement. The forward moving surfaces have been cut down on control movement also. It is a fun plane to fly and will do the pattern when the engine/tank is set right. May have to get it out more often just to have fun. Another consideration I have just thought of is how much moving area are you going to have? I remember years ago as a teenager, I had a 1/2A combat wing called the Lil Omega that would not turn. My brother suggested that I double the size of the elevator. Boy what a difference that made. Anyway, have fun, DOC Holliday

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #5 on:** June 17, 2007, 06:19:27 PM »

Phil,

I do plan to have a larger Stab/Elevator in the rear and less control travel in the forward Stab/Elevator.
I think the middle 50 ounce range is possible with an Impact wing. Hopefully no flaps will create
enough lift. If not, the plane can be built where they can be added if you give enough access to the
bellcrank. The rear elevator/stab span I was thinking to be appropriate would be in the 28-32 inch
range. I would sure like Bob Hunt to chime in here with is ideas on canards....

Jim Pollock, the dreamer.......

phil c · « **Reply #6 on:** June 18, 2007, 08:32:05 PM »

Jim, I believe the Impact wing has something over 700 squares, including the flaps. If you build it with the flaps fixed it will fly pretty well at 50 oz.(I've built several flapless planes that size and weight). However, it will fly much much better at 45 oz. or less. That will be a very difficult number to hit with an extra stab and elevator to paint. I'd follow downunder's lead and build it with the flaps, but don't hook them up initially. Just lock the horn in neutral until you see how it flies.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #7 on:** June 20, 2007, 12:35:17 AM »

My friend made half-a canards during the 60s. A lot of them. They all went thonk and splat on launch. Afterwards he would explain to me how canards are an inherently stable layout.

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #8 on:** June 24, 2007, 07:37:37 PM »

Dennis,

I guess you friend had some sort of experience with full scale canards? John Denver liked canards too
until his new paint job got the better of him and his plane.

Jim Pollock