On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 9:09:21 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 3:28:59 PM UTC-5, TS wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 17:46:45 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's aerodynamicist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3. http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039

As suggested, the Akaflieg München Mü31 article is also a good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en

Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS Ka-6E shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups. Really like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan Bosman.

We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.

The 26 fueselage is considerably different than a Ventus. Place the two side by side and there is no doubt. Different shape, different cockpit, different canopy. Everything different. Place a 26 fuselage next to a JS1 and you cannot tell them apart. Even many of the details inside are the same. I'm not complaining about it, I doubt the 26 fuselage is legally protectable intellectual property. But the question was posed above.




The aerodynamic shape of the JS1b/c is a 100% direct copy of the ASH26. They took an existing ASH26 fuselage, and made a negative mould of it.

The internals are different.

also, all this business about canopy shape is irrelevant. once you have a negative mold for the 26, you can define the canopy shape however you want..

The canopy shape is defined by the aerodynamic profile. The trimmed configuration and contour of the canopy frame cut out may change, as it did in the evolution of the Schleicher fuselages.
I suspect that Bosman is really chasing details and reduced the canopy to change how it affects laminar flow on the forward fuselage.
FWIW
UH