![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "flybynightkarmarepair" wrote in message oups.com... pTooner wrote: Firstly, I am new here although I've been reading for a few days. For anyone with more knowledge than I, I keep considering building a small 4 wing aircraft. Not stacked, but two up front and two in the rear. I have read frequently of problems supposedly resulting from interference of the airflow between wings, but I can't seem to find anything very specific. I'm fairly confident that interference between the front wings (or rear) can be minimized by reasonable spacing and differing dihedral. I'm not sure what the effect of the airflow coming off the front wings will have on the rear set. I don't know whether I could remove most of the problem by having one set considerably higher (how much?) than the other set or if it is reasonable to have them on more or less the same height. The reason for the concept is trying to get a wingspan small enough to fit into a normal garage and conceivably take off and land from streets and highways. I visualise something in a two place plane that would fall into something of the appeal category of a motorcycle or small sports car. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Gerry John Roncz called a 3 surface airplane he participated in the design of "the aerodynamicists full employment act"! You will, with optimization of all the variables. be lucky to get 40% of the lift/drag ratio of an equivalent conventional planform. Can you elaborate? I don't see why this should be true. But the bigger problem will be control. Pitch stability, in and out of ground effect, will be a formidable problem, as will stall characteristics. Compromises needed to make the handling acceptable may make the efficiency even worse. Well, most tandem wing aircraft are designed to make normal stall impossible. (the rutan designs for instance) Pitch stability is a problem that I thought had been pretty well handled by airfoil design in canard aircraft years ago. My thoughts (I wouldn't call it a design) are simply two sets of biplane wings mounted fore and aft. Biplane wings don't normally present much of an efficiency problem except for the bracing which isn't stricly necessary (The hyperbipe was a pretty efficent design) I certainly agree that handling especially in the pitch axis is the major challenge, but I don't see why it should present a much bigger problem than the flying flea family of aircraft where it was eventually solved satisfactorily. I agree with Ernst - a low aspect ratio delta/lifting body makes more sense. Perhaps a 2 seat Facetmobile with the outer portions folding inward like a Dyke Delta. Perhaps, but it's been tried many times and with very limited success. I know of NO attempt to build the 4 wing system that I envision. That seems strange when you consider that about every imaginable combination has been tried at one time or another. Didn't someone finally build an operable ornithopter? But have you looked at all the wires around most roads? Not an area I would want to use for landing and takeoff. Good point, but they aren't everywhere. ;-) Gerry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thrusting or Sucking (where's Howard Stern when we need him.) | Ken Kochanski (KK) | Soaring | 37 | January 14th 06 09:51 AM |
ANG Woman Wing Commander Doesn't See Herself as Pioneer, By Master Sgt. Bob Haskell | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | March 18th 04 08:40 PM |
Wing tip stalls | mat Redsell | Soaring | 5 | March 13th 04 05:07 PM |
Can someone explain wing loading? | Frederick Wilson | Home Built | 4 | September 10th 03 02:33 AM |
Wing Extensions | Jay | Home Built | 22 | July 27th 03 12:23 PM |