Prop placement...different configurations.
04-01-2004 | 10:12 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Durham, NH
Prop placement...different configurations.
I've just purchased a Superfly-E which, for those of you who don't know, is a basic delta wing. Within the instructions there are two configurations for the prop; puller and pusher. The question that I have is, are there any marked differences in performance between the two configurations. I'm leaning towards the pusher configuration since I would tend to think it might save on prop and engine damage (since the prop wouldn't necessarily be the first thing to hit the ground). But does this degrade the ability for the wing to perform aerobatics and such? Will it affect power? Will it affect stability? Any info is greatly appretiated.
Gizzmo
Gizzmo
04-01-2004 | 11:47 AM
#3
Banned
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: gone,
RE: Prop placement...different configurations.
For general flying. not much difference.
Not applicable to your Super-Fly (too low power)::: 3D with a pusher would be difficult. Its awfully hard to do a hover or torque roll witht he airplane above the prop.
Not applicable to your Super-Fly (too low power)::: 3D with a pusher would be difficult. Its awfully hard to do a hover or torque roll witht he airplane above the prop.
04-01-2004 | 04:32 PM
#4
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Durham, NH
RE: Prop placement...different configurations.
Figured I'd give an update...
I e-mailed the devolper of the plane and he gave a response that makes sense:
Going by this I think i'll go with the puller config...since the speed difference is only slight, and the aerobatic ability is better it's more what I'm looking for.
I e-mailed the devolper of the plane and he gave a response that makes sense:
The pusher config is slightly faster than the puller config just because the motor is running in it’s optimum direction. The puller is more aerobatic because the propwash goes over the elevons and you can use the power of the motor to move the plane around even though your airspeed may be almost nothing. You can do really tight loops and faster rolls with the puller.
The pusher has less elevon area so the controls are a little more relaxed. There is also no prop wash going over the elevons so a little forward motion is required to have good control of the plane.
The pusher has less elevon area so the controls are a little more relaxed. There is also no prop wash going over the elevons so a little forward motion is required to have good control of the plane.
04-01-2004 | 04:52 PM
#5
Senior Member
RE: Prop placement...different configurations.
I've built several deltas, and the tractor or "puller" configuration is definately the way to go.
You get not only better performance because of air over the elevons, ect. there is a benifit from the propwash over the airfoil at high angle of attack that makes these thing do unreal things-talk about impressive transition to hover.
Here's a couple of pictures of "Delta Burke" my 88" span, under 5 lb., .53 4 stroke 1900+ sq. inch area delta. Pure flying magic. Cost me under 20 bucks for the airframe, and it was built in less time than the average (easy) ARF.
Notice the drooped LE on the top picture, another "secret helper" for delta's
Jetts
You get not only better performance because of air over the elevons, ect. there is a benifit from the propwash over the airfoil at high angle of attack that makes these thing do unreal things-talk about impressive transition to hover.
Here's a couple of pictures of "Delta Burke" my 88" span, under 5 lb., .53 4 stroke 1900+ sq. inch area delta. Pure flying magic. Cost me under 20 bucks for the airframe, and it was built in less time than the average (easy) ARF.
Notice the drooped LE on the top picture, another "secret helper" for delta's
Jetts
