Evan,
I did ask in the past maybe the word TAIDRAGGER could be the key.
I did not get an answer on that question so I did try myself.
Want you read the story and tell me what you find of it?
Let me tell you, I like it, I think it is true.
ORIGINAL: pimmnz
Orion wing section is 15% Cees, the 19% section was a one off experiment, that didn't work. Read Ed's words again. I realise English is not your first language, and things get lost in the translation. Check you Orion drawings if you don't believe me. There is a world of difference between a 15% wing and a 19% wing, as you fly both you should know that...
Evan, WB #12.
See below.
The story again, but new formulation, maybe better to understand.
For a moment we do not talk about downwash and the stab.
So:
The tail (part of the fuselage behind the TE of the wings) of an airplane is so designed that it has less drag on the moment you found that important.
I think we could look to the tail of an airplane that is straight horizontal in the flight direction in the most optimum position, when the designer want the most important job of the airplane.
The angle of the tail is very important for the designer.
When the designer does found it important to generate high lift forces of the wing (most important task), then he calculate with a high angle of attack (AOA).
That high angle of attack we can see when we look to the angle the wing is mounted in the fuselage, but also the angle of the backside of the fuselage.(the tail, but I call this the sometimes tail cone).
The tail of a high loadable airplane is so calculated that it is horizontal straight in flight direction on moment of take off and climb and so highest AOA.(after tail down to lift off)
Normally we see these kind of airplanes with tail wheel undercarriage and call them because of the drag of the tail during normal flight “TAILDRAGGERS”
The design Ed did make, the Orion, is designed to carry high loads into the air.
So we see also the Orion wing is mounted on a positive angle in the fuselage. The angle of the tail is so calculated that the tail is trimmed “tail high” during normal flight typical for the taildragger.
The Orion did had a straight, probably 19 % wing, the wing loading of this wing was 17 oz/sq ft. (picture 1)
Later the wing surface is reduced by tapering to enlarge the wing loading (picture 2)
At last the wing, we see in the kit of Top Flite, is 15 %
With a 19 % wing we can use the Orion with a wing loading of 32,5 oz/ sq ft and is still a very usable airplane, especially for research. The limit could be even 40 oz/sq ft!!! Try?
I think it will go, because for lift off with 40 oz/sq ft, I do need less than 11 per cent more speed than normal and with that angled tail cone and low drag and special less flexible tires, it will be no problem I think.
Because of the retracted gear and fairings, I think the speed also, with 40 oz/sq ft, will be higher then the standard Orion even if it has a 15 % wing and if it isn't I can remove the tailwheel and place a low drag tailskid, I will win if I want (I THINK but at least try, without any debate before!)
BTW
Just as with the Taurusses in, used in Belgium and USA, we do not know what the designer specifications where from that Orion Ed did use in switserland, but it is in one of the (USA?) museums, so if we want, we can know.
For reconstructing of the Oldest Taurus on Earth the Orion is not important because also the very first Taurus is a typical “Nose wheel airplane” and no taildragger.
To be (on topic) or not to be (on topic) that's the question.
Cees