News:



  • March 28, 2024, 11:20:42 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Wingspan vs fuse size  (Read 1992 times)

Offline kevin king

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1525
Wingspan vs fuse size
« on: April 05, 2022, 02:18:06 AM »
Why as wingspans got bigger the Fuse width stayed the same? Seems like a larger wing should also have a wider fuse.

Offline Craig Beswick

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 562
Re: Wingspan vs fuse size
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2022, 03:00:34 AM »
Width based on engine crutch required?

I'm no engineer but why push more through the air than you have to? Also, wider will mean heavier.

Craig
AUS 87123
"The Ninja"

Offline Dennis Toth

  • 2020 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4208
Re: Wingspan vs fuse size
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2022, 07:47:37 AM »
Kevin,
Fuse width is really a function of fitting the needed components into a space. For stunt it is as Criag said based on the engine/motor cutch width needed to enclose the power package. We generally want to minimize frontal area. For our ships it generally gets wider as the power package increases in size. You want the fuse to be wide enough to fit the components but also be stiff, to avoid having the tail twisting during maneuvers.

There are some ships that are wider just for looks - round cowl ships - BeeGee, Galloping Comedian, Round Cowl T Bird, but it is just to achieve a desired shape and look.

Best,         DennisT

Online Lauri Malila

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1629
Re: Wingspan vs fuse size
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2022, 02:47:11 PM »
..
« Last Edit: April 06, 2022, 11:11:20 PM by Lauri Malila »

Offline L0U CRANE

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Wingspan vs fuse size
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2022, 04:17:46 PM »
Thin fuselages don't give as large an aerodynamic advantage as you might think. Clean, smooth shape is more important than gross "wetted surface area." The exceptions to the skinny, minimal body approach are practically legendary: consider, among numerous others, Al Rabe''s Bearcat, Sea Fury. Mustang, etc.; Keith Trostle's Gulfhawk-theme Bearcat -(and his earlier FW 109D NATS winner;) Claus Maikis, in Germany, has also done several highly successful "round body" ST46 and ST60 designs...

Yes, more work, needing more care to keep strength and weight appropriate... but VERY impressive when well done (and, of course, when well flown!)

At one time, we heard that an "ideal streamline shape" had a max diameter 25% of its length. Hmmm
 - blimps are not much fatter than that...

\BEST\LOU

Offline Trostle

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3338
Re: Wingspan vs fuse size
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2022, 12:30:21 PM »
Why as wingspans got bigger the Fuse width stayed the same? Seems like a larger wing should also have a wider fuse.

Some "designers" of our stunt models over the years have been obsessed/concerned about frontal area.  Some have gone to extremes to design a fuselage with minimal frontal area.  It is interesting to consider what the total frontal area is for our stunt designs. 

Let's start with a "typical" stunt wing that has a 56" span and the average airfoil thickness is 2.25 inches (or maybe more).  Not allowing for a slight reduction for rounded tips, that gives a wing frontal area of at least 126 sq in. 

Then there will be a tail say of 24" span and at least 1/2" thick for another 12 sq in of frontal area, not allowing for rounded tips.  Total frontal flying surface area of about 138 sq in.  (There is also the frontal area of the vertical tail, but is not included in this discussion.)

Now let's look at a semi scale design (like the Bearcat or Sea Fury) where the fuselage may be 6" deep (or slightly more) at the canopy and up to 4" wide.  Assuming it is about an oval shape, that gives a frontal area of almost 20 sq in of which 9 sq in is covered by the wing, so that fuselage adds about 11 sq in to the total frontal area or about 8% (11/138) to the total model frontal area.

OK, let's look at the skinny fuselage for this wing that is maybe 2.5" wide and 5" high.   This thing will have a rounded top and bottom with  approximate straight sides for a cross section of something just less than 11 sq in.  The wing already covers more than 6 sq in of that so the fuselage adds about 5 sq in more to the total frontal area or about  4% (5/138) to the total frontal area.

Then, we need to add some increment of total flying system frontal area because of the lines which by some estimates is as much as 50% of total flying system drag or more.  So the added cross section of a large "semi-scale" stunt ship compared to a conventional design is even less pronounced when considering the line frontal area and drag.

Modern power plants can easily make up that 4% increase in frontal area (8% - 4%), or less when considering the line drag,  from the large semiscale type fuselage to the "yardstick" type fuselage.  Furthermore, there are some structural advantages with the larger cross section fuselages with little or no weight penalty with appropriate design, construction, and materials used.

So, what does all of this mean.  It becomes a matter of taste and aesthetics held by the designer/builder whether to use a wide bodied fuselage or not.

(A more exact analysis could be performed, but the relative differences between the wide bodied and skinny fuselages on a stunt ship will be similar to the above numbers and will be quite small.  The real culprits in total frontal area of a stunt ship are the wing/tail and the lines.)

Points to ponder

Keith


Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Wingspan vs fuse size
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2022, 05:09:21 PM »
I think it's because folks make the fuselage as narrow as possible to fit the engine, no more.

Having said that, the trend in the Pacific Northwest among the pro contingent is chunky monocoque fuselages, physically large in diameter yet lightweight thanks to using lots of really light molded balsa.  Witness the recent planes by Paul Walker, Chris Cox, and Alan Resinger. 
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here