I'm well into designing my second model, a .50 size Freestyle aerobatic.

I'm finding conflicting views with regards to wing section. Currently the design has a 7% root and an 8% tip. Swept leading edge and a slight sweep on the trailing edge and no dihederal.

Will the wing perform better in a stalled attitude with a thicker tip section?

I'm also interested in this Arnie

Does anyone know what wing section is generally used for funfly type models?

I am thinking of making an alternative wing for my Kyosho Minix, which ia a small aerobatic plane.

Performing in a "stalled attitude" is motor, not wing.
A thicker tip is similar to aerodynamic washout, without it becoming washin, inverted.
Sweepback substitutes for dihedral, but induces a tip-stall sooner.
A thickish section high point at 20% will do a very good job at slow and stalled attitudes, motor running of course.

Hey guys, I'm no expert, but I'd like to put in my two cents (feel free anyone to correct me if I am wrong)

ARNIE

1... For an aerobatic model you are going in the right direction by starting off with no dihederal. Good one!!

2... As far as wing design, what I have learnt is... Swept back wings with straight trailing edges, such as pattern planes and the Giles 202, make the aircraft fly a lot crisper and produce more axial rolls. Edge 540 wings with the straight leading edge and swept trailing edge are less stable on the roll axis and tend to be better snappers. Extra's are kind of a combination of both.

3... It depends on how aerobatic you want the aircraft. The more unstable the aircraft...technically... the better its aerobatic potential...technically!!! For an aircraft to be more stable in a stall, you want the root of the wing to stall first. If this is what you want, then all you have to do is make the leading edge of the inboard section sharper than the tip and make sure the aspect ratio of the section is thicker too. Having a thicker (higer aspect ratio) tip will make the aircraft want to become more unstable in a stall situation.

UKFlyer

Basically almost all funfly designs use a fully symetrical high aspect ratio wings with no dihedral. Aerodynamically, the same amount of lift is created on the top as on the bottom, making inverted flight easier. Therefore positive lift is created by increasing the angle of attack to the realtive airflow. I hope you are getting this. If not hit me with your questions.

Rule of thumb. The thicker the airfoil (higher aspect ratio wing), the better slow speed performance of the aircraft. I have built a couple of 'wing and boom' type funfly planes and basically used the "that looks about right" method of chosing airfoil section with great success!!!

HOPE THIS HELPS GUYS!!!!

Thanks for the help guys....although I'm still a little unsure.

I've basically scalled down the wing planform from the design in my avatar.
At its 1900mm span the sections are 7.1% root and 8.9% tip.

As the model is now scaled down to about 1550 mm span and its purpose is more freestyle than pattern....would sections of say 9% root and 11.5% tip be more suitable?

The leading edge shape idea makes sense, I will encorporate that into the finished prototype.

Don't go overboard whith making the wing thick. Thick wing profiles give more lift when they are not stalled, so you can fly around very slowly..... but they can fly very slowly, so they won't stall. Meaning the plane wont harrier well, it wont blender very well and it wont snap well at all.

3D is more than just hovering, and freestyle is more than just 3D. I would build a smaller version of your pattern ship, with a slightly thinner root and with a huge elevator and plenty of power. The best freestyle ship that I have is my 140 pattern ship setup with twice the elevator movemant than I would normally fly with. And the worst is my profile fun fly unless the wind is absolutly dead calm.

Matt

Thanks for all the advice chaps ................. much appreciated.

Dave