Remby
Posts: 621
Joined: 11/2/2002
From: Russell,
PA, USA
Status: offline
|
Yuu;
I have found out quite a bit from these two attempts at Carnads. The "flights", along with info and suggestions from the interested 1/2a'ers like Yuu are helping get these back into the air. The elevators need more positive angle to keep the nose up, and the engine offset is also very much a "must have correct" for the thing to fly.
Data to build Carnads, more so in this class of build size, requires some changes to a larger plane's plan. Trouble is it is trial and error, and that adds another strange attractor.
C.G. programs work, but do not supply everything one needs to know to make it work properly. the "feel" of these are not like a "normal" plane, some of the just do this or that things must be set aside with the elevator up front. It can be learned, but new ideas must be soaked in to be used.
These "Ducks" were both scaled down from larger planes, the angle changes are required as Combatpigg was talking about. And the angle of attack of the wing, elevator, and the engine power offset, these require more balance interaction between them so the whole thing will sail long proper.
There are Carnads that were already flown as 1/2a, but not very many. The Lazy Duck was a 6' span as the plan shows it. The Trident was a true 1/2a Carnad pusher.
This rant is just about brain overload, a purge of thought.
I guess it should be said, I never want to eat Duck again.
_____________________________
1/2a flyer !
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> "1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes >> RE: Red Duck 
RE: Red Duck - 
) I haven't got the intestinal fortitude to try one yet.. but, I'm well armed with lots of 
I'm hesitant mostly due to my flying skills with conventional planes. One of the plans I wanted to attempt was the Piper PAT-1 (Piper Advanced Technology) which was going to be the first all 
