''NEW'' Pattern plane is looking for a name.
09-18-2024, 06:21 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: thessaloniki, , GREECE
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
''NEW'' Pattern plane is looking for a name.
Hello to all !
It's been some time since I did something like that ,I thought I've grown old enough but I can't help it :-)
So as title suggests nothing new in design ,I was watching some vids of the WC in Aus and got inspired by the good flying planes there.
I think this set up presents extremely well in the air .
The set up will have a contra prop (I'm flirting with the DxG one)
I also have some new ideas about various components we'll see..
This post can have step by step all the procedure from drawing to finished plane ,I hope some people can learn something and hopefully I can get motivated and learn from others too.
So here are some pics from the 3d drawing.
If there is interest from people I'll keep posting.
Cheers !
It's been some time since I did something like that ,I thought I've grown old enough but I can't help it :-)
So as title suggests nothing new in design ,I was watching some vids of the WC in Aus and got inspired by the good flying planes there.
I think this set up presents extremely well in the air .
The set up will have a contra prop (I'm flirting with the DxG one)
I also have some new ideas about various components we'll see..
This post can have step by step all the procedure from drawing to finished plane ,I hope some people can learn something and hopefully I can get motivated and learn from others too.
So here are some pics from the 3d drawing.
If there is interest from people I'll keep posting.
Cheers !
Last edited by Elias Sopeoglou; 09-18-2024 at 11:37 PM.
09-19-2024, 10:11 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: thessaloniki, , GREECE
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Hi thanks !
Can you please explain more about your thought ? I have noticed most of the new designs keep the canopy forward. I usually try to keep the canopy relatively forward but not too close to the prop to leave room for the flow to accelerate cleaner.
Also any side area in front of center of lift is destabilizing yaw axis.
Is it about more knife edge lift you are considering ?
I hope we can trigger some nice aerodynamics discussions..
Elias
Can you please explain more about your thought ? I have noticed most of the new designs keep the canopy forward. I usually try to keep the canopy relatively forward but not too close to the prop to leave room for the flow to accelerate cleaner.
Also any side area in front of center of lift is destabilizing yaw axis.
Is it about more knife edge lift you are considering ?
I hope we can trigger some nice aerodynamics discussions..
Elias
Last edited by Elias Sopeoglou; 09-19-2024 at 10:14 PM.
Yesterday, 07:20 PM
#4
Senior Member
I think having more side area would definitely help with knife edge performance .
Having the canopy forward would also help with slow speed stability as it is producing more lift than a rearward one.
The destabilising effect in yaw due to Centre of Pressure can be mitigated by rudder size and area above and below the thrust line.......
regards
Having the canopy forward would also help with slow speed stability as it is producing more lift than a rearward one.
The destabilising effect in yaw due to Centre of Pressure can be mitigated by rudder size and area above and below the thrust line.......
regards
Yesterday, 10:28 PM
#5
Looks to be very “generic” as drawn. What is the reason for the two canalisers? Having flown a number of single canaliser models I have always found them more than sensitive enough on rudder. I flew a twin canaliser design for a couple of seasons and found it so sensitive on rudder that it was very difficult to get and keep it in yaw trim. The bottom canaliser is vulnerable to being stood on either by the pilot or helper when ground handling as well.
The only advantage I can see for the double canaliser is if using IC power, it’s a place to mount a second airbrake. Other than that it’s a liability.
The only advantage I can see for the double canaliser is if using IC power, it’s a place to mount a second airbrake. Other than that it’s a liability.
Today, 07:01 PM
#6
Senior Member
Looks to be very “generic” as drawn. What is the reason for the two canalisers? Having flown a number of single canaliser models I have always found them more than sensitive enough on rudder. I flew a twin canaliser design for a couple of seasons and found it so sensitive on rudder that it was very difficult to get and keep it in yaw trim. The bottom canaliser is vulnerable to being stood on either by the pilot or helper when ground handling as well.
The only advantage I can see for the double canaliser is if using IC power, it’s a place to mount a second airbrake. Other than that it’s a liability.
The only advantage I can see for the double canaliser is if using IC power, it’s a place to mount a second airbrake. Other than that it’s a liability.
Watching CPLR and Antonin fly their OREKAS at the world championships in Australia I can honestly say this kind of design has the best tracking stability than any other .
