tigershark *vs* magnumR
01-21-2006, 10:27 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Algarve, PORTUGAL
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tigershark *vs* magnumR
Hi everyone, westonUK advertises the magumR beeing able to hit 200mph and the tigershark to be able to hit 150mph. I am completely confused I would have thought that the tigershark could go much faster because it is a flat wing delta, while the magum has an airfoild wind and tailplane (a lot more drag) can someone please tell me why the magnum is faster? also to people who own tigersharks, how fast have yours gone?
Regards
Regards
01-21-2006, 04:34 PM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Merced, Ca.,
CA
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: tigershark *vs* magnumR
Hooligan:
The Weston UK has a thin wing generally designed for speed as are the tailfeathers and fuse. The Tigershark is limited in speed by the thickness of the airfoil whick creates a lot of drag and lift. If you looked at the Bruce Tharp wing against a whiplash, you would see the whiplash has about 1/3 the thickness of the Tharp wing design. The whiplash will scoot, takes a experienced pilot, the Tharp wing is a very good docile flyer, almost a trainner. To create a quick airplane, the entire airframe needs to be streemlined with all drag areas kept to a minimum. Take the F-16-F-20 arfs. Sleek, neat and should be fast based on overall design. They do scoot a little better than a sport plane, but generally have one flaw, the tailfeathers. The blunt tailcone engine simulation is almost like carrying a drag shute arround. The fixed gear is a large factor in itself. Clean them up and there is more speed available. Had a Jett 90L in a Cemark F-20, flew well, landed well, did not scoot. Did not retract it as I did not think that by itself would give me what I wanted (a whole bunch). The fuse sits in the attic, the wing is on my wing rack waiting for me to get off the stick and create a package that will do the job. If things keep going as they are, it will be late summer before I get serious about scratch building something like the Weston UK, power is in the cabinet, a YS re-piped 60. Should be interesting if it will get off the ground. The real question is "will it turn", another aero-dynamic problem you get when designing for speed with swept back wings. Oh woe, where is the great one? ENJOY
The Weston UK has a thin wing generally designed for speed as are the tailfeathers and fuse. The Tigershark is limited in speed by the thickness of the airfoil whick creates a lot of drag and lift. If you looked at the Bruce Tharp wing against a whiplash, you would see the whiplash has about 1/3 the thickness of the Tharp wing design. The whiplash will scoot, takes a experienced pilot, the Tharp wing is a very good docile flyer, almost a trainner. To create a quick airplane, the entire airframe needs to be streemlined with all drag areas kept to a minimum. Take the F-16-F-20 arfs. Sleek, neat and should be fast based on overall design. They do scoot a little better than a sport plane, but generally have one flaw, the tailfeathers. The blunt tailcone engine simulation is almost like carrying a drag shute arround. The fixed gear is a large factor in itself. Clean them up and there is more speed available. Had a Jett 90L in a Cemark F-20, flew well, landed well, did not scoot. Did not retract it as I did not think that by itself would give me what I wanted (a whole bunch). The fuse sits in the attic, the wing is on my wing rack waiting for me to get off the stick and create a package that will do the job. If things keep going as they are, it will be late summer before I get serious about scratch building something like the Weston UK, power is in the cabinet, a YS re-piped 60. Should be interesting if it will get off the ground. The real question is "will it turn", another aero-dynamic problem you get when designing for speed with swept back wings. Oh woe, where is the great one? ENJOY
