Originally Posted by
Flypaper 2
I wonder how many here have actually tried it rather than just theorizing? The flying stab I showed above is the same planform as the stock Flash stab and the same throw. Like i said it would loop almost in its own length. There is no way to compare to the full size plane. In these small comparative sizes the Reynolds numbers also come into affect.
Have tried what? A flying stab, or building a model that accommodates both designs so a comparison would actually be valid.
The real problem of comparing two different things is how hard it is to change only those two things. It's screwed even more in this case because seldom can you have the best setup for both designs to operate optimally on the mule airframe. And to prove one detail requires all the rest to match.
For example, a previous post says something about a cambered airfoil can outperform a
thin symmetrical one. What has the thickness of one have to do with a difference between the two design concepts. If you want to know which is better, stab/elevator versus flying stab, tests should be done with only that one difference in the two test subjects. Build one test structure different than the other and your test really isn't trustworthy. It would make sense to also test the optimum stab/elevator against the optimum flying stab with area and aspect ratios equal. Unfortunately, without wind tunnel control and instrumentation to give some clue which design works more efficiently, modelers haven't a hope of proving anything.
We can't see airspeed and absolutely can't see or measure efficiency. Good thing is, we'll always have nothing to solve any of these conundrums. So we will be able to discuss our theories forever.