Mine snaps very well.

All of this theory is great, but it is just that, a theory. When I say I have been flying mine without these theoretical stability problems, I am either not saying it so that the group understands what I mean, or I am being ignored.

All of those with these theories, have you ever flown a mild sweep fsw?

If the wing is stiff enough, it is more docile than a straight wing.

There is no law that states:
If thou shall sweep the wing forward, thou must sweep the crap out of it until you run into major divergence and stabilty problems.

only my $.02, Im here to learn too.

Schmleff

"Now after doing lots of research I find out that the wing was only the secondary mission goal and they were really looking at the effectiveness of the close coupled canards."

Not saying that you are wrong, but I am just curious where you came across that information. I had not heard that this was the primary goal.

I know that it was not the reason that it could fly controlably up to 60 degrees of attack. The wing was still producing lift and a nitrogen injection system was employed to produce yawing (flat) turns.

Schmleff

Go for it. I have no doubt you can make it work, and it will be novel. With todays small powerfull engines and quick thumbs, I am convinced that anything will fly, pizza box, X-plane, Snoopy's dog house, etc. to name a few. I was just noting that forward sweep introduces problems that need to be addressed. (small sweep small problems).

So far in two pages of posts, no one has revealed anthing that an airplane with forward swept wings can do better than a comparable aircraft of more conventional configuration.

I don't recall exactlty where I got that information but I'll see if I can find it on the NASA site again.

For full scale there is supposed to be less profile drag at high subsonic and low supersonic speeds. For us modelers I personally don't believe that there is a whole lot to gain. Other than that the Wow factor is the big one for me. But I might just have to build one to try out some of those maneuvers.

For me my problem is that I'm now into Pattern flying and a design like this just won't do. I think if I get the chance this winter I might build one though.

"So far in two pages of posts, no one has revealed anthing that an airplane with forward swept wings can do better than a comparable aircraft of more conventional configuration."

Are my posts only showing up on my computer?

From my post on 9/12/2003 3:48:26 AM

"On the model, I find the stall to be delayed for the wing loading, more gentle, and contorlable throughout. "

from my post on 9/13/2003 7:52:19 AM

"If the wing is stiff enough, it is more docile than a straight wing. "

The design goal of my aircraft was to build a plane that was fast (110+mph) on a .46 engine and still fly slowly if you wanted. In other words, I was trying to create as wide of speed range as possible. It is a continuing experiment. It is one thing to make a fast model, it is another to make one that still flys slow worth a darn.

The entire reason that my wing is swept is to make up for the poor stall charicteristics of my sharp leading edge causes. The gain may not be much, but it is there.

It seems as though you are trying to prove that fsw is a fad or gimic. Please get over it. There is a real reason to sweep the wing.

Schmleff

Angueto asked me to upload this picture for him.

Cdallas, thanks by upload it, in little time I will comment you as it flies.
Angueto.

Hello guys. Well, finally my model fly this weekend. and was all a success. When I arrange some photo of it I will show you.
Greetings, Angueto.

Schmleff,

I just now caught up with reading this thread. You are concerned that your observations on your design are being disregarded. It is an interesting design but the problem with your reporting is that the sweep angle is very low and you have only observational data regarding it.

The changes are small enough from a "normal" planform that I wouldn't expect to see any flight difference on a model sized airplane even with fairly good instrumentation. Even two identical airplanes with and without the forward sweep flown back to back with just visual observations won't show enough difference to notice.

I can get noticable performance increases in some of my airplanes by taking a cool drink before flying on a hot day. Ok exaggeration but I hope you see where I am coming from.

In my work as an engineer, back when I had to work, based on several years of working with a series of variable sweep wing airplanes I found that it is possible to measure in a wind tunnel the differences due to the angle you show in your model. However seeing those differences in a model airplane with all that that entails means that your observation data is going to be evaluated by people that have similar backgrounds to mine.

Don't get bent out of shape, get better data!


Ben

Point taken,

I am not claiming to have saved the world, just improved it a tad.

My replys are to those that have to sweep their wings 30 degrees and then complain about divergence and those that say there is no reason to sweep.

BTW, in the colder weather, my nylon control horns must have shrunk a bit. I came across for a low pass and noticed it was not going quite as fast as usual (about 110). As I flew out, I could see the right aileron fluttering. I brought it back for a series of passes while increasing the throttle each time to try and recreate the problem (I had landed after the first flutter and checked it). As I came up to full speed, nice and low, the whole wing went into flutter. Never had this problem and any speed before, even very radical dives.

Time to replace some control linkages! Good thing the wing is glass over balsa.