Patto

Oooh, I had forgotten all about this thread and now my interest is re-piqued. How goes the build? Last I heard you were about done and were waiting to conduct the maiden. Don't forget the video =)

MOJO65-9or10

Cool review of a few real neat planes! Its great to see that they got better and that you took the considerable time to make tham better and to understand them further. Thats all I am looking for in the plane, a better understanding of this unique wing. I think it should do a couple of things better (I hope) and nothing really worse BUT since it isn't popular and I know there are plenty of sharp folk designing RC stuff that there just may be a reason for NOT doing what I have done. Anyway no one could answer some of the questions so this plane was built. I do feel that I have one big advantage of people in the past and that is power to weight ratio and the size of the control surfaces. The plane is COMPLETELY finished and just needs to be test run and range checked everything else is done. I need to get my membership at Tri-valley in Rosemount, MN and then fly it.

Here are a few pics of the complete plane and thank to everyone for the motivation and suggestions along the way!
Dave

Demosthenes

As some said already, those wings are very unstable. They had a real-size aircraft built with it..... it required about 10 super-computers helping the pilot to keep the plane in a stable flight. It was hilarious. Don't build one- you're just giving yourself a headache.

Demosthenes.[>:]

MOJO65-9or10

Too late it is ready and airworthy????

Dave

MOJO65-9or10

Just waiting on good (warm) weather now.

Dave

Patto

We're anxiously awaiting a flight report...

Trundle

Not necessarily. Hitler did it way back in 1944 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_287)! Remember those were the days when only 1 computer existed in the world, it was slow as all hell and took up a whole house. The bigger challenges faced are those of the wingtips flexing in flight but this wont be a problem with models since they are much stronger, lighter and rigid without using lots of composites. They wont be any less stable than a swept back wing at the same angle with the CG positioned correctly. The reason it takes 1980s era computers to keep say the X-29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29) in the air is because it has a CG well off of the usual stable position and it is designed to fly supersonically. In fact even to do this all they needed to do was make up to 40 corrections per second using 3 digital computers and backed up by 3 analogue computers which could keep it flying even if the digital computers failed, and even these were taken from the F-16. What I'm saying is that as long as the CG is in the right spot on the wing and as long as you don't try fly it supersonic a swept forward wing should be stable, and if you don't believe me have you ever seen an edge 540 fly? If it was to scale the wing does in fact sweep forward even though the leading edge is strait.

Crominator56

Trundle nailed that right on.

One also needs to specify whether he is referring to static or dynamic stability in longitudinal or lateral modes. Static stability in longitudinal modes (primarily pitch) is what it seems to me like most everyone has been discussing and Trundle is right about cg placement and static margin dealing properly with the pitching instability. Forward sweep pushes static instability in the lateral modes, specifically the rolling mode, though it may affect others as well. The association between forward sweep and the longitudinal pitching mode is that sweeping forward pushes the aerodynamic center forward, which, for a fixed cg, will reduce the static margin. But since the plane is being designed around swept forward wings, that should be taken into account and corrected accordingly.

project looks awesome. Cant wait to see it go. Anything remotely unconventional has a special place in my heart.

Cheers.

ZAGNUT

My Feedback: (1)

and like others in this thread i've flown in a full size plane with swept forward leading edge....only computer on board was the one between my ears.

Cdallas2

The Hansa Jet.....

http://hansajet.com/specs.html

About 40 built.... Devolped in the early 60's.....

Personally I beleive one of the best looking aircraft....

MOJO65-9or10

Well the CG proved to be fine BUT i could of built the structure under the horizontal stab a good bit stronger. So this is what happened, I took off and began to climb and decided to do a roll on high rates and the stab broke away from the tube and fus. Well someone behind me was nice enough to holler you broke your tail off ( as if I won't notice). I grabbed a handfull of elevator and harriered it back to safety.

2.5 hours later -

OK this time I was prepaired and the tail is MUCH stronger than before. I added tri-stock and some CF rods as support. The flight went great which was a plesant surprise. I do think my CG is a bit aft but it more or less did fine. Inverted the plane climbs pretty good and I will change it but not today or tomarrow. Ok so here it is, it did everything a average 3D plane can do IN MY HANDS, which is -

Flat spins = great
hover = fine but they all do
flips = super tight & it doesn't seam to snap out.
Harriers = just fine upright, I can't do them inverted yet.
KE = Really I was all over the place but I think they will get a good bit better with a more forward CG and less rudder. Speaking of which, that chinn-yak rudder is crazy.
Pinwheel = with that rudder and my lack of experience, I think it does them alright.

Sorry this is a boring flight report but the flight was my 2nd of the year, my first was 15 seconds long, and I was just having a good time flying around to worry to much about a real flight report.

The truly cool thing about it is that it works fine and with some tuning, I think I will have a real fun and pretty all around capable plane. I DO HAVE the first and second flight on tape and am going to see if I can figure out how to download off this thing since it isn't mine and it does have a tape. I will get it uploaded as soon as I can, so don't worry you will see both flights.

Thanks to everyone for the fun posts and jabs here and there. It have really been a learning experience.

Video coming soon,
Dave


_________________
It flys like a hooker, it don't care which direction is up and just keeps preforming!

PB#1335

RVM

Got some video yet?

MOJO65-9or10

Yes, I do but I am having a hard time getting it to you tube.com. I do have it posted on the pro bro site. I will see if I can get it done today. Its 7:11am and that FSW thingy is going back to the field NOW with the engine moved forward one mount hole to hopefully get the CG close. Origanally it climbed like a mother inverted.

Time to go tune the thing I guess (PLAY TIME),
Dave

Hey the origanal version I have is 11min 30sec long and you tube ahas a limit of 10 minutes so I went into my MS video editer and shortened it to about 8min but it then converts it to a "SFW Short.MSWMM" type video. I can't figure out how to save it as a wmv again. I have no choices under the "save as" option as to what kind of file it is, just the .MSWMM file. (????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????)

ArmedZagi

My Feedback: (1)

In the meantime you could upload it to filefront [link=http://uploadhosted.filefront.com/]http://uploadhosted.filefront.com/[/link] They allow any file format, with a 1 gig limit. We can just download it from there till you figure it out.

MOJO65-9or10

Cool site and YES I am downloading it NOW. I will post a link here when I get it done and it works and I can find it there.

THANKS FOR THE SITE INFO!!
Dave

MOJO65-9or10

Here is a link (hope it works)

Please at least watch the LAST 5 minutes and do not give up at the begining, its a new design and a new plane!

http://hosted.filefront.com/dwmtl1000s/

MOJO65-9or10

Well I took it out today. ED on here was pretty much right on with his CG calc.. I moved the engine forward on mount hole and it is still a bit tail heavy but not very much. I may move it one more hole but I am going to wait til I can fly it on a calm day.

So far i think the best thing I can say about it is that is flys NORMAL. No real difference from some of my other conventional stuff. It does seam to go into the high alfa stuff pretty uneventfully and has NO wing rock what so ever. This plane has so much tail surface area that I need to really think about what I ask it to do because a slight mis-movement of the stick gets it going where asked real fast. If I were to change something about it, I think I would have added a few inches to the tail and made the surfaces a bit smaller. You can pretty much overcome ANY situation with inputs. It will do a pinwheel in about 5 feet. I am not good enough yet to really handle that much excitement yet. It does keep me on my toes though. I also think a .75-.91 2-stroke would be fine on it. The Magnum 52 pulls it around great but it flies really light on the wings and I think would handle the weight just fine. Anyway I do consider it a complete success since it flies NORMAL.

Thanks to everyone that posted sensable and constuctive comments, its been fun, real fun!

Thanks again and a special thanks to Ed,
Dave

ArmedZagi

My Feedback: (1)

Oh man.. I want one now. Very cool Good video.

I think I'll make one of these in a .60 size in a few weeks. Maybe more along the lines of a Fusion fueselage with this type wing...The "cool factor" at the field must be huge

Patto

All I can say is WOW, WELL-DONE! You should sell that design to one of the leading companies, I think they would sell like hotcakes!

Oh, I can say one more thing, to quote your friend at the field, "Oh! Your tail broke off..."

-Pat

MOJO65-9or10

Made me laught too !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No I will not be kitting or selling any part of this plane since I TOOK the designs from 3 other airplanes I bought and the only real difference between what I built and what you can buy from those 3 kits I bashed is the 4.5" forward taper. I would have to see it as stealing from some real cool guys/designers.

Other than that i think your idea of using a fusion fus is probably going to make a more stable airplane which isn't what I was going for BUT in hind site may make for a more enjoyable plane for 90% of the people out there. I wanted a really agile plane and thats what I got, maybe to much. It is fun to fly though and I am happy to see the FSW does work fine for 3D stuff as I thought it would. If one comes to market by someone that would be real cool and I guess I may think that I was inspirational to someone but they can have the crazy headache of getting it into a workable kit/ARF because I put a lot of time into getting it to work and have gained a TON or respect for those that can make something usable to the public. They MUST really love the sport.

Dave

Trundle

Looks like your plane handles high angles of attack very well like what a fsw should! I couldn't believe my eyes at how well that came in after breaking the tail off looks like you controlled and landed it at a 45 degree angle of attack!

MOJO65-9or10

Yeah that landing came out fine BUT the tail was broke loose but not free and that made it pretty easy to land actually. Yup it sure has a good handle on the high angle of attack stuff. The plane flys so loose and works so much better than expected that I am going to put my chinn-yak BACK under the bench and start and hopefully finish my fusion 52 so I have something a bit more percise if thats what i feel like flying on any given day. Its always nice to have something different to fly and not a bunch of whicked loose crasy 3D stuff. The fusion should fill that gap pretty well.

Dave