Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
RIC MODEL
'0
BY ANDY LENNON
AirAGE
ME 0 I A
modela lrplanenews.com
Chapter 10
Roll Control Design •.....47
Chapter 11
Weight Distribution in
Design .•....•.•.•..••.•.•...••50
Chapter 12
Improve Performance by
Reducing Drag ..•.••••.... 52
Chapter 13
Stressed-Skin Design and
Weight Estimating ••.•.•.. 58
~
~. ~
,\
- ••• ••.
1.4 AR = 18 AR = 5 AR = 2.5
-::.
~ 1.2
I-
Z
w
c:;
1.0 ;? 1.0
ii: I-
....w 0.8 z
w 0.8
Q c:;
'-' 0.6 ii:
t: ....
w 0.6
:::; 0.4 Q
c:I '-'
z t: 0.4
3 0.2 :::;
c:I 0.2
0 z
3
5 10 15 20 25 o
1 1 0
WINGANGLE OF ATTACK-DEGREES WING DRAG COEFFICIENT
Figure 3. Figure 6.
How aspect ratio affects the stallangle ofattack. How aspect ratio affects drag ata given lift.
The vertical line, on the left, pro- trum of 18 degrees. CL max is 1.17. STALL
vides the CL, positive above and These lift curves are section val- 1.4
negative below the horizontal line. ues for "infinite aspect ratios" and
On the right of the vertical are two-dimensiona l airflow. For 1.2 - - . • • ~1 97
the pitching moment coefficients, wings of finite AR and three-
e .
_. ,' - .~-
negative (or nose down) above, and dimensional airflow, the slope of
positive (or nose up) below the the lift curve decreases as shown
Rn 200,000
..
: ,. it
"
horizontal line. in Figure 3. At these finite ARs, the ., ... ./ '. E168
In the center are the three Rns AoA must be increased to obtain .: ,,/
"
covered by this plot, coded to iden-
tify their respective curves.
the same lift coefficient. These . ,.
increases are called induced AoAs. I
For example, Figure 3 shows that
if, with a wing of AR 5, you can
.25 .---- - - - - - - - - ---, achieve a CL of 1.2 with an AoA of :2 " +6 +10 +12 +18
e .20 20 degrees, then with an AR of 9 ::-.t
,
: .' ANGLE OF ATTACK
u you can achieve the same CL with
1f .15
!z
~ .10
an AoA of 17 degrees. A higher AR
E214
..
... ,.. .4
: ./ -.6
(ALPHA)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
In addition, the AoA m ust be
increased to compensate for the ".i
,.
I .
I ,.'
ASPECT RATIO fact that straight and tapered <1'.. ,.,'
II ~
lines provide the CL data on the duction of lift" and which varies
E197 airfoil. Note that this section with AR as shown in Figure 6.
Symmetrical- no camber
starts to lift at the negative AoA of Wing planform also affects
minus 2 degrees and continues to induced drag . As shown in Figures 2 Figure 7.
lift to 16 degrees, for a total lift spec- and 4, the curves identified by 0, or Broad types of airfoil sections.
r~"y
adverse reactio n, in both CL and
Co, to lower Rn an d to inc reasing (K at sea level is 780; at 5,000 feet is
AoA. Each airfoil has a different 690; and at 10,000 feet is 610)
Sharp Sudden Lin Gentle
reaction-and this should be a seri-
(E1 681 Loss (E197) ous consideration for narrow wing- Form u la 2: Aspe ct ratio (AR)
tips and small tail-surface chords,
FigureS. particu larly where, at low Rns, AR = span (in.)2
Types of airfoil stall. th ere's a reduction in the stall AoA wing area (sq. in .)
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Figure 10.
Method for locating themean aerodynamic chord (MAC). A: Lift coefficient per degree
of angle of attack adjusted for
aspect ratio and planform.
Formula 3: Taper ratio (A.-Iambda) "squa red"; Refer to Figure 1, Part 1 E197. At CL
AR = aspect ratio; 1.00 and AoA of 7 degrees, plus th e
Taper ratio = tip chord (in.) I) (delta) = planform adjustment 2 degrees negati ve, a o is 9 degrees.
rootchord (in.) factor (Figures 2 and 4); Apply Formula 4 to obtai n a. Divide
CL 1.00 by a to obtain CL per
(A straight wing has a taper ratio COEFFICIENT CONVERSIONS degree.
of 1.) Up to th is point, coefficients have
had on ly abstract values. To convert B: Angle of attack (or incidence)
Mean aerodynamic ch ord (MAC) th ese to meaningful figures, we' ll for level flight. CL required divided
Figure 10 provides a graphic use the six variables ment ion ed pre- by CL per degree of angle of
method for locating the MAC and viously in th ese formulas. attack.
its lA-chord point. The MAC is Knowing wing area, weight and
defined as "tha t cho rd rep resenta- Formula 6: Lift (or weight) cru ising spee d, calculate th e CL
tive of th e wing as a who le and needed as in Formu la 7. Divide th is
about which the lift , drag and Lift (or weight)« CL x a x V2 x S CL by CL per degree as above to
pitching moment forces can be 3519 obt ain lift spectrum. Deduct any
considered to act." negative AoA to zero lift.
If you want to determ ine th e lift
Formula 4: To ta l of section and coefficien t needed for a given air C: Stall angle of attack adjusted for
induced a ngle of attack (AoA) speed an d weight: aspect ratio and plan.
Ad just th e stall AoA for AR and plan-
a (alpha)« a o + (18.24 x CJ x (1 + 1) Formula 7: Lift coefficient required form as in Formula 4. Deduct an y
AR negative AoA to zero lift to obtain
CL = lift x 3519 positive value of stall AoA...
where a = total of sectio n AoA and axV2xS
induced AoA;
a o =section AoA from airfoil plot; If you wan t to know the mod el's
C L = lift coefficient at section speed at a given CL and weigh t:
AoA from airfoil plot ;
AR = aspec t ratio; Formula 8: Model speed
T (tau) = plan form ad just me nt
factors (Figures 2 and 4). v= Ii x 35 19 REFERENCES
a x CL x S Airfoil Design and Data. by Dr. Richard Eppler,
Form ula 5: Total of profile (sec- and Profilaren fu r den Modellflug, by Dr. Dieter
tion) and induced drag coefficien ts Formula 9: Total profile and Althaus, available from Springer-Verlag, New
Yorle Inc., P.O. Box 19386, Newarle, NJ
induced wing drag 07 195-9386.
CD = CDo + (0.318 x CL2) x (1 + 0)
Airfoils at Low Speeds (Soart ech #8), by
AR Total drag = CD x a x V2 x S Michael Selig, John Donovan and David
3519 Frasier. available from HA Stoleely, 1504
where CD = tot al of profile and North Hor seshoe Cir., Virginia Beach,
VA 23451.
induced drag coefficients; Formula 10: Pitching moment
C Do = sectio n profile drag coeffi- Model Aircraft Dynamics, by Martin Simon,
Zenith Booles, P.O. Box I/MN121, Osceola,
cient at CL chosen from airfoil plot ; Pitching moment = CM xa x V2 x S x C WI 54020.
C L2 = lift coefficient chosen 3519
66 1 - 4 10
~~ -::Jl -· --
0 0 co ~ 60 80 100
P~ r c . '" o IZ.O _ (c /' o ..d
-- ----_- . - -·- '·.. ' 8 .§\! 0 1 ~
~.08 ~ _, e~~ :-:-_-= 21.·~~~.oooo =_ ___::
,..
· ~=:·=:=~5 J6J.
~ ,JJ,
_
ggg " '1_=- := - -\:::
)0 r 38 - 4 fl
of hi s size 12 Florsheim shoes. 19:n :Jf~
-
- - - ~.
'"
~== :-:-~~~:~gg --J- - \
In co n trast, the RIC soaring fra- ~ 1 ~ :~_:~ - -
lJO J 15 - 1. $11
-- -
-
- .. - - -
- -
/6 8,06 -- -
v- _ ·· - - ··4 1.5 00
I
I - .= I
J.
ternity is very conscious of the 90 108 - .&Z - - 1 4 1- g-.os - - - - - - - - -- - - - - 1
~ ~!~ (~ 1$ - - ' r~ ~ ~; ~ .-=- .= _-
1
need for efficien t airfoils . Their -- - _- '.f :: ., _
L.C. Rod : I ,SlJ _~ i -- . ~ - _ 12 r..:: ~ .04 _ _ _
models have o n ly one power ~ ;:::-:~ _. -~ 1. 0.~_ ..P.OJ 1"l. _ .. - - ~~ -
source: gravity. Th e better the air- c"oc ", l/lD _ ~~ _ ~~. _. - _ . 8~ . 02 ~ :~ .. -- 1-l~,~,+~.l}__-+-:t;'lJf~UV.. ;,, ~ -
foil, the flatter th e glid e and the
longer the glider may stay aloft. __ _===
_ _ _
~ _ <>-- 05"
~:pos~~o~~.::
.J..
: __ . 6 ~ .0/~~W~~~~~~~~~~r~~
~ O.04J _ _ .4 '':;
This chapter is in tended to pro-
vide readers with a practical, easy
- ~ --
- - II -- - - •. -
~~ :-::u -
.
-1- ::~~-
9 ' -2 " - - .04 5 - - .2
- .. - III .- - vi-T " I S · O· - - 05 of- - 0
understanding of airfoil characteris- IJ ':'- -
_ ~ __ A,rfo il.'NA .C.A . c4' c
tics so that their selection will suit lJ
_ Sir e : 5 "u O· V, l(fI./$ ~ c J' 6S
P,-e $ .($ / nd. o l m ) : 1/-4 l o CO
.2
~ -. J
_ . Date: 8 -34 Tes/ : V.O.T. ff65
_ ~$ COrr ec ' ~d ' 0 " 'inile o SP Kf ratio
tion at low Rns.
·8 -4
An9 /~
0 4 8 /2 16 eo 24 28 .32
o f o lJoch (o r infin"'~ o ~p e e.l r ono. ct, (d~qr t!t!$)
-. 4 -. 2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8/0 l 2
L i f! coe " jc ie nI, C.
1.4 /.6 18 The pitching moment, due to its
higher camber, is 0.135 negative. A
horizontal tail would need to pro-
Figure 3.
Characteristics of NACA 6412 at variousReynolds numbers.
duc e a hea vy download to offset
this pitching moment, resulting in
an inc reased "trim drag ."
Figures I , 2 and 3). Note that the moment, except beyond the stall In 1945, NACA issued Repor t No.
Rns shown are "test" results and where it's negative (nose down) and 824, "Sum mary of Airfoil Data ";
require correction for a "turbulence stabilizing. it includes data on their "six-
factor " that wasn 't recogni zed dur- NACA 2412 in Figure 1 is a pop - number" laminar-flow airfoils.
ing th e tests. This factor is 2.64. ular spo rt-model airfo il. Com pared NACA 64}"412 is typical (see Figure
Each Rn in Figures 1, 2 and 3 with NACA 0012 , th e ma ximum 4). The lowest Rn is 3,000,000.
should be incr eased by th is factor. lift coefficient is slightly h igh er at Th ese airfoils were developed
The airfoils involved in these fig- 1.6 at the highest Rn. At the lowest similarly to those in NACA Report
ures are "rela ted sections." NACA Rn, with the tu rbulence factor No . 460: a sym me trical section
0012 is symmetrical ; NACA 2412 accounted for (4 1,500 x 2.64 , wrapp ed around a cambered mean
was develop ed by "wrapping" th e whi ch equals 109,560 ), th e CL max lin e. However, careful study of pres-
symmetrical section around a cam- drops to 0.95, or 59 percent of th at sure distribution allowed this type
bered mean lin e so th at th e upper of th e highest Rn. The sta ll angle is of airfoil to obtain a ver y low
and lower surfaces were eq uidistant
from th e camber line. For NACA
2412 , this mean lin e ha s a camber
height of 2 percent of th e cho rd ,
length, with its highest point at 40
percent.
NACA 0012 in Figure 2 shows a ,.
[
.
reduced from 17 degrees for the
highest Rn to 10 degrees for th e
lowest. One very interesting ph e-
Ii
..
I
lilt . . . . .. ..I
almost full value . ., , -0"'1''1_11'" 1
'.'.."" ,._J_'I.....,",,_....,. . I j''
I
[ H1LfJTUTITfl'IIII
~ t>tI . • 1
I . II .
I
"
iillU
beyond-not surpri sin g, conside r-
ing the post-stall lift beha vior. Figure 4.
NACA 0012 has a zero pitching Aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 641-412 airfoil section, 24-lnch chord.
s~
tailless or delta-wing model.
Inevitably, C L max is adversely
affected.
THICKNESS
Chord line
Thicker wings permit strong but
light construction. They may also
Straight mean line
exact a small penalty in drag
(
E __~
increase. Tapered wings with th ick
root airfoils that taper to thinner,
but related , tip airfoils, are strong,
light and efficient. Laying out the
intervening airfoils between root
and tip calls for much calculation-
or computer assistance.
Figure 5. For high speed , an airfoil such
The cambered mean line of E197 (top) was straightened outandthe envelope redrawn, resulting as E226 shown in Figure 6 is sug-
in a symmetrical airfoil (boNom). gested. Drag and pitching moments
are low, as is the CL max, and the
profile drag (over a limited range of 100mph is operating at Rn airfoil performs almost as well
lower lift coefficients). The P-51 780,000. inverted as it does upright. E374
Mustang WW II fighter employed The selection of an airfoil for a would also be a good high-speed
airfoils of this type. The "low drag design should start with a review of airfoil section.
bucket" at C L 0.4 shown in Figure 4 airfoil plots of the type in this chap- The author has had success with the
shows this drag reduction. ter. In this author's experience, the E197 for sport models. It has low pro-
In 1949, NACA issued Technical plots of the University of Stuttgart file drag, good lift and a gentle stall,
Note 1945. This compared 15 published by Dieter Althaus are the but a fairly high pitching moment.
NACA airfoil sections at Rns from clearest and most comprehensive. The E168 is suitable for strong hor-
9,000,000 (9 x 10 6 ) to 700,000 The airfoils developed by Dr. izontal or vertical tail surfaces, or for
(0.7 X 10 6) Richard Eppler are favored. wings of aerobatic models. It performs
The C L max of NACA 64 1-412 at as well upright as it does inverted.
Rn 9 x 10 6 is 1.67, but it drops to MEAN LINE CAMBER
1.18 (70 percent of the highest Rn ) A symmetrical airfoil has the lowest
at Rn 0.7 x 10 6 . Profile drag CL max and stall angle. An airfoil
increases from 0.0045 to 0.0072 for
the same Rn range, and the stall
with increased camber produces a
higher maximum CL, but it starts to
c===-=---=-
E197
ang le is 16 degrees, but it drops to lift at higher negative angles of
12 degrees at the low Rn. Pitching- attack with a broader range of lift
moment coefficient is 0.063.
This report concluded that at low
before stalling. Increased camber,
however, produces increased pitch-
C =====-
E168
Rns, the laminar-flow section did ing moments.
not offer substantial advantages
over those in Report No. 460 and
Out of curiosity, the camber
mean line for the E197 airfoil was
C
E226
===-
Report No. 610. NASA (NACA's suc- straightened out and the envelope
cessor) continued to do research
into laminar-flow airfoils with
was redrawn as in Figure 5. The
result was a symmetrical airfoil
c:= ==---=-
E374
much success; but at the hig h Rns resembling the E168.
of full-scale airfoils and aided by Some cambered airfoils have a
computer analysis.
The worldwide RIC soaring fra-
lower surface trailing-edge "CUSp"
created by a localized and increased
c= ====--
E214
ternity, however, has done much curva ture in the camber mean line,
wind-tunnel testing and computer as in the E214, Figure 6. The cusp C
design of airfoils for model gliders increases both CL max and pitching
E230
-------
(referen ces 10 to 15 inclusive). moment; it's called "aft loading. II
Though the Rn range of these tests E197 in Figure 6 has a slight cusp;
seldom exceeds Rn 300,000, any
airfoil that offers good perfor-
airfoils E207 and E209 are similar to
E197, but they lack the trailing-
C
E211
==-=-
mance at this low Rn can only edge cusp (reference 12). Airfoil
improve at the higher Rns of pow- E230 in Figure 6 has an upwardly Figure 6.
ered flight . A lO-inch-chord at reflexed camber mean line near its Eppler airfoils.
PITCHING MOMENT developed perfor ma nce curves is cant. Having selected these, an y
The airfoil's pitching moment is th at th e forme r provides an accu- adverse characteristics mu st be
impo rtan t both struc tur ally and rat e "picture" of th e airfo il's behav- accep ted and compensa ted for.....
aerodynamically. In flight-partic- ior at th e stall and beyond.
ularly in maneuvers-the pitch ing In general, th ere are th ree bro ad
moment tri es to twist th e wing in a types of sta ll (as shown in Figure 9
leadi ng-edge-down di rection. This of Cha pter 1, "Airfoil Select ion "):
adds to th e torsional stress place d sharp ; sudde n lift drop; and gentle.
o n the wing struc t ure by the For sport mod els, a gentle stall is
ailerons and ext ended flaps. High- desirable. Sha rp sta lls and th ose
pitching-mo men t airfoils require with a sudde n lift drop are appro-
wings that are stiff in torsion, and priate for man euvers in whic h the
th at favors thicker sections and full abili ty to stall a wing easily is NACA AND NASA DATA
wing skin s, particul arly for high-AR required, such as spins. 1. Report 460* : The characteristics of 78
wings. Related Airfoil Sections from Tests in the
Aerodynamically, th e nose-down ZERO LIFT ANGLE Variable Density Wind Tunnel; 1933; Jacobs,
Ward and Pin kerton.
pitching moment requires a hori- The ang le of zero lift for a sym-
zontal tail do wnl oad for eq uilib- metri cal -section airfo il is zero 2. Report 586 * : Airfo il Section Characteristics
as Aff ected by Variations of the Reynolds
rium . Thi s adds to th e lift th e wing degrees AoA. Cambe red airfoil sec- Number; 1937; Jacobs and Sherman.
mu st produce and in creases total t io n s su ch as E21 4 shown in 3. Report 610* : Tests of Related Forward
d rag- called "t rim d rag ." The Figure 6 sta rt to lift at almost 6 Camber Airfoils in the Variable-Density Wind
pit chi ng moment is little affected degrees negati ve AoA, but for this Tunnel; 1937; Jacobs, Pink erton and
by var iations in th e Rn. airfo il, that ang le is una ffect ed by Greenberg.
CL
1.4 c ===-------- 100000
+ 200000
CL 1.4 -.3 CM lage centerli nes . A sym m et rical
airfoil at zero degrees AoA will pro -
X 250000 1.2
1.2 .25 duce no lift .
Wh at happen s is that, to take
off, th e pil ot commands up -eleva-
.8 tor, thus adj usti ng the wing to a
posit ive AoA, and it lifts. The lift
.6 CL of1.00 af 9· from zero "" produces down wash th at strikes
CL 01 0.111 per degree
.4
the hori zontal tail at a negative (or
downward) angle causing a down-
.2 load on th e tail that main ta ins the
wing at a posi tive , lifting AoA. In
.04 .06 .08 .1 .12 .14 -14 14 bo th upri gh t an d inverte d flight,
-.2 Co AoA the fuselage is incline d nose up at
1/
Foraspect ratio6-constant chord a sma ll ang le, an d with so m e
'.4 .1 added dra g.
CL 011.00 at 12.5 Irom zero Ii"
-.6 -.6 .15
E197 (13.42%) c.. of .08 degree SOLUTION N o. :z
Thi s m ethod is mo re accurate and
Figure 2. in volves o ne of the "d rea de d"
Eppler airfoil E197 produces lilt of CL 1.00at 9 degrees AoA, from zero lilt , for infiniteAR. form ulas, as follows:
ad just ment factor would be 0.067 5, The re are two solutions to the deter- Lift = CL x a x V2 x 5
reflecting the lower tip lift losses min ation of the wing 's AoA to sup- 3519
from th e narrower tip chord. port th e plane in level flight at th e
A CL of 1.00 for 12.5 degrees is estima ted cruising speed . Because we wan t to obtain the CL
1.00 divided by 12.5, or 0.08 per need ed, th is form ula is modified to:
degree. Th is is the "slope" of the lift SOLUTION N o.1
curve at AR 6 and constant chord. Refer to Figure 3. At a wing loading CL = Lift x 3519
Our exam ple mod el design h as of 21.6 ounces per square foot and a xV2 xS
th e following specifications : at a speed of 50mph, the win g
needs a CL of close to 0.20. where CL = CL needed;
• Estima ted gross weigh t of 90 Our wing develops a CL of 0.08
ounces; per degree AoA. To produce CL 0.20
would req uire an AoA of 0.20 100
1JY
• Wing area of 600 square inch es divided by 0.08, or 2.5 degrees from 95
(4.17 square feet); zero lift, which for E197 is minus 2 90 I--
f-- Wing liff V- '>
coefficients
degrees. ~ 11 ~ /
85 V
The wing would thus be set at /
• Wing chord of 10 in ch es; 80
(2.5 minus 2) or 0.5 degree AoA- 75
• Spa n of 60 inches; and at 0.5 degree ang le of incidence I / I~
70
to th e fuselage centerline on your / V
65 V
• Estimated cruising speed of 50 d rawings. I~ n ./
5
'/' /'"
~ :::::: :::::::
-;::;--
1:80 l::= I -
--
mom ent and perform as well invert-
ed as th ey do upright, but with 4 8 12 16 2o 24 28 32 36 40 44 4
The three-surface "Wild Goose" was lower maximum lift coefficients (CL (21.6)
designed to theaerodynamic andstructural WING LOADING
principles in this book; specifically those
max) compared with cam bered air-
describedin Chapter 22, "Canard, Tandem foil sections. (See Cha pter 2, Figure 3.
Wing andThree-Surface Design." It's an "Unde rstanding Airfoils.") Nomograph for quickdetermination of wing
excellent flier. The se agile mo dels h ave ch ords loading, lilt andspeed at sea level.
FIGURE J good con trol , would be 26.4m ph. our sample model had slotted flaps
This nomograph is one of the mo st Th is no mograph is mo st useful th at, when extended, increased the
useful charts in this author's "bag in th e early stages of a mo de l's wing's CL max to 1.80, the stall
of tricks." It compares three impor- design . For example: speed would decrease to 16mph
tant factors: speed (m ph), wing from the unflapped 22mph , or
loading (oz./sq. ft ) and wing CL. It • At constant speed, it sh ows the becom e 27 percent slower.
reflects the impact of changes in effect of cha nge s in wing loading,
these factor s. i.e., win g area and /or weight, on • At constant CL, changes in wing
For example, our paper design the CL nee ded for level fligh t. As loading are reflected in the speed
has a wing loading of 21.6 ounces wing loading in creases, so mu st needed for level flight , and vice
per square foot of wing area; th e the C L. versa.
wing has airfoil E197, which has a
CL max of 1.17. Using Figure 3, its • At constant wing loading, it dis- STALLING ANGLES
stall speed is 22mph. Adding 20 plays th e effect of the CL on speed In Figure 4, at infinite AR, the E197
percent, its landing speed, under (or vice versa). For illustrati on , if stalls very gen tly at about plus 11.5
degrees, or 13.5 degrees from zero
lift. For our wing of AR 6 and con-
1.6 1.6 -.4 stant chord, th is would be:
RE
CL CM a = 13.5 + (18.24 x 1.17 x 1.17
1.4 C 100000
+ 200000 1.4 -.35 Stalls divided by 6), or 17.5 degrees from
X 250000 zero lift, or 15.5 degrees AoA at
1.2
altitude.
For landing, however, this stall
.8
an gle is greatly modified by:
.6
Stall at inlinite AR -----'"'1-~--..., • Ground effect. As shown in
CL Figure 6, at 0.15 of the Wingspan
.4 Stall at AR 6-constant chord -~Lk~~:i::::~ (60 x 0.15 , or 9 inches) above
.2 ground, th e stall ang le is reduced to
0.91 of its value at altitude, or to 14
0
.12. .14 18 degrees.
-.2
-.4
• The level fligh t wing AoA.
Because th e wing is at 0.5 degree, it
-.6 will stall at 13.5 degrees higher AoA.
E197 (13.42%)
.c; 1.
. - l.--::::==: E::::=: r::::::::
.25Cand .30Csloned flaps
--
1 0
12 I- with leading-edge slot
-... 0.9I
~
i- 1--8~
1. 0 -
;;:::::V-- V
_... 10 !
--....-
~
<:
-::::::"" zen
...... 8
<: ~ 1-- 6 V encc
...=
2
~
V ........ i-
4~ ~ffi
ccQ
.
...'" 0.8
<:
V
,/
v <, u
z""
;;;u
l 4
Plain split
u ' " Wing aspect rallo Q~ flaps
z<
:;;'" / !:!... /'
.
'0 1-0
u ... 0
•
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Height ot wing from ground FLAP DEFLECTION ANGLE- DEGREES (@ Rn 250,000)
Wingspan
Figure 6. Figure 7.
Impact of ground effect onangfe of attack. The effect onflaps andLEslotsontheangte of attack at maximum lift.
reduction of 4 degrees to 9.5 tion wit h LE slots. on ly. The C L max profile drag of the
degrees stall ang le. Had the slotted Slotted flaps and fixed LE slots un flapped E197 is 0.0 15 (Figure 5)
slaps been combine d with fixed co mbine to mor e th an dou ble the and for full-spa n slo tted flap s
leading-edge (LE) slots, there would C L of mos t airfoil sections, produc- wou ld be an additional 0.121
be a gain of 9 degrees, to 22.5 ing STOL performa nce . (Figure 11), for a to tal of 0.136 in
degrees stall ang le. For example, our E197 CL max is profile drag. Induced drag is not
1.17. Equipped with deployed 30- included. Note the very small
The model's landing stall angle has percent-chord slotted flaps with increase in E197's profile drag for
a major impact on landing-gear extended lip and LE slots, bo th CL 0.20 to CL max 1.17.
design. (Chapter 16, "Landing Gear full-span, th e Wing's C L max would The formula for calculation of
Design," goes in to this in detail.) be 1.17 plu s 1.25, or 2.42 . total wing drag is:
Figure 8 shows the geometry of a Our sam ple model so eq uipped
fixed LE slot . Note how the slot would stall (Figure 7) at 14mph. CD = CD o + 0.3 18 X CL 2 x (1 + 0)
tapers from the lower entry to the Figure 11 shows the added profile AR
upper exit . Co to be added to the section's pro-
Figure 9 displays the benefits of an file CD' when calculating the total where CD = total of both profile
LE slot in added CL and additional of bo th profile and ind uced drags , and induced drags;
effective angles of attack before the discussed un der "drag," as follows. Coo = section profile drag
stall. Drag is little affected. coefficient at the chosen wing CL;
Figure 10 shows the additional DRAG C L2 = wing lift coefficient
CL to be obtained from various The drag coefficients shown in "squared";
types of flap alone, or in combina- Figures 5 and 11 are profile drag AR = aspect ratio;
o = planform drag adjustment
factors .
1+-------.23C -------.t
Our model's wing has a Coo of
0.013 at CL 0.20 (Figure 5) and a
drag planform adjustment of 0.05
(see Figure 4 of Chapter 1).
Slat--+--....... Replacing symbols with numbers
for the plain wing:
1.8 .36
I I "..
/
l l / \
s lOlled Wlng I \
,,
---l
1.6 .32
1I1l lncrease
.:
/
/ I
I \
V
1.4 .28
/ I
1.2
/ <,
v: .24 The Wild Goose shown withslotted flaps on
// / I both front and main wings extended for
1.0
Plain wing '7'"1
I
/ 1 //
I
"L .20
slow, stable landings.
.8 tL
VI
I
f!
u"
.16 t:l
chord always flies at a hig he r Rn
th an its tip chord at any speed,
::; j I I <
a: owi ng to the narrower tips (whic h
....
.......z
Q
.6 / I
I
rl .12
Q
....
.......z
Q
can be pron e to tip-stalls as a result).
Full-scale airfoil research da ta
zs
iI:
/ V/ c::; may be used for model airplane
....
....
0
u .4
II
-/ Rn @ 609,000
.08
iI:
....
....
wing design-with careful regard
for the major effect of scale on par-
/ /
/ V'" CD 0
u
ticularly lift, dra g and stall angles.
.2
~/ ".. :;; V ADA Increase
.04
p :::..----
L PITCHING MOMENTS
The se ha ve noth ing to do with
0 0 baseball! All cam bered airfoils have
.4 0 4 8 12 16 20 2 no se-down , or nega tive, pitch ing
mom ent s. Symmetrical airfoils have
ANGLE OF ArrACK-DEGREES
(Rn 600,000) no pitching moments, excep t at th e
stall. Reflexed airfoils may have low
nose-down or low nose-up pitch ing
Figure 9. moments.
The benefits of thefixedleading-edge slot. Nose- down pitc hi ng momen ts
must be offset by a horizon tal tail
2.22 (Figure 10), would be: (Note: in Figure 2 of Chapter I , th e do wnl oad tha t is ac hieved by
lower drag correction fact or 0 for havin g that tail's AoA set at a neg-
CD = (0.15 + .12 1) + 0.318 x 2.222 x 1.05 th e tapered wing , of taper ratio 0.6, ative ang le to the down was h fro m
is 0.02 co mpared to that for a the wing . (Chapter 8, " Hor izo n tal
or 0.410. constan t-chord win g of 0.05. ) Tail In ciden ce and Dow nwas h
Esti ma ting," goes into det ail.)
(Figures 5 and 11) SCALE EFFECT
Scale effect is measur ed by Rn. In 1.80
The formula for total wing drag is : E197, lift and pitching moments
.30Cslolled flap
are little affected by th e reduction ~ 1.60 with extended
Drag (oz.) = CD x a x V2 x S in Rn from 250,000 to 100,000, but ...
~
lip and leading-
edge slot
3519 profile drag increases substa ntially. 15 1.40
The formula for Rn is simple: ~ 1mI 1+------T~
11l 1.20
Repl acin g the symbo ls wit h num-
bers for th e plain wing at 50m ph : Rn = speed (mph) x chord (in.) x K ~ m:J ....- _"--,.,p;..- -=l
~ 1.00
Drag (oz.) = 0.0 1523 x 1 x 502 x 600 K at sea level is 780; at 5,000 feet, ~
:E .80
3519 it's 690; and at 10,000 feet, it's 610. =>
:E
Our samp le mo del's win g cho rd i .60
~
1---:; z-:
.12
u::: S = wing area in square inches; 7
~~~iit" nd
0 7
a:
"-
z .08 BO~ C = chord in inches;
0
0 t-SIOfl flaps a = density ratio of air. 8 8
e .04
w
en ~ 9
....
0 Our sample Wing's nose-down PM is:
9
en
..... 10 10
z
w
::E 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 11 11
w
a:
PM = 0.060 x 1 x 502 x 600 x 10 150
<.> 12 12
iii!: FLAPDEFLECTIDN-DEGREES (@R250,000)
3519
13 13
or 255 .75 in-oz . 200
14
14
250 15
Figure 11. 15
Increments of profile drag coefficient at CL
A moment is a force times a dis- 16 300 16
17
max or increasing flapdeflections. tance. In our sample, if a tail- 17 350 18
18 400
moment arm dis tance were 30 19 19
450 20
inches, the tail download to offset 20
21 500
As Figure 5 shows , the E197 air- the nose-down moment would be 22
23
foil has a negative CM of 0.060 at 255.75 divided by 30, or 8.52 24
25
an AoA of 0.5 degree. Note that CM, ounces. (Chapter 8 goes int o thi s in
like c., varies wit h th e AoA. detail.)
Also, the C Mapplies to the wing's Figure 13.
V4 MAC; on our straight wing of 10 RPM, SPEED AND PITCH Nomogram for choosing suitable prop
pitches anddiameters.
in ch es chord, at a point 2.5 inches NOMOGRAM
from its leading edge . Figure 13 was developed to help
model designers choose prop
The pitching moment formula is: pitches and diameters suitable for
both plane and engine to ob tain
optimum performance.
SPEED · MPH REYNOLDS CHORD·
NUM8ER INCHES This is explained in Chapter 8.
3400 000 24 Figure 13 should be used with
180 23
160
3,DOd,ooo Figure 3, "Wing Loading Lift Speed
2,5000,000 22
140 21 Nomograph. " Don 't use Figure 13
120 2,000,000 20 alone to estimate the speed of any
1,5000,000 19 prop/plane/engine combi na tio n; if
100
18 the prop pitch and dia me ter aren't
90 17
80 1,000,000 16 suitable for a model's character is-
70 800,000 15
tics, the nomogram will not be
60 14
accurate.
600,000
50 It would obviously be poor judg -
500,000 13
ment to use a h igh -pitch, low-
400,000 12
40 diameter propeller on a large, slow
300,000 11 flying, draggy model with low wing
30 loading. Simila rly, a low -pitch ,
10
large-diameter prop on a low-drag ,
III 150,000 9 fast airplane with a high wing load-
ing would be a poor choice.
20 8 I hope that this chapter will over -
100,000
come any problems some reade rs
80,000
15 7 may have wit h formulas in th is
60,000 book. To succee d, one mu st try! No
50,000 effort , no success! ...
10 6
40,000
32,000 5
Figure 12.
Nomograph for quick determination of
Reynolds numbers.
N = 1 + (1.466 x rnph)2
Rx G
100
95
.. .1"
chord tha t are 35 to 40 percent of
the semi span in len gth;
90
lilt /' /
where N = load factor in G's: 85
CO " I lents ~ .15 ./ • plain flaps inbo ard of the ailerons
mph = speed in mph; 80
/ to th e fuselage; and
R = man euver radius in feet; 75
/ I V
G = acceleration of gravity (32.2 V V ~ • E168 with a C L max of 0.98 , th en
70
feet/second per second). 65 / / th e full y dep loyed flap at 60
V
60
/ ~k degrees would provide a wing CL
Aerodynamically clean mod el air- ~ 55 max of 1.30 and, at 20 degrees of
craft tha t have powerful engi nes
an d are correctly "propped" can
!::
50
45
1/ / /
./
./
,/'
V
V ·5!V
,40V
deflection , a wing C L max of 1.13.
CL / 1/ V "'!!IV
ach ieve very h igh speeds. The en 40 The pilot could extend th ese flaps
/ 1/
v r""" 1J1i-
no rm for patte rn shi ps is 100mph. 35 / /' V V ,88',....-
up or down at any angle to suit th e
/ 1/ j / v :./
My "Swift" h as a top speed of 30 m an euver in progress. Land ings,
f/ / /.. /' :./ ,....- ...... 1J11 i--
----- --
125m ph ; its gros s weight is 92 25 ;..--: -::- V ,....- ..... with a 60-degree flap deployment,
'/ ~ !-"
ounces , and its wing loading is 22 20 with a high wing loading of 28
15 -0 r:/. :.- ~
;..;.-
ounces per square foot. At 90mph , ~~ ~ :;:::::. V
ounces per square foot , would be at
it flies at a CL of 0.072. 10.~ 28mph- a comfortable speed.
In a stee p tu rn of a SO-foo t 5 In addi tion, for sharp-turn ing
radi us, th e load factor would be 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 4044 48 m an euvers, lowering these flap s
Wing loadlng- Ol./Sq . ft. partially to 20 degrees would pre-
N = 1 + (1.466 X 90)2 = 11.8 G'S ven t high -speed stalls.
50 x 32.2 Figure 2. At 100mph in level flight , a CL of
From wingloading at thebonom, read 0.068 is required. For a turn radius
In th is maneuver, th e Swift's wing vertically to the appliicable liff coefficient
andthen move leff (horizontally) to findthe
of SO feet at 100mph, th e load fac-
has to lift 11.8 x 92, or 1,086, speed in milesperhour. The stallspeed is tor would be 14.34G's. This calls for
ounces-a shocking 68 pounds. based onanairfoil'smaximim liff coefficient. a CL of 0.97, whi ch is dangerously
Ju st think what thi s mean s bo th close to th e E168's CL max of 0.98 .
aero dy na mica lly and structurally. Th e 20-degre e flap deflec ti on
This is why I favor stiff, stro ng, woul d provide a CL of 1.13, whic h
fully shee te d and stress-skin ne d 1.17). Tighter tu rns are possible would be safer.
structures. witho ut danger of a h igh- speed With flaps up , th e high er load ing
The lift coefficient in this turn stall. The Swift's sturdy flaps are wo uld move th e level-flight CL
wou ld increase 11.8 tim es to CL strong enoug h to accept this high er up th e lift slope, closer to CL
0.85, well wit hin its E197 airfoil's treatment. max. In tu rn, th is provides easier
capacity of CL max 1.17. The re's a The Swift was n' t design ed to be entry into any man euver requiring
hea lthy marg in before th e stall. a stu n t m od el; it 's a "spo rt-fo r- th at th e win g be stalled.
If th e Swift's airfoil were E168 fun " model wit h a wide spee d A .60 -powered pattern m odel
with a CL max of 0.98, however, range and low landin g an d takeoff that weigh s 8 pou nd s (128 ounces),
th en th is margin wou ld be greatly speeds, i.e., with flap s deployed . an d has a win g loading of 28
diminish ed . (See append ix fo r Its slott ed flap s aren' t suita ble fo r oun ces per square foot would have
Eppler airfoil data.) the wide range of aerobatics that a wing area of 4.57 squa re feet, or
It's impossi ble to gauge accu- pattern shi ps per form, both 658 squ are in ch es.
rate ly th e mo del's turning radii upright an d in verted . Patt ern sh ips have evolve d over
from several hundred feet away, tim e into beauti ful configuratio ns
hence th is safety facto r is needed to PLAIN FLAPS of startling similarity to one another.
avo id "high-speed sta lls" (whic h Plain flaps (Figure 1), h owever, in It's tim e to consider some fresh
would probably result in un com- win gs with sym me t rica l ai rfoil approaches to th eir design . Perh aps
manded sna p rolls). sections , suc h as E168 (sta n da rd flaps and higher wing loadings are
o n pattern mod els) wou ld func- such approaches. A
SLOTTED FLAPS tion equally well angled down (for
The Swift-slotted flap s up-Will uprigh t fligh t) o r up (for inverted
land at 30mph. With flaps down flight). They ach ieve their C L max
40 degrees, at a CL m ax of 1.9, its at 60 degrees of deflect ion an d
lan ding speed is 22mph. Flaps thus would add an additional C L of
eliminate th e adverse effect th at 0.62 at that ang le, plu s addition al
higher Wi ng load ings ha ve o n dr ag to slow the mo de l. At 20
landing speeds. degrees of deflecti on, the addi-
In high -speed, short-radius turn- tional CL wo uld be 0.25.
ing man eu vers, 20 degrees of flap If we assum e:
deflecti on would in crease th e
Swift's CL ma x to 1.6 (from flaps-up • ou tboard ailero ns of 25-percent
sense to provide a 16-ounce fuel Figure 2 of Chapter 1). For wings of ing edges and sweptback leading
tank on a model powered by a 040 smaller models, this taper ratio edges are popular for pattern ships.
to .SOci engine. Most sport flights results in narrow tip chords and These wings tip-stall readily for easy
seldom last more than 25 minutes undesirably low Rns at low speeds. entry into wing-stalling maneuvers
so, on landing, the 16-ounce tank is Increasing the taper ratio produces such as snap rolls, spins, etc.
still half-full. Your model is penal- larger tip chords. The resulting loss Structurally, a sweptback wing's
ized to about 1;2 pound carrying in efficiency isn 't great and is the lift tends to reduce the Wingtip'S
thi s useless weight. A guide to tank "lesser of the two evils." AoA, particularly at high speeds
size relative to engi ne displacement Structurally, the tapered wing and high centrifugal force loads. A
is 20 ounces per cubic in ch of has lower root bending moments, stiff wing structure will prevent
engine displacem ent. Th us, for a and the wider, deeper root chord potentially damaging wing flutter.
AOci engi ne, an 8-ou nce tank is provides the greatest strength
right on . where it 's needed most-at the • Swept-forward wings. These
Now, let 's cons ide r the many root. A tapered wing can be lighter tend to stall at the wing root first.
othe r design decisions to be made. yet stronger than a rectangular The unstalled tips promote good
It's fun ! wing of the same area. aileron control at high angles of
attack. The root stall reduces lift aft
WING PLANFORMS • Sweptback wings. This causes of the CG, causing a nose-up pitch.
• Elliptical wings. Th is is the similar behavior to decreased taper Forward sweep is destabilizing in
"ideal" win g planform. lt has the ratio (smaller tip chord) and leads yaw. The centers of drag and lift of
lowest induced AoA and induced to early tip-stalls with a nose-up the advancing wing panel move
drag and stalls even ly across its pitch, since the tips, being behind inboard; on the opposite, retreating
span. These factors in crease for the CG, lose lift. lt has a dihedral panel , these centers move outboard.
tap ered or rectan gular wings. For effect; 21;2 degrees of sweepback The unequal drag moments increase
exam ple, a rectangular wing of AR (measured at 25 percent of the the yaw, while the unequal lift
6 would requ ire an induced AoA (T) chord) is roughly equivalent to 1 moments cause a roll, but in a direc-
17 percent highe r and with induced degree of dihedral. lt also promotes tion opposed to the yaw. Control of
drag (&) 5 percent higher than an directional stability; if yawed , the this instability calls for increased ver-
elliptical planform . (See Figures 2 advancing wing's center of drag tical tail surface area and effective-
and 4 of Cha pter 1.) moves away from the CG, and the ness, along with generous dihedral.
Structurally, th e elliptical wing is opposite, retreating wing's center Structurally, a wing very stiff in
difficult to produ ce. Each rib is dif- moves inward. The resulting drag torsion is required to overcome the
ferent an d wing skins all have a imbalance works to oppose the wingtips' tendency to increase their
double curva ture, chordwise and yaw. Large sweptback angles AoA. Any flexibility could be disas-
spanwise. The Spitfire 's elliptical increase induced drag and lower trous at high speeds.
win g is a classic exam ple. the wing's maximum lift. In full-scale airplanes, modest
Wings of moderate taper ratios sweep forward moves the wings'
• Rectangular wings. Th is is the (0.5 to 0.6) with straight-across trail- main spar aft, out of the way, and
easiest typ e to design and build.
All ribs are th e sam e, and wing
skins ha ve a sing le chordwise cur- I 01· INDUCEDDRAG
vature . Whil e it suffers in com par-
ison with th e elliptical, for small
mod els, it ma in tains a constan t Rn
-
across its spa n, whe reas a tapered
wing of the same area could have
tip Rns in th e high dra g/lower lift EFFECTIVE LIFT -
an d stalling-ang le ran ge of low
Rns, leading to premature tip- stalls
at low speeds.
Structurally, the wing roots need
reinforcing , owing both to narrower
root chords and higher bending
moments. The cen te r of lift of a
each win g hal f is farthe r from the
cen te rline than an elliptical or
tap ered wing .
TOTAL DRAG
r STALL
-.......
r
INDUCED DRAG
Figure 5.
I AnIllustration of the
wingtip vortex flow.
VELOCITY
Figure 2.
Typical airplane drag curves. Parasite drag varies directly as the speed squared; induced drag
varies inversely asthespeed squared.
Figure 7.
The Schuemann
lE.
wlRg planform.
Load
l.E.
FlgureB. Root
Modified wing
planform Figure 9.
geometry; 45" Spanwlse loaddistribution of modified wing at
swept tip. CL = DAD.T!!e wing features a 45· swept tip.
Figure 10.
Rutan model 81 Catbird. Note three surfaces.
WINGTIP DESIGN damaging to both model and its 10 and 11 illustrate these designs.
The major difference in efficiency designer's ego! This author us es a modified
between the elliptical planform, Over the years, aerodynamicists sheared wingtip that is both sim ple
considered the best, and other have explored many wingtip con- and rugged. Figure 13, a top view
planforms is largely due to wingtip figurations in their search for of the Snowy Owl's wing , illus-
losses. The elliptical has no pro - improved wing performance. Two trates this tip form .
nounced tip-one could say it is forms, somewhat resembling each
"all tip "- whereas the rectangular other, have emerged. FLAP CHORDS
planform has the widest tip . First is the Schuemann planform Earlier model designs, such as th e
Tapered wingtip widths vary with (Figure 7). Snowy Owl, had slotted flaps wh ose
taper ratio. The second is the "sh eared" chord was 26 percent of th e win g's
Figures 4 and 5 portray the air- wingtip, largely developed by c.P. chord and were close to 60 percent
flow over and under a wing and Van Dam of the University of of the wing 's semi-span in len gth
particularly the tip vortex flow. California. Figures 8 and 9 provide (see Figure 13).
Figure 6 shows the wake and down- an outline of a sheared tip along After being throttled back and
wash resulting from the wing 's pro- with its spanwise load distribution. having their flaps fully extended,
duction of lift. Note how close "modified" is to these model s porpoised upward sud-
Obviously, the narrower the tip, "elliptical" in Figure 9. This form of denl y. Elevator down -trim applied
the lower the tip losses with due tip has been, or is being, applied to simultaneously with flap extension
regard to stall patterns and scale full-scale aircraft designed by such would prevent this behavior, which
effect, particularly at low speeds. A no ted aerodynamicists as Burt was annoying.
tip-stall close to the ground may be Rutan and Peter Garrison. Figures Analysis disclosed that the
X 1.8
~ E '"
~
u'1 .6
<l
0.2566e slolle d lIap
SNOWY OWL csc.
"E 1.4
'"
'(3
iE
1.2
'"
0
u
l Oll( . oe --'I'!J ; 0.015e ~ .10
E
~
::l
0.30e Fowler lIa p; t E .8
gap ; O.015e 'O'q,c/ 'x
SEA HAWK '"
E
c: .6
s
u
- - 0.2566e s lolled lIap
•••• 0.30e Fowler tlap;
~ .4 gap ; 0.015e
I~nooe - - .\ g~p ; 0.02e
- 0.30e slolled tlap
~
with extended lip;
0.30e slolled lIap gap ; 0.02e
with extended lip; a V
'O'
gap ; 0.02e t'
10 20 30 40 50 60
SWIFT
Flap deflection, degrees.
Figure 12.
Comparison of increments of section maximum tift coefficientfor three flaps ona NACA 23012
airfoil.
Eppler 197
-.-- -
zoo med upward until the excess (9.75" Chord)
speed bled off. The mo del the n ~
nosed ove r in to th e flap-d own ,
slow glide.
Experi ence with three of my 100%
models (Sea Gull Ill, Sea Hawk and Eppler 197M
(10.1 " Chord)
Swift) has proven that widen ing
th e flap chord to 30 percent of th e
wing chord produces a ba lance
between these "nose-up" an d
:----t
"n ose-do wn" forces, flap s full y
extended. All three models exh ibit
no change in pitch on lowerin g
flaps-but fly mu ch more slowly.
On landing approach , groun d
effect redu ces th e downwash angle
and in creases the nose-down pitch.
The glide close to th e ground steep- Figure 13.
en s, but appro priate up -elevator Snowy Owl's flaps were 60% of the wing semi-span.
action raises the nose so th at a
gentle, slow landing result s. ....
sa ucers ?
Steel Ball
Aerodynamic Center----+
25% MAC
Figure 1.
In Ihis illustration, a ball bearing in a saucer simulates therelative pitchstability of various CG locations.
WING: 600 square inches at 0.039 oz/sq. in., Y1 6-inch-thick • downwash varia tions; and
balsa skins, two spars, ailerons, slotted flaps
(control cables included). 23.4 25.4% • the many effects of th e pro-
peller's rota tion.
HORIZONTAL TAIL: 120 square inches at 0.028 oz.lsq. in.,
Y16-inch-thick balsa skins and elevators; 40% Full-scale practice is to calculate the
(mass balanced .) 3.4 3.7% NP's approxima te posit ion and
the n to fina lize its precise location
VERTICAL TAIL: 40square inches at 0.030 oz./sq. in., by wind-tunnel tests an d/ or by
Y16-inch-thick balsa skin, one spar and rudder. actual flight tests at in creasingly
(Mass balanced.) 1.2 1.3% rearwa rd CGs.
For practical mod el design pur-
FUSELAGE: Length from the engine bulkhead to the rudder poses, the "power-on " NP is located
tail post is 34.5 inches, 6 inches deep and 4.5 inches wide. at 35 percent of MAC from its lead-
This comes to 931 .5 cubic inches at 0.017oz.lci assuming
ing edge. The "power-off" NP
31.l2-inch-thick balsa skinsand3116-inch-thick balsa corners
moves a few percentage points
(control cables included). 15.8 17.0%
fart her aft, so tha t a mo del is more
• Experience with several models indicates an average stab le in an "engine-idling" glide .
fuselage weight of 0.017ounces percubicinch, given the With CG at 25 percent MAC and
construction noted. NP at 35 percent, th ere's a healthy
stability margin of 10 percent. The
VARIABLE SUBTOTALS 43.8 oz. 47. %
minimum suggested stability mar-
gin is 5 percen t, or a CG of 30
percent MAC.
TOTAL WEIGHTS 92.3 oz. 100% Locating the CG farther aft, say
at 33 percen t MAC, would be dan-
WEIGHT (gross per square inch of wing area): 92.3/600 = 0.1538 oz./Sq. in. gero us. As fuel is consumed, th e CG
mo ves back an d could easily reach
a po int behi nd th e NP, leading to
pitch instab ility under power.
foils. This will be tran slated as an called th e "static margin ." For th e Patt ern- sh ip design ers recognize
increase (or decrease) in th e total same setup, mo ving th e CG aft th is risk an d position their fuel
lift at th e NP. The system is longi- would reduce th is static margin tanks on the mod el's CG. As fuel is
tudinally stab le if th is change in lift (and, thus, th e inherent lon gitudi- consu med, the CG does not sh ift.
pro duces a correc ting effect, which nal stability) until a con dition of Engi ne -dr iven pu m ps force the fuel
it will if the NP is beh ind th e CG. A neutral stability is reached whe n to the carburetor.
nose-up disturbance inc reasing lift the CG an d NP coinci de . Further These designers use symmetrical
would apply this lift inc rease at th e movement of the CG aftward to wing airfoils (with lower CL max )
NP, behind the CG, causing th e behi nd NP would result in serious because of their little or no pitch-
nose to drop and vice versa. longitudina l instability. ing mo ments and aft CGs close to
The degree of inhe rent stability is The NP's position govern s the the NP. A sma ll tailplane upload
governed by ' th e distan ce between margin of stabil ity available (static balances th e aft CG. The result is a
th e CG and the NP aft of it. It's margin, or distance between CG h ighl y man eu verabl e model-but
one that m ust be co nstantly plus bellcranks for ailerons and • Position servos for ailerons and
"flown," demand ing in tense con- flaps . Such installation s requir e flaps in the open wing center sec-
centration from its pilot. that rudde r and elevator servos be tion, between the main and aft spar.
Since th e stability is close to neu- located near the wing trailing edge
tral, any distur ban ce will divert th e and tha t th e fuselage be "open" • The receiver's battery sho uld be
mod el from its flight path, but th e interna lly back to th e tail surfaces. located so that "ma jor surge ry"
aircraft will not seek to return to its In addition, th ey vibrate he avily isn 't requ ired for its removal and
origina l course volunta rily, as a pos- when th e engine is running, doing replacem ent.
itively stable model would. both servos and control surfaces no
good. Bellcran ks lead to "slop" at • Finally, all in-fuselage and in-
IN THE WORKSHOP th e contro l surfaces. wing equipment should be readily
You have design ed and bu ilt your Stranded stee l cables run ni ng in accessible.
very own model airplane . Wisely, plastic tubing permit the fuselage
before you go out to th e flying servos to be moved forward for easy These objectives hav e been realized
field, you decide to check th e ph ys- access; th e cables are run down th e in the Swift . The front top
icallocat ion of your model's CG. To in side walls of th e fuse lage, or of the fuse lage is rem oved by
your disma y, you fin d it's well away th rough th e wing ribs, out of th e unscrewin g one bolt. Similarly, th e
from its design location . You are way, and permit direct "no -slop" lower engine cowl is even easier to
not alon e; it has happened to oth- linka ge between servos and control remove . All compo nents are readily
ers, including thi s author. surfaces. No bellcran ks are needed; accessible for adjustment, replace-
To correct th is situatio n, you' ll cables do not vibrate as do link ages ment or any othe r reason. The tan k
find th at you do n't have as much is fueled with the
flexibility in rearrang ing thi ngs as fuse lage top "off."
you might think. Your eng ine , fuel Straigh tening the nose
tank and servos are in fixed loca- gear after a hard land-
tions. The onl y items that are read- ing is easy (you simply
ily moveable are the receiver and unscrew the steering
batte ry. ar m setsc rew an d
remove th e gear).
SERVO INSTALLATION Getting back to your
AND CCi new design; if you are
Questions of CG inevi tably lead to un able to relocate your
a consideratio n of the arrange me nt actua l CG to where you
of in ternal components and link- want it, your on ly
ages. Bitter experience in dicates recourse is to add bal-
that wiring from servos to receiver last, either up front for
should be kept well away from both tail -heaviness-or aft
Side view of theSwiftplan with power, control andlanding-
receiver an d an tenna to avoid radio gearcomponents. The balance-line fulcrumis in position at the
for nose-heaviness.
in terference. This author dislikes lower center. (I used a triangular draftsman's scale as a ful- Lead shot, lightly coat-
dowel push rods from servos to rud - crum, but a spare piece of 3A-inch balsa triangle stock would ed with epoxy or
der and elevator, and wire push rods also work well.) dissolved cellulose
• landing-gear components.
c~ ING co
' ;'~ U'S f:'" cc \/Efn . 'A.\\.. cc, • Positi on th e CGs of the variabl e-
lANK y i ~ Ec.
weight items as follows:
<,
SE RVO{ " . ' B A,T l . - win g with flaps: 50 percent MAC
- win g without flap s: 40 percent
MAC
-horizontal ta il: 40 percent MAC
- vertical ta il: "eyeball" the CG
-fuselage: normally 40 percent of
th e distanc e from engine bul kh ead
to rudder post. (Because of th e
concave aft contours of the Swift's
All the actual anddummy, fixed and variable weights in position-andagain thebalance beam fuselage, this was adva n ced to 35
is level. The actual and design CGs now coincide. perc ent.)
• Draw a side view, full-scale, of If balance is achieved-good. If interna l structure then may be
yo ur design sh owing the positi on s th e beam tilt s down at the tail detailed. (See Chapter 13,
of your fixed- weight it em s. Show end, your design is tail heavy. "Stressed Skin Design .")
your de sign 's CG clea rly-but Slight forward movement of
don't det ail any internal structure . power components, nosewheel The balancing act is not too time-
unit and possibly fuselage servos consuming, is certainly dependent
• Locate and identify th e CGs of should achieve balance. Measure on reasonably accurate weight esti-
your variab le-weight items-wing, th e distance of this forward move, mates for the variable weight items
fuselage and horizontal and vertical and elongate the design 's fuselage and has proven itself to be a valu-
tails. Draw vertical lines from th eir accordingly. able design tool. Having to add
CGs to th e board th at will be used lf the beam tilts down at the gobs of weight, fore or aft, to your
as a balance beam . front, yo ur design is nose heavy. model to pin down that elusive CG
The best solu tion is to move the to its design location is no t good
• Place a fulcrum, e.g., a spa re piece design's wing forward . engineering. The balancing act will
of 314-inch balsa angle stock, on Carefully move the beam and its surely reduce the amount of weight
your worktable. The fulc rum weigh ts backward-then move needed, if it doesn't eliminate it
should be vertically in line with the wing, wing servo and landing gear entirely. ...
model's CG. (or dummies) forward to the origi-
nal positions relative to your side
• Place th e "balancing beam" on view. Some trial -and-error move-
th e fulcru m and weight the short ment will achieve balance. The dis-
end so th at th e beam is balanced tance the beam is moved backward
on th e fulcrum . will indicate the distance the wing
must be moved forward to get the
• Carefully posit ion th e fixed and actual and design CGs to coincide.
variable weigh ts, actual compo- Now tha t the posit ions of all the
nen ts and/o r dummies in their components have been established
respecti ve position s, ver tically for the correct CG, mark your draw-
below th eir design positions. ing acco rdingly. The fuselage
The Swan canard, flaps extended onIts cradle. Twelve ounces of ballastwere needed-and
providedfor-as a resultof using the "bafancing act."
to high-or vice versa- the hori- ho rizontal tail surface depends on TAIL AIRFOIL SECTION S
zontal tail's lift mu st vary accord- th ree factors: Since th e hori zo n tal tail surface
ingl y. On mod el airpl an es, th is is has to pro vide lift-both u p and
acco m plishe d by changing the • area and tail moment arm; down-sym metrical airfo ils suc h
an gle of th e elevators. This angl e is as Eppler E168 are recommended .
controlled by the elevator tr im • airfoil section; and Many m od el s in co rpo rat e flat
lever on th e transmitter-literall y balsa sheet or flat built-up tail
at o ne's fin gertips (a little up- • aspect ratio. surfaces. These are less effect ive,
elevator at low speed and some aerodynamicall y, th an sym metri-
down for high speed ). AREA AND cal airf oil s.
The an gle of incidence of th e TAIL·MOMENT ARM Figure 1 shows polar curves (CL
fixed portion of th e horizontal tail , The tail -mo ment arm (TMA) is the versus Co) for a flat plate airfoil at
i.e., th e stabilizer, is important but distance between the mean aerody- low Rns. Lift is greater, and drag is
no t too critical. For semi symmetri- namic chords of the wing an d tail. less for E168.
cal or flat-b ottomed wing airfoils , It is, in effect, th e lever on which As explain ed in Chapter 13,
an angle of incidence of minus 1 the tail's area wor ks. "Stressed Skin Design ," symme trical
deg ree (as measured against the tail surfaces may be made lighter
da tum lin e) is appropriate. For Lift an d stronger than shee t balsa and
symmetrical wing airfoils, an angl e 4 -=tT ~R=1 8 , AR.9 ARcS AR.2 .S-
1. much stronger th an built-up sur-
of incidence of zero degre es is sug- ) .2 Basicsection f,'i / . '. faces (and only slightly heavier).
..F
1 . o AR=lnfinite-.e.- "/
gested. Th ere are some exceptions
to these rules, as you will see.
..
~
c
;g -
8
/
l5. / ...-
/
.> I
I
trates the effect of AR on lift and
AoA. For AR 5, th e stall occurs at a
OF THE HORIZONTAL TAIL 0
25 27
In addition to th e downward deflec- 20-degree AoA, and at AR 2.5, the
tion of th e air by th e wing , resulting stall is at 27 degrees-both at a lift
from its production of lift, both pro- coefficient of 1.2. Thus, at AR 5, the
file and induced drags "pull" the air tail surface responds more quickly to
along with th e wing, so that by th e changes in AoA th an at AR 2.5 since
time it reaches th e tail, it has lost the lift per degree of AoA is greater.
some of its velocity. (This is easier to For sma ller models, however, th e
visualize if one con siders th e air- tail 's ch ord sho uld not be less than
.1 .15
plan e fixed with the air passing at 5 inches to avo id unfavorable low
Wing drag coellicienl Co
level flight speed, as in a wind tun- Rn effect s. An AR of 4 to 5 with
nel.) This reducti on adversely affects Figure 2. constant cho rd is reco mmen ded .
Effect of aspect ratio on wing characteristics.
th e tail's effectiveness.
The greater th e vertical distance SLOTTED FLAP EFFECT
betw een th e Wing's wake and th e Based on experience, this author When slotted flap s ar e full y
hor izontal tail , th e smaller (flatte r) uses a simp le meth od for establish- extended, several things occur :
the downwash angle is and the less ing the horizontal-tail area (HTA). If
the reduction in velocity of the air you have a wing AR of 6 and a tail- • Both lift and d rag increase sub-
is. A T-tail location, atop th e verti- mo ment arm that is 2.5 times the sta ntially, and th e model's speed
cal tail surface, raises it well abov e wing's MAC, th en a tail area of 20 dec reases.
th e win g's wake and puts it in less percent of th e wing area is adequate.
disturbed air. Here is the formula : • The wing's nose-down pitc hi ng
Other T-tail advantages are: moment increases sha rply.
HTA = 2.5 x MA C x 20 % x WA
TMA • Th e down was h angle also
• Th e elevato r ma y be sit uated
increases in proportio n to th e lift
above th e prop slipstream .
where HTA = horizontal-tail are a in increase from th e lowered flap s.
square inches; Thi s increases th e horizon tal tail
• It is out of th e fuselage's bound- TMA =tail-moment arm in inches; download .
ary layer. WA = wing area in square inches;
MAC = Wing's mean aerodynamic Experienc e with th e Seagull III, th e
• It does not blank et th e rudder, for chord in inches. Seahawk and th e Swift indicates th at
better spin recov ery. the flap chord (in percen t of th e
For short TMAs, this formula wing's chor d) influ ences th e model's
For high -wing models, a low-set will increase th e tail area ; for long flaps-down beh avior.
horizontal tail brings it well belo w TMAs, area is reduced , but wha t Flaps with wider ch ord s-up to 30
th e wake . aerodynamicists call "tail vo lume, " percent of th e win g's cho rd- gene r-
In addition to its vertical i.e., area times TMA, will remain ate very little pitch cha nge when
location, the effectiveness of th e constant. extended. The increase in tail down-
i ::
c; 0.7
I
I
-:
-:
V Lowering flaps causes an increase in
th e down wash angle and in the
for ward CG adds to the load the
wing mu st support, in addition to
the model 's weight. Profile and
~
:i 0.6
V nose-down pitch; but th e severe in duce d dr ags (called "trim drag")
" ~ 0.5 downwash angle reduction , du e to of both wing and tail increase.
c
gro un d effect, red uces th e tail 's
~_! ::: 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 dow nlo ad, causing the mod el to • In gro und effect, and particular-
Height 0' Wing FromG,ound/Wlngsp,n nose-down in a sha llow dive. This ly for a flapp ed model, more pow-
is part icularly noticeable for models erful tail downlift is needed to
Flgure40"
Impact of grou,,~ effectpn induced drag - with wide-chord (up to 30 percent raise th e model' s nose for a flaps-
of th e Wing's cho rd) slotte d flaps. down landing. This is more pro-
This beh avior requi res consider - n ounced for wings using cam-
able up-elevator force to sto p th e bered , i.e. , semisymmetrical or
.8
dive and to raise th e aircraft's nose flat-bottom ed, airfoils owing to
.6
. .__v »> to th e n ear- st all touch down the Wing's nose-down pitching
-> posture. moment. For sym m et rical-win g
.4 /' airfoils, the tail download need
.2
-: I ELEVATOR EFFECTIVENESS o n ly balance the nose-down
Q / The larger th e elevato r area , in moment of the forw ard CG and
>
~
~
r:~-re-d---=----""'·~ :1
too far aft can arm will move the NP aft .
download ca use problem s.
Th is requires an • The relat ive vertical positioning
in crease in the of the wing and horizontal tail has a
tail's positive AoA significant bearing on the tail 's
Figure 6. for equili brium. In effectiveness, or efficiency. A tail
Forward CG force diagrams. a sha llow dive, th e located close to the wing's wake, in
wi ng's AoA an d heavy downwash, loses effective -
Cl both decrease. ness . At this location, the tail is in
Since th e down- reduced dynamic air pressure
Tail upload
wa rd angle of caused by the drag of both wing and
w'n g lilts NP _ _ _
:=-=---=- Down~
the down wash is
prop ortional to
fuselage. This redu ces that ta il's
effectiveness to un der 50 perce nt. In
Pitch moment CG th e wing's Cl , th e co ntrast, a T-tail is 90 percen t
/.. Wing lift - dive reduces the effective.
I C--,"_--,..:=--NP Downwash .... do wnwash ang le,
Cambered which becomes This reduced efficiency affects the
CG Taildownload more nearly paral- NP locati on . It acts like a red uct ion
lel with th e fuse - in tail area : it moves the NP for-
lage cen te rline . ward and reduces the static ma r-
Figure 7. The tail's AoA and gin. The larger the vertica l sepa ra-
AffCG force diagrams.
lift increase, result- tio n between wing and tail, the
ing in a so me- better. For models whose wing is
forces are directly opposed and do times violent "tuck under." Soaring on or in th e middle of the fuse lage,
not add to the tail 's load. gliders with CGs so located have lost a 'l-tall is best . For high wings
wings in the resulting steep dive. above the fuselage , a low tail is
AFTCG Moving th e CG forward and redu c- indicat ed.
See Figure 7. A CG behind th e ing th e tail's AoA is th e rem edy. There is another aspect to all
wing's aerodynamic center offers this. For the same NP, a high , more
advantages, but ha s seriou s pot en- • This author is nervous about efficient tail may be red uced in
tial disadvantages: th e use of an aft CG coupled with area, yet would have the same
slotted or Fowler flaps. The large effectiveness as the lower, larger
• Maneuverability is increased- increase in down wash angle created tail. If made larger in area , th e
centrifugal force acting on th e aft by th e extended flaps could cha nge more efficient hi gh er tail will
CG actually reduces the tail load s th e tail's AoA substa ntially, conver t- move the NP aft, thereby en larg ing
needed for these maneuvers. ing a positive up-
load (or mild nega-
• Owing to th e nos e-down pit ching tive dow nload) to a
moment of a cambered airfoil, th e h eavy download .
horizontal tail normally has a The combination of B
download requirement. The aft an aft CG and a Basic airfoil , NACA 2412, maximum Iltt coellicient 1.00at stall speed of
CG's moment about the wing's heavy tail down- 24mph , angle of atta ck14 degrees , Rn 183,000 and wing loading of 24
ounces persquare foot.
aerody n amic center redu ces this load might well
tail download. result in a disas-
=
/<i/
R~'~~:'·~"I
trous stall.
Slatc:L (.
For sym me trical airfoils , the hori- Slot ..
zontal tail's airfoil is set at a positi ve NEUTRAL·POINT Flap
AoA , relative to the downwash, to MANIPULATION III
Slotted and flapped airfoil, maximum CL 2.20at stall speed of 17mph,
produce an upload to offset the aft- The re are ways to angle of attack 24 degrees, Rn 135,000 and wing loading 24 ounces per
CG's nos e-up moment. The wing's have both a mod- square foot , speed reduction 7mph (29%).
total load and trim dra g are both estly aft CG and
reduced. a healthy stability
The disadvantages of an aft margin between th e Horizontal talt-plane section , NACA 23,009, inverted and slotted .
CG are: CG and th e NP. The
ma jor fact ors in flu-
• The stability margin is redu ced, enci ng th e neutral Figure 8. :
which could ha ve serious implica- point's location are: Crane wing andtail sections.
Actual
TMA-25 .5 in .; MAC-9.75 in .;
SH-120 sq. in .; SW- 600 sq . in .;
HTE-90 percent.
Modified
TMA-29.25 in .; MAC-9.75 in .; REFERENCES
SH-150 sq. in .; SW-600 sq. in .; Report 648 * : Design charts tor prediding
HTE-90 percent. downwash angles and wa ke characteristics
behin d plain and fl apped airfoils. by
The actual mo st rearward CG is Silverstein and Katzoff• .1939.
at 31 percent of the MAC. Since the Report 65 1*: Down wash and Wake Behind
Plain and Flapped Airfo ils. by Silverstein.
design CG is at 25 percent MAC, Katzoff and Bullivant, 1939.
there is a healthy static mar gin . In
*Both reports are available fro m the
the modified version th e most rear- Natio nal Technical Informa tion Service. 5285
ward CG would be at 37 percent of Port Royal Rd., Springf ield. VA 22 16 1.
the MAC.
Horizontal Tail
Incidence and
n airp lane in level flight at • Setting the tail 's incidence, Downwash
A its selected cruising speed
is a classic balancing act .
To achieve this balance, both nose-
relative to the downwash at the cal-
culated AoA to provide th e balanc-
ing moment.
Estimating
down and nose-up moments must
be evaluated. The horizonta l tail MOMENT EVALUATION
must balance the net result of these The fo llowing de ta ils the four
moments. (A moment is simply major mo ment sources. There are
a weight or force multiplied by o the rs, which are beyond the
a distance-also called "arrn'") The scope of this article, but small ele- • Airfoil pi tching momen t.
horizontal tail 's AoA, relative to vator trim adjustments would Symmetrical sectio n s have no
the wing's downwash , should be compensate for their minor pitching moment; semisymmetri-
sufficient to provide the upward, values. cal and flat-bottom airfoils have
or most often, the downward such moments, which are always
lift required to provide th is • CG locatio n. A CG that's ahead negative, or nose-down. Their value
equilibrium. of the wing's 1/4 MAC causes a is calculated using Formula 10
The penalty for having an incor- nose-down, or negative, moment. (pitching moment) in Chapter 1,
rect tail incidence is heavy elevator Its value is the horizontal distance "Airfoil Selection."
deflection at cruise speed . This adds between the CG and 1;4 MAC, in
drag and could result in a lack of inches, multiplied by the model 's • The wing's drag moment . The
adequate elevator authority to gross weight in ounces. Having wing's total of both profile and
bring the airp lane to a near-stall the CG behind the Wing's 1;4 MAC induced drags, in ounces, at the
lan ding posture wh ile in ground causes a positive or nose-up wing 's AoA for the design cruising
effect, with full flap deflection and moment. Its value is calcu lated in speed, is calculated using Formulas
with a CG located ahead of the the same way as for a forward CG, 5 ("Total of profile [section] and
wing's aerodynamic lift cen ter. but it has positive value. In level induced drag coefficients ") and 9
Establishing the appropriate tail flight, a CG that's vertically in line ("Total profile and induced wing
incidence calls for: with the wing's lift (at 1/4 MAC) drag"), of Chapter 1.
contributes neither up moment The drag moment is the drag in
• An evaluation of the moments, in nor down moment. ounces multiplied by th e vertical
inch-ounces, both n ose-u p and
nose -down to obtain the ne t result.
Nose-up moments are offse t by 1 4 - - - - - - -Dislance X
nose-down moments;
Tail Ve MAC Tail eNiciency
0.9
• A determination of which type of Wing l/ e MAC
tail lift-upward or downward-in Plus M
ounces is required to provide the 1 0.65
i'l wing MAC
balancing moment at the model's
0.4
selected cruising speed .
Wake ce lerllne
• A calculation of the tail angle Minus M 0.65
Wake displacemenl
of attack required to provide this '1- - ---- 0.9
tail lift.
DOWNWASH ANGLE
ESTIMATING
The first step is to determine the
location of the wake centerlin e at
th e tail (Figure 1) so as to obtain th e
wake displacem ent H. With H and
two other dimensions from your
drawi ngs, plus (or minus) M and
distance "X," you can easily locate
the wake cen terline relative to the
tail.
to 0.3 multiplied by 8, or 2.4 per- d iffer en ce between a n gu la r • With the wing on the CG, the
cent of the semi-span (distance H in setti ngs for u p righ t camber ed win g's drag moment is no nex istent.
Figure 1). sectio ns and in vert ed cam be red
Now convert distance M into a sections . • The thru st line passes th rough
percentage of the wing's semi-span. th e CG. Tail surfaces are generous
If, for your design, M equals 4 PATTERN ·SHIP DESIG N in area. "More is bett er" is the pre-
inches, wake displacement is 4 Pattern shi ps hav e evolved into vailing belief. Thes e large area s
divided by 30, or 13.3 percent of configurations in wh ich th e four move th e NP aft, improving th e sta-
semi-span. Note that M is negative ma jor moment sources have been tic mar gin and pe rmit ting th e CG
for tails below the wake centerline. reduc ed to a min imum : to be beh ind the wing's 1;4 MAC. In
Adding distances Hand M gives man euvers, centrifugal force, acting
the vertical location of the hori zon- • The CG is on or close to th e at th e aft CG assists; the model is
tal tail relativ e to the wake CL • In wing 's lift cen ter (Vol MAC). more agile.
our example, H plu s M, 2.4 percent
plus 13.3 percent is a total of 15.7 • The symmetrical airfoils have no The win g and tail airfoils are both
percent, and distance X is 80 pitchi ng mom ent. set at zero inci de nce-a "n o-lift"
percent of th e wing semi-span.
DOWNWASH ANGLE
Refer to the th ird vertical column
in Figure 2A. At 80 perc ent Wake and Downwash
"Distance behind" and 15.7 percent
"Vertically above ," the down wash
Droop fuselage Rearward and
angle, for a CL of 1.00, is between for better streamlining downward acceleration
5.4 degrees and 4.8 degrees, or 5 Where to
""~------
position failplane
degrees . For our CL of 0.3, thi s
would be 0.3 x 5, or 1.5, degrees
..... DOW~WASH
\
I I
and is the downwash angle at the
horizontal tail's location.
- - -:----- ---
- - -- - -.,., "
-"..,
"
I ,I
I
In Figure 1, there is a dotted out- ---- /
I
I I
A -n I
,
. t---1. I
I-t-I-
1-1-
17
20
N r-- • I-i-
~q 5<
I-
t--
20
i
., 60
i
.
o ki\l,.
60
I"
80 100 120 140 160
B 60
2O f"-.t--t-+-"l'--4:::++-t--t-t-t-j
)
..
41' 36"
i i I I I
20 60 80 100 60 80 160
c
I
~20~~k,~
) 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from C, ' oecen semi-span Distancebehind ' s-croa point, pen;entsemi-span
o 60 '"
..
D
I '
o 20 40 60 80 100
o
.. 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance trom C" pen;entsemi-span Distance behind I ,-chord point, percent semi-span Distance behind I '-chord point, percentsemi-span
80
1
E 60
D .
-l-
I I
e-- I -I- 1
f4
..
20
t. r-, -i I - I- L~ I
o 20 .cJ 60 80
Distance from C" pen;entsemi-span
tCQ 60 80 100 120 140 160
F 60
1 I
.. ,
I
20
C- I- 3
I-
- -- _:? ~ •
.. I I
60
I
80
I
100
0
.. 60 80 100 120 1.. 160
Distancebehind ' '- chord point, pen;ent semi-span Distancebehind ' , -chord point, percentsemi-span
impression that its designer knows turning up to 270 degrees of its cir-
wh at it is all about! cular path, it is spirally stable. The
rap idity with which it rights itself
Center portion fixed
"'.' " . to top 01 vertical tail A dor sal fin area of 10 percent of is a measure of its degree of spiral
.. ". 1 vertica l tail area is suggested . stability.
r
Stabilator
". Outer parts
'pivot about
hinge line
Mass balance ALL·MOVING • Neutrally sp irally stable . If it
HORIZONTAL T·TAILS continues to turn without the angle
Rudder Figure 5 sketc hes an all-moving of bank increasing, it is neutrally
Mass balance T-tail or "sta bilator" that's suitable spirally stable.
both for powered models and for
% chord
»:
.Jf
sailplanes; for the latter, mass
balancing ma y not be required if
• Spira lly un stable. If the angle of
its bank slowly increases as it turns
(HINGE LINE) th e glider is in te nded to fly at a rel- and its speed gradually in creases in
ative ly low spee d. A "T" stabilator's a descending spiral, it is spirally
, Alternate rudder
Mass balance area ma y be reduced 10 percent unstable. The rap idity with which
from th at of a conven tional stab- it increa ses its bank angle is an
elevator hori zontal tail plane. index of its degree of in stability.
Figure 5.
Perspective drawing of anall-moving RUDDER POWER LEVELS OF
horizontal T-tail or stabilator. For powered spo rt models, a rudder SPIRAL STABILITY
area of 30 percent of the vertical tail High spiral stability is needed for
area, with ang ular tr avel of 30 free-flight models (for obvious rea-
VERTICAL·TAIL degrees eithe r side of neutral, is sug- son s) and for trainers. When a
ASPECT RATIO gested. For sailplanes with high-AR novice pilot gets into trouble, if his
The AR of horizontal and vertical wings and for pattern sh ips, a rud- model has good spiral stability, he
tails (and wings) bears on th eir effec- der area up to 50 percent of the need only neutralize his controls
tiveness . Vertical-tail ARs of 2.5 to 3 vertical tail area is recommended. and the model will, on its own,
are suggested. To determine your ver- recover, provided it has en ough
tical tail's AR, use thi s formula: RUDDER AILERON EFFECT altitude.
A rud der that has its "area-center" For sport models, a moderate
ARv = 1.55 x Bv 2 above a horizontal tail line through degree of spiral stability is desirable.
Sv th e CG will act like an aileron when This applies also to flying bo ats,
used. It induces a roll th at is floatplanes, canards and partic-
whe re ARv = vertica l tail aspec t oppose d to th e rudder-forced yaw. ularl y to rudder- and elevator-only
ratio; To avoid thi s, the rudder's area models, both powered and gliders .
Bv2 = heigh t of vertica l tail from cente r sho uld come close to or fall For pattern and aerobatic models,
fuse lage botto m, in inc hes, o n th e horizontal lin e through the neutral stability or mild spiral insta-
"squared"; and CG. The portion below th e CG bility is needed for good maneuver-
Sv = vertica l tail area in squa re opposes and neutralizes the rolling ability. The spiral dive is slow to
inches, incl ud ing fuse lage below action of the portion above the CG develop , so the expert pilot has no
the fin . • (Figure 1), and the rudder action problem controlling th e model.
causes yaw on ly. A high degree of spira l in stability
A T-tail cap ping th e vertical tail Upwardly dihedral V-tails have
surface, as in t he "Swift," effec- pro n ounce d anti-yaw roll action
tively increases th e vertica l tail's AR whe n th e ruddervators act as rud-
effect . ders. Downwardly dihedralled
Figure 4 shows how th e horizon- (an hedralled) V-tails have rolling
ta l tail could dan gerou sly blanket actio n in the same direction as
the vertica l surface in a spin. The th e yaw.
T-ta il in Figure 4D is not blan keted
in th is way. SPIRAL STABILITY
To assess an existing model air-
DORSAL FINS plane's spiral sta bility-or lack of Snowy Owlwas a AD-powered model with5
The Swift has a sma ll do rsal fin . It it-is easy. In level flight, at the degrees of dihedral, slotted flaps, aT-tail
has three useful func tio ns : mo de l's normal cru ising speed and anda CLA at 25 percent of its VTMA. It flew
at a reasonable altitude, put it in a well, butin slow, nose-high, flaps-down,
• inc reases fuselage stab ility at high 15- to 20-deg ree bank, then neu- levelflight at lowrpm, it developed a mild
side slip angles; tralize th e contro ls and watch its Outch roll. Theorizing thatturbulence, from
both the nose-upposture andthelowered
be havior closely. flaps, was blanketing the vertIcal tail, I
• reduces vertical tail stalling; and doubled the dorsal-fin area; this corrected
• Spirally stable. If it returns to the problem. The 5-degree dihedral was
• just plain look s good!; it gives the n orm al level flight, upright, in found to be too highfor good inverted flight.
~
i gories: outboard, or elimination.
..... -'+1-- "barn door," and strip Two othe r forms of ailerons
,~·I J 10· down ailerons. Outboard developed to overcome adverse
17~ I" ailerons (see Figure I), yaw are slotted and Frise ailerons.
- 25% chord - -I usually are 25 percent Use of differential ailero n is more
C. TOP HINGEDAILERON of the wing chord in effective in pro ducing desirable yaw
width and 35 to 40 moments than is the use of eith er
Figure 1. percent of the semi- of th ese two aileron types. Both
Outboard ailerons. span in length. Being slotted and Frise ailero ns require
-
\
---
~
'f Exte rna l ailerons
20' up
Rudder control, either manual or
-.,~-
were a Ju nker's electronic, must be introduced to
'J
- ...-
25~ """"""
20' dawn
!
develo pm en t and
may be seen on
som e full- scal e
counter the adverse yaw of th is
type of roll control. Mass balancing
is recommended.
ultraligh t aircraft
---..
10"/0 Chard ~
flyin g today. As SPOILERS AND
Figure 3 shows, SLOT·LlP AILERONS
th ese co nsist of Figure 4 shows a typica l spo iler.
Figure 2. sma ll, se para te Provided its leadin g edge is beyond
Strip aileron.
win gs th at are 70 percent of th e wing cho rd, there
tu cked under the is no lag in th e contro l's aerody-
more deflection than plain ailerons main wing's TE, which provides a namic actio n . On ly one spo iler
for the same roll rate. slot effect over the small wing. These op erat es at one tim e-the on e on
Strip ailerons (see Figure 2) are are full span; the outboard porti on s th e inside of th e turn. The opposite
long, narrow and almost full span. form ailerons, and th e inboard form spoiler stays retracte d. They pro-
They simplify wing construction, a type of slotted flap. Hinged exter- vide posit ive into-the-turn yaw,
and they produce less adverse yaw nally, the y should be mass balan ced work inverted, and require no mass
than outboard ailerons, since their for flutter elimination. balan cin g. A version of the spoiler,
center of area is closer to the CG. some times calle d the "slot-lip
Most are actuated by ser vos FLAPERONS aileron" is shown in Figure 5.
mo ving horns on their inboard Flaperons are a for m of plai n Th is form of roll contro l proved
ends so that differential is easily aileron that can be ope rated as very effective on both my Crane I
introduced . Made of solid balsa TE ailerons and drooped simulta ne- an d n. The roll rate was fast and
stock, they are prone to flutter and ousl y as flaps. They extend for most wo rked inverted. With flaps low-
should be mass balanced at th e of th e Wing's semi-span, like strip ered, roll con tro l was very crisp
outboard end to avoid this aileron s. When in th e fully lowered at low speeds, since raising the
problem. position as flaps, and th en used as spoiler destroyed the slot effect
ove r th e flap, reducing its addi-
tional lift. Yaw was favor able. This
model's performance, at low speeds
particul arly, was spectacular.
Hinge ~
PITCHERONS
c: :~~2~~S~5:'~ t~
rot at es aro un d spa n wise pivot s
.. ....... ........
Neutral located at the wings 1/4 MAC. Both
10' dawn are contro lled by one servo, but
considerable differenti al is needed
to offset adverse yaw.
Figure 3. Very few degrees of rotation are
External airfoil aileron. n eeded since each wing panel
Hinge
-. c Basic airfoil
_
-----:-::-_:: :=- ~A
~ Nate gap
'- 10"/o - J SI~"'.;1'(
" Spailer·up.... ~ '" . - Slat
I Chard
_ _ 20"/oChard ~~'
Retracted_ ~
4r
Pivot paints
Flap
Figure 4. Figure 5.
Spoiler. Slotted andflapped airfoil.
Downward aileron
ot her types of h ingin g, some form
of gap seal is advised.
Upward aileron
I~ I
I T I
Figure 7 provides sugges te d pro-
por tions for ailerons, strip ailerons
Servo arm and spo ilers that were deve loped
travel ~==---t--ji>'.......
by NACA. They are goo d sta rting
poi nts when yo u are creating your
own designs. A
SPAN B
II( B/2 ~I
~
SERVO
Figure 1 aileron
I
.r,
I I .25 C
Figure 6.
Aileron differential (schematic for one 1+ .40 B/2 ..; t I
aileron linkage).
Figure 2 aileron
rotates in its entirety. The wing-
fuselage joint would need special
y
- .16 C
attention to avoid local separation I+-- .60 B/2 ~ T
and increased drag. I
STABILATORS
Some recent jet fighters use such Figure 3 aileron
i
tails . They move in opposite direc-
tions for roll control, and up or ! .10 C
down for elevator action---or any ~ .80 B/2 - . i I- I
combination of the two. They seem
very effective and, for a model,
higher ARs would provide longer
;r-
.60 C Figure 4 aileron i t
I Cx
moment arm s. Adverse yaw would
be small.
1. - :-l
1 .25 x Cx 'I
--M -A .25x60C·
AILERON DIFFERENTIAL
Figure 6 shows how to use a Figure 6 spoiler
~
I
servo's rotation to produce aileron
differen tial.
~ .15C
REAR·ENGINE CANARDS
For con vent ion al designs, it is not
difficult to position both power
an d con tro l un its so as to minimize
th eir mom ents of inertia.
Rear-engin e canards, without aft
win g sweep, are a different matt er.
Such aircra ft ha ve t he ir CGs
betw een fore and aft wings, closer
to the latt er. The PU at or behind
the aft wing is balanced by locating
the CU as far forward as possible. In
most cases, additional ballast is
requ ired up fron t to locate th e CG
corre ctly. The mo ments of iner tia
of both uni ts (and ballast) could
not be greater.
My Swan canard was not intend ed
to be aerobati c, but in level flight , it
grooved beautifully. The re are
Figure 2. canard configur ati on s that h ave
Three-view drawing of Long-fl. lower moments of inerti a.
.198 CD of fuse- 2
~ C ~
mance suffers in all other flight .340
aspects, however. lage 1 from that of
Many years ago, Model A irplane
News published a very sign ificant
fuselage 9 (.775)
provide s a CD of 3 C) ~====== .237
prop CD of .577,
the 5 o C -========- .242
: ~ £========-
engine-cylinder .458
wh ich are given in term s of their
Cos. The actua l drag in ounces of a drag of CD .084.
mod el fuselage depends on three A fully exposed
factors: engine, muffler .775
and firewall
• airspeed;
11 ~~ ~
great : .336. 1.261
• sha pe of the fuselage. Fuselage 11,
which is 48 inches
The CD for each reflects the drag long and 33
value of that shape. When used in a square inches Figure 1.
formula th at include s cross-section in cross-section, Drag coefficients of various fuselages.
-----~.
--=---<:)
----~-------------- -
0%
5%
0.0000%
0.0475%
0.0000%
0.0750%
10% 0.0660% 0.0980%
20% 0.0920% 0.1130%
30% 0.1080% 0.1 030%
Figure 3. 40% 0.1130% 0.0750%
High-drag airflow around wirelanding-gear leg. 50% 0.1030% 0.0520%
60% 0.0900% 0.0390%
70% 0.0710% 0.0325%
Phillips and Tyler's article illustra te fuselag e. The air has to expa nd 80% 0.0490% 0.0250%
the high drag caused by unfaired from the hig h point of the wing to 90% 0.0250% 0.0180%
landing-gear legs. Figure 2 provides the TE and also fill the re-entrant 100% 0.0000% 0.0000%
data for reproducing fuselages 1 and corner formed at the TE and the
S in Figure 1. lower fuselage. Th e resultant turbu-
lent flow cause s high d rag and Figure2.
TYPES OF DRAG reduces tail -surface effectiveness. Fuselage diameter asa percentage of fuse-
Here's a list of the various types of The cur e is wing-root fairings , e.g., lage length for feast-drag circular fuselages.
drag an d their caus es: those on the Spitfire, but they're
difficult to make.
• Skin friction is proportional to th e • Trim drag. Conside r a l Ou-ounce
amo un t of exposed surface area and • Wing an d tail-surface profile model, which has its CG 1 inch
its roughness as well the Rn at which drag. The se are similar to skin- ah ead of its wing's cen ter of lift. A
the model flies. Th e smooth, friction drag and depe nd on the no se-down moment of 100 oz.-in.
reflexed, pressure-recovery shape of shapes of the airfoils and on the Rns results . To maintain level flight, th e
fuselage 1 in Figure 1 has the least at which the y fly. horizontal tail must lift downw ard.
surface area, and this contributes to Using a TMA of 2S inches, that
its low drag. • Ind uce d drag results from the download would be 100 -;- 2S = 4
production of lift, and it depends on ounces.
• In terference drag is caused by the several factors: the wing area, th e
breakdown of smooth airflow owing wing AR, the wing plan form, the To achieve this negative lift, the hor-
to such things as landing-gear legs, flight speed and the CL at which the izontal tail surface must be at a neg-
bracing struts, dowels, open cockpits, wing (and the tail surfaces) operate. ative angle to the wing's downwa sh;
etc., that disturb the air flow over the It's normally less than th e wing-pro- this would result in in creased
aircraft aft of the cause (Figure S gives file drag. induced drag. Since th at extra 4
examples ). ounces must be supported by th e
• Pow erplant drag. This is caused win g, its induce d drag also increases.
• Separation drag. An exampl e of by exposed engines, cylinder heads, The re are othe r forces that cause
this is a th ick, low wing on a round mufflers and tuned pip es. nos e-up or nose-down actions and,
to achi eve level flight, th e horizon -
tal tail mu st ove rco me the net
resultant force:
o c_==-
~--=---=J !AI" dla. music wire
• Wing-pitch ing m oment . This is
a nose-down moment, except for
symmetrical or reflexed trailing-
edge sections, which have little or
no pitching mom ent.
J""' \ r
j -
• Upwash/downwash . In level
t
7" flight, ai r doesn 't flow hor izontal-
ly o n to th e wing's LE, o r fro m it s
t TE. Ahead of the wing , th e air
flow s upward to the LE (called
Figure 4. upwash ) and downward off the TE
These two objects give thesame drag. (downwash) .
ha ve higher profile
drag at low Rns. This
defeats the lower
Table 2: Eppler 168
induced drag bene- Chord Upper Lower
fits of the high ARs. Station Surface Surface
Long, slender wings NR xrr YOIT YUIT
impose greater stress- 1 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000
es at the wing roots 2 0.99893 0.00006 -0.00006
and require stronger 3 0.99572 0.00027 -0.00027
structur es. In aero - 4 0.99039 0.00071 -0.00071
batics , they slow any 5 0.98296 0.001 42 -0.00142
maneuvers involv- 6 0.97347 0.00238 -0.00238
The Canada Goose is a canard thatuses the low-drag techniques ing rolls. 7 0.96194 0.00352 -0.00352
described in this chapter. For RIC spor t 8 0.94844 0.00477 -0.00477
models, ARs of 5 to 7 9 0.93301 0.00609 -0.00609
are suggested-a nim- 10 0.91573 0.00754 -0.00754
th e lower tha t drag. Th is is wh y ble airpl ane results and, on smaller 11 0.89660 0.00914 -0.00914
soari ng gliders have lon g, slen der, models, prevents narrow chords
high-AR wings . For mo dels, high 12 0.87592 0.01094 -0.01 094
and low Rns.
AR results in narr ow chords tha t 13 0.85355 0.01293 -0.01293
14 0.82767 0.01513 -0.01513
• Planform. This is the wing 's
shape as viewed from above . It may 15 0.80430 0.01754 -0.01754
Table 1: Epp er 191 be straight, tap ered , a combination 16
17
0.77779
0.75000
0.02014
0.02293
-0.02014
-0.02273
of straight and tapered, or elliptical.
AerodVDamic zero It may also be swept back or swept
forward.
18
19
0.72114
0.69134
0.07588
0.02898
-0.02588
-0.02898
-2.1 Degrees The elliptical is the most efficient 20
21
0.66072
0.62941
0.03219
0.03547
-0.03219
-0.03547
planform, but it's difficult to make .
Chord Upper Chord Lower In addition, the tips fly at low Rn 22 0.59755 0.03879 -0.03079
Station Surface Station Surface
XU YU XL YL and are prone to tip-st alling. 23 0.56526 0.04210 -0.04210
24 0.53270 0.04535 -0.04535
.000 .000 .000 -.200 Tapere d wings with taper ratios 25 0.50000 0.04848 -0.04818
.318 .789 .279 -.640 (ratio of tip ch ord to root chord) of 26 0.46730 0.05143 -0.05143
1.104 1.683 1.1 64 -1.278 .5 to .6 are close to elliptical wing s 27 0.43474 0.05415 -0.05415
2.335 2.633 2.555 -1.893 in efficiency. Each rib is different, 28 0.40245 0.05650 -0.05658
3.996 3.600 4.438 -2.454 an d laying them out is time-
29 0.37059 0.05865 -0.05865
6.075 4.556 6.797 -2.945 consuming. The wing is strongest
8.551 5.478 9.610 -3.365 30 0.33928 0.06027 -0.06029
at th e root , but, on small wings, the
11.402 6.345 12.852 -3.706 lower tip chord results in lower Rns, 31 0.30866 0.06146 -0.06146
14.599 7.139 16.493 3.955 higher drag, and risk of tip-stalling 32 0.27006 006211 -0 06211
18.112 7.844 20.495 -4.125 at low speed. 33 0.25000 0.06220 -0.06220
21 .902 8.442 24.818 -4.1 95 This also applies to combined 34 0.22221 0.06169 -0.06169
25.933 8.918 29.414 -4.185 straight and tapered wings, in which 35 0.19562 0.06057 -0 06057
30.1 59 9.250 34.231 -4.085 th e wing is straight for 50 to 60 per- 36 0.17033 0.05881 -0.05881
34.551 9.413 39.236 -3.855 37 0.14645 0.05640 -0.05640
cent of th e semi-span and th e out-
39.085 9.394 44.415 -3.535 38 0.12408 0.05335 -0.05335
board 40 to 50 percent is tapered.
43.735 9.191 49.723 -3.165
A modest sweepback of 5 to 10 39 0.10332 0.04971 -0 04971
48.474 8.806 55.091 -2.765
53.282 8.246 60.447 -2.365 degrees is popular in pattern mod els 40 0.08427 0.04555 -004555
58.146 7.542 65.718 -1.965 because it im prov es aerobatic per- 41 0.06699 0.04094 -0.04094
63.028 6.752 70.834 -1.595 form anc e. Sweptback wings tend to 42 0.05156 003595 -0.03083
67.860 5.920 75.725 -1.266 tip-stall more readily. Forward 44 002653 0.02535 -0 02535
72.575 5.079 80.323 -.965 sweep reduc es tip -stalling, but it 45 0.01704 0.01980 -0.01980
77.105 4.254 84.564 -.715 imposes heavy tors ion loads on th e 46 0.00961 0.01444 -0.01444
81.384 3.466 88.388 -.505 wing structure. 47 0.00428 000910 -000910
85.349 2.733 91 .738 -.325 Straight, untapered wings of AR 48 0.00107 0.00460 -0.00460
88.939 2.068 94.572 -.185 of 6; use of th e NASA "safe-wing" 49 -0.00000 0.00000 000000
92.096 1.478 96.864 -.075 LE dro op ah ead of the ailerons (see
94.778 .960 98.572 -.009 Chapte r 15) and holl owed balsa
96.960 .530 99.637 -.005 DickelT... = 0.124 RuecklagelT = 0.250
blo ck wingtips are recommended.
98.604 .219 100.000 .000 WoelbunglT = 0.000
Horizontal tail surfaces sho uld RuecklagelT =0.001
99.642 .050 have lower ARs (4 to 4.5) to keep
100.000 .000 Profiletiefe... =T
chords above 5 inches and to avoid
low Rn profil e drag. Streamlined
~ ~
clean aerodynam-
?Pler 1 97 and sl o~ " ically, and th e
addit ion al dra g
of th e wider flap
will prove ben e-
ficial.
ENGINEIIDLE
FOR LANDING
An aerodynami-
cally clean model
such as the Swift
is capable of land-
Fin and rudder ' '~,- {
ing, flaps down ,
at air speeds in
Hinge _;'; the 20 to 25mph
- - _"" • - : ;; -20~ Up range. It doesn't
C =at: ,'. - , 20~ Dn need much prop
Stab and elevator ' " ,.f,
thrust to fly at
very shallow
Figure 7. an gles, making
Swift airfoil selections. landings difficult.
TORSION
Torsion is composed of shear and
tension. In Figure 4, a tube is being
twisted in opposite directions at its
ends. The arrows in th e center show
opposi ng shea r forces; th e twisting
tends to elongate th e fibers in
The Canada Goosecanard features stressed-skin construction. Power is a .35ci engine. tension .
uL B I' , Ii
--L
expe nsive for "one-off" models.
The compromise, in balsa, is flat
sheet sides, top and bottom with
gen erou s corner radius, This comes
lages rein for ced by closest to th e local round or ova l
lateral frames and lon- cross-section.
Figure 2.
gitudin al stringers to Beam construct/on. It always sur prises me to find
resist buckling. how stro ng stressed-skin structures
A beam such as that become after assembl y of pieces of
in Figure 2, illu stration B, is weak impo se loads th at, on larger models, flimsy balsa . Built strai ght, they do
in torsion. Figure 6 illu str at es this req uire a seco n d spar in fron t not warp . Models built 10 years ago
beam in a win g. An airp lane win g, of th ese surfaces, with some tor- are in flyabl e condition today.
in addi tion to bendin g loads from sion-resi sting structure . Full balsa
lift, m ust resist drag and torsion shee ting in YI6-inch balsa skins , WIN GS, A ILERO N S
loads . Drag load s are du e to air top an d bottom of th e wing, main - AND SLOTTED FLAP S
resistance or drag . Torsion load s tain s the airfoil sectio n and adds Figure 7 details the wing structure
little weight, but con- of th e "Swift"-a model with slot -
sidera ble st reng th. ted flaps that's designed for low
Ribs ma y be "cap- drag . Its aerod ynamic desig n was
strippe d" bet ween
A. Flanges / spars with th e cover-
ing sagging between
the ribs, reducing
the airfoil's integrity.
Both fu lly an d par -
tially shee ted wings
are cove red wit h
B. yo ur choice of mate-
rials. The grain of th e
1/16-inch skin runs
parallel to the span
Figure 3. to resist torsion and The Sea Loon-a .15ci-powered twin-boom
Flanges buckling under load. drag loads across the flying boat. Flaps arefully extended.
9 .75" chord
Sldnjolnts
.i>:
Figure 8.
The wing structure of the Sparrowhawk.
The Swift's ailerons are of modi- to pro duce "in to-th e-turn " yaw.
fied Frise design. With equal up and Rudd er acti on isn 't nee ded; th e
down travel of "bam -doo r" ailerons, mod el turns on aileron action .
th e downward extension produces Both aileron s and flaps of thi s
more drag than th e up ward one . con stru ction are stro ng, stiff units.
Figure 4. This uneven drag pulls the wrong Note th e lead-wir e, aileron mass
Tube under torsion. way-out of the turn-and require s balance.
coordinated rudd er to correct the The win g cente r sectio n is ope n,
resulting adverse yaw. with the center section main and
The Swift's aileron s have differen- aft spa rs runnin g across the fuse-
tial travel-the upgoing moves twice lage. This leaves the cen ter section
the angle of th e downgoin g. Also, free for in stallati on of aileron and
th e lower forward lip of th e upgoing flap servos where th ey're accessib le
aileron projects into th e airstream by removal of th e canopy as in
below the wing, producing favorable Figur e 10. It also pro vid es access to
Figure 5. drag as in Figure 7B. . th e elevator, rudder an d en gin e
Round structures. Th ese two factors combine servos in th e fuselage.
",AA~f~~-J
I
Figure 10.
Swlfffuselage construction.
J"s-inc h balsa L.E. spar and l!J6-inch cowl, and land- All bulkhead parts
--- ~tt';, ~
balsa skin s, top and bottom . Ribs ing-gear n ose- Ya" balsa
(No t e grain direction)
are 3/32-inch balsa sheet. wheel brackets
Because th e h orizontal tail is are on the rear.
mounted on top of th e fin, th e fin The wing and
struc ture incorpora tes a spa r an d lan d i n g-ge a r
shea r web , as in "B," to absor b the a ttac h me n t
loads im posed by this T-tail loca- bu lkh eads are Fuselage section A-A
tion . The rud der co nst ructio n is balsa with ply- 0/, ,"00 1sa si d es,
top an d botto m
similar to th at of the elevator's. wood reinforce-
Figure 9, illustration A's con struc- ment. The eas- I
tio n has been used successfully on ily removable
sma ll model wings of up to 7-inch ca no py an d
chord, as shown in Figure 8A and B. top in Figure
Flaps, ailero ns, stabs, elevators , fins 10 weaken th e
and rudders of th e sma ll mod els are fuselage struc-
all skin ned in 1/32-inc h balsa shee t ture. Ben eat h
with llI6-inch balsa ribs. th e wing, the
fuselage is rein -
FUSELAGE forced by th e
Figure 10 provides an outline of th e four-bolt, wing- Fuselage section BoB
Swift's fuselage construct ion and t o - f u s el a g e
Figure 11 shows typ ical fuse- assemb ly. Figure 11.
lage sections for models with .40 to Doublers alon g Typical fuselage sections for models with .40 to .BOci engines.
SLOTTED·FLAP DESIGN
Let's make a bold stab at design in g
a wing for a slotted -flap-eq uipped
model call ed the "Swift." To
a greater exten t th an the Snowy
Owl, it will take advantage of th e
lift-increasin g capacity of the
extended flaps.
For th is project, the chosen
wing loading is 25 ounces per
sq ua re foot of wing area. This is
higher than Snowy Owl's a nd
should result in a smaller, ligh te r
model with even lower drag . By
comparison, a gross weig ht (wit h
fuel ) of 100 o unces see ms
reasonable. The wing area would
thus be 100 divided by 2S to eq ua l
4 square feet, or S76 squa re one that performs best for this wing loading of 2S ounces per
inches. The Swift is powered by model. At 1l,000rpm, a 10x9 prop square foot and a C L max of 1.933,
a .46 engine, and its power load- would produce an estimated top this model will stall at just under
ing is 217 .3 ounces/cubic inch speed of 90mph. 18mph at sea level. If you have the
displacement. Figure 2 shows th e actual dimen- CL for a particular airfoil and wing
For this project, test-fly with sions of th e Swift's wing and the loading, stall speed can be estimat-
lOx9 and lOxlO props to select th e proportions of its features. With a ed quick ly by using th e curves
CUIDELINES The Osprey is a tail-dragger. Powered by an O.S. Max45 FSR, it weighs 113ounces andhas a
• With flap extended, th e slot wing loading of 26.5 ounces persquare foot. Under "no-wind" conditions, it takes off from
form ed between the upper for- water in less than40 feet onfloats.
I
C .80 C
_1 I __ L _
.25 C
.15C-j ...--- - .65 A - -'-- - i. }.'V\!... I+- ---'' - --
Proportions
Figure 2.
Outline of the Swift's wing (576 square inches: aspect ratio of 5.94).
Figure 3 provides the proportions FLAP CONSTRUCTION • The nose-down pitching moment
of a slotted flap for the Eppler 197 AND OPERATION increases .
airfoil that conform to these guide- Figure 5 details the structure of
lines. This is based on proportions both the wing and the flap. The • The angle of the downwash from
developed in the wind-tunnel tests 1116-inch-thick plywood flap sup - the wing and the lower flap
outlined in NACA Report 664, Flap ports and the 313z-inch -th ick ply- increases sharply; this impacts on
Type lb. wood pivot and horn ribs are the horizontal tail at a negative
This flap extends by rotating shown in Figure 6. The enlarged angle and leads to a tail download
around a fixed pivot, to 40 section of the "Flap support-pivot that induces a nose-up pitch.
degrees. Note that only the top rib" shows the sanding required to
front and LE curves are added to streamline this assembly. The outcome of these force changes
form the flap's profile; the rest are The flap has 1/16-inch-thick is some degree of nose- up pitch.
provided free by th e wing profile balsa-sheet skins on the top and This is overcome by applying nose-
itse lf.
Figure 4 shows th e flap in the
40-degree-down position and pro -
vides the proportions of th e slot Rib 31.l2" balsa 1,.;6.112" ply slot lip
gap and t he slot lip overhang.
These proportio ns are important
for good flap performance.
Positioning the pivot point so
that the flap -up and 40-degree-
down positions coincide with those Cross-seellon/
cutaway line .....
Pivot
shown on the drawi ng is done by a
simple trial-and-error method.
Trace the flap profile and chord Figure 5.
line on translucent material such Wing andslotted-flapconstruction andhinging.
as onion-skin paper, tracing paper
or drafting film. Lay this tracing
over the flap drawing in the lip
position. Using a pin as a pivot,
3132" ply
rotate the tracing so th at the flap 1/16" ply
extends. Trial and error will guide
you to a pivot point where the
tracing coincides exactly with the
drawing of the flap, in bo th the up
1/16" balsa
and the 40-degree-down posi- 3132" music-wire pivot
tions. Mark this position carefu lly
on your drawing. Enlarged cross-section of flap support-pivot rib.
FLUTTER PREVENTION
Well-streamlined model aircraft
with fairly high wing loadings and
powerful engines can achieve very
high speeds, particularly when div-
Flap support Pivot rib ing . This invites the very real dan-
ger of control-surface flutter, which
could destroy that surface very
Hornrib
quickly and would probably result
~
in a disastrous crash .
This is particularly true of the
(4 required) '116 D (2 required) wide-chord control surfaces inher-
ent in "designing for flaps." The
only certain way to prevent flutter
Figure 6.
Flap plywood componenls.
is to offset the weight of the control
surface behind its hinge with
weight in front of the hinge, with
down trim by means of the elevator A T-tail operates in air that's both weights balancing at the
trim lever while simultaneously only lightly disturbed by the hinge line.
lowering the flaps. With a little downwash . It's thus more effective The modified Frise aileron shown
practice, this becomes almost than a lower tail , which is in air in Figure 7 lends itself to mass-
automatic. that's disturbed by the fuselage, in balancing very easily. Shielded horn
The nose-up pitch varies with heavier down wash and in the balsa tips on rudder and elevator
the speed at which the model is prop's slipstream. The T-tail is permit this mass-balancing (see
flying when you lower the flaps more affected by the increase Figures 9 and 10). Flutter preven-
and the extent to which they're in downwash angle on lowering tion for flaps has proven to be
lowered. th e flaps. unnecessary. Thanks to their
Experience has proven that T-tail stressed-skin construction, wings
models, e.g., the Snowy Owl, pitch- GROUND EFFECT AND and tail surfaces are torsionally very
up to a greater degree than those in ELEVATOR DESIGN stiff and free of flutter.
which the horizontal tail is in the In ground effect, at an altitude of See also Chapter 20, High-Lift
fuselage, e.g., the Osprey. less than half the wingspan, the Devices and Drag Reduction," for
\
./ '<
Figure 9.
Typical tail surface construction- E168 airfoil.
Balance
Stabilizer at hinge
Elevator line
'111" dia.
lead wire - - -- _ _-.J TOP VIEW
balance
Figure 10.
Typical shielded horn andmass balance for elevator andrudder.
NASA
··Safe Wing"
th e cross-hatch ed section, an d a
light LE spar. Cove r th em with
t------------C -----------~
bond pap er or th in balsa, and glue
thi s unit to th e outboa rd wing LE. I
haven 't tried th is droop on sym-
Chord line
metrical airfo iled wings , but it
m ight delay th e stall in both
upri ght and in vert ed flight (see
A. Flat-boUom airfoil Figure 6C).
Co ng ratulatio ns, NASA, for your
maj or contribution to avia tio n
...--- - - -- - - - - - C- - - - - - - - - - - --l
safety. I h ope th is "safe" wing will
be in corp orated in future aircraft
Chord line designs. ...
B. Semisymmetrical airfoil
- - - - - - -- - - - C- - - - --1
Chord line
C. Symmetrical airfoil
Figure 6.
NASA droop (cross-hatched areas) on various airfoils.
8/2
0.388/2=1 Vortex
.........
.
0;
~
f----- - - - - - - , . - -- - ---,
I Centerline Centerline
Figure 7. Figure 8.
The wing planform showing theproportions of the added leadlng- The airflowover theNASA wing at high angles of attack. While the
edge droop. Note that the corners formed by the Inboard end of Inboard, undrooped section Is stalled, the sharp-cornered notch In the
the droop mustbe sharp where the droop addltlon meets the leading edge produces a chord-wise vortex that effectively separates
normal alrfoll. thetwo areas.
Design
T peller-driven aircraft has
two major functions. The
first is to provide adeq uate clear-
should no t be possible to rotate to
or beyond the wing's stalling ang le.
Such a stall on takeo ff or lan ding
ance betwee n prop tips and the could be damaging, both to the
ground. The second, an d no less model an d to its design er's ego!
imp ortant, is to permit th e plane to For windy-day flying, good judg-
rotate on bot h takeoff and landing m ent dicta tes flaps-up landings,
so that the wing's AoA comes close an d at a lower AoA for goo d con -
to th e stalling angle of its airfoil. At trol. The wind's speed redu ces th e
that AoA, the wing is near the air- model's ground speed accor dingly.
foil's CL max . This permits the low- This chapter dea ls with th e land-
est landing and takeoff speeds of ing -gear function . Int elligent deter-
which the model is capable. mination of the AoA for lan ding
1. 6
1.'
1 .2
1. 0
~ .8
Rn ,=
e
= .6
.
.! - - 1 00 ,0 00
.8 .
:: = 2 00 ,0 00
=
::;
4
- - 250, 0 00 1 .6 .
- Pitch ing
The Wasp tandem wing. The prop's position,
just behind the mainlanding gear, hasno
.2 moment clearance problem.
1.' -.3/ coelllclent
Dra g coeff ic ient (CD) (CM)
I
.06 .08 .1 .12 .1' 1 .2 ·.3
~
-.2
- .25
" and takeoff requires consideration
1 .0
.. of the following :
·. 6 . 15
(URlmsity of Stuttgart,
• The impact of ground effect.
Figure 1.
Airfoil data for Eppler 197.
• The wing's AoA in level fligh t. If
th at ang le is 3 degrees an d the lan d-
.=E-
~
its wing 8 inches above the ground The remedy would
on touchdown and AR6, this reduc- be to lower the aft Tire drag ~
« I
tion would be 10 percent of our 12-
degree AoA, or 1.2 degrees.
fuselage to reduce
the tail angle so as to
:+:cG
Momentum
Airplane CL
Using the Swift as an example, avoid the stall. This Figure 3.
the wing's AoA for level flight is would affect spiral B. A.
zero degrees, so no adjustment for a stability as discussed
pos itive AoA is called for. in Chapter 9,
"Vertical Tail Design CG CG
NASA SAFE·WING DROOP and Spiral Stability." AirplaneCL
AirplaneCL
This is recommended for sport The longer gear
models (see Figure 2). lt delays tip- would increase both A.
stalling and provides effective weight and drag .
aileron control in the stall. Since Figure 3. The dynamics of tricycle landing gear. With the CG ahead
ofthe main gear, the inertia ofthe CG tends to keep the model mov-
the droop occupies 38 percent of THE "CRANE" II ing straightforward. Figure 4. The dynamics oftail-dragger landing
the sem i-span , it is estimated that it The Crane II, a STOL gear. With the CG behind the main gear, the inertia ofthe CGtends
provides a full 4 degrees more in model, had a very to exaggerate anydivergence from a direct path straight forward.
the takeoff/landing AoA. nose- high landing
Summary: the adjusted AoA for posture. It had an ships of 2-stroke or 4-stro ke models,
CL 1.1 of airfoil E197 is 12 degrees; ll-inch-diameter variable-pitch but not 2-stroke versus 4-stro ke.
slotted flaps reduce this by 4 prop; full-span LE slots and slotted The formu la is sim ple:
degrees; ground effect makes a fur- flaps. Spoilers on the wing 's upper
ther reduc tion of 1.2 degrees ; and surface provided roll control. The 1 x 'gross weigllt (oz.) = power loading
the NASA droop adds 4 degrees for horizontal tail had an inverted and engine cid
a ne t AoA of 10.8 degree s. LE-slotted lifting airfoil to provide
For the Swift, this was increased the high tail download that is need-
slightly to 11 degrees to provide a ed to achieve the very high AoA (20 A trainer that weighs 80 ounces
2-inch prop-tip ground clearance degrees ) provided by the Wing's an d is powered by a .40ci 2-stro ke
with a lO-inch-diameter prop. The slots and flaps. eng ine would have a powe r loading
Swift illustrates the benefit of a The Crane II had a fueled weight of 1 divided by .40 x 80 = 200
high thrust line provided by an of 101.5 ounces and a wing loading ounces/cid. The crane's power load-
inverted engine (see 3-view in of 22.75 ounces/square foot ; power ing of 225 ounces/cid with a
Chapter 26) . If the engine was was a .45 engine; power loading 2-stroke engi ne shows that it ha s
upright and still fully cowled, the was 225 ounces per cubic inch or greater weight for its power th an
th rust line would be lowered by engine disp lacement (cid). the train er.
roughly 2 inches. A landing gear 2
inches longer, to preserve th e POWER LOADING CG AND LANDING GEAR
2-inch ground clearance, would be Power loading in ounces per cubic The CG location, in both th e hori-
necessary. This could entail a sub- inch of engine disp lacement is a zontal and vertical senses, is th e
stantial increase in the "tail angle," useful "ru le of thumb" for evaluat- focus around whic h th e landing-
bringing the Wing's AoA to above ing the weight-to-power relation- gear geometry is established. For
mod el aircraft, th e only cause of a
CG shift during flight is th e reduc-
tion in the weight of the fuel as th e
flight progresses. For a conventional
model, th is causes a rearward shi ft of
about 3 percen t of the MAC. For a
rear-en gine canard, the fuel tank is
typically behind the CG so th at a
sim ilar, but forward, CG shi ft
occurs. The vertical CG location is
usually "eyeball" estimated. lt is bet-
ter to get it a bit higher th an lower.
Tail angle, -200 There are two major types of
landing gear:
follow this procedure. Draw a verti- AR 6 with the same area. The for-
cal line through the point th at is 5 mula for AR equ als span squared
percent of th e MAC behind th e CG. divid ed by the area. Knowing that
Draw a second line through th is th e AR is 6, th e im aginary span
point that defines the tail angle to can be easily ca lcula te d ; the 1:; load
the vertical line just dra wn (see wh eel-tread dimension will be 25
W squat
Figure 1). Notice that th is tail angle is percent of that spa n .
th e same on e as that defined by th e
line drawn from the wheel to th e STATIC LOAD SQUAT
Wheel lread-
skid. Where th ese two tail-angle lines Mod els with mu sic-wire or alu- 25%ofaspect ratio 6 span
intersect, draw a horizontal line for- minum landing-gear legs originat-
ward to th e nose-wheel position, and ing in the fuselage and sitting on
then draw a short vertical lin e th e ground bearing the model's Figure 8.
upward from the same int ersection. gross weight (iG) will "squat." For Wheel tread andsquat detalf.
The main wheel axles should be on .40 to .SOci-powered models, this
the short vertical line , with th e squat is about 1;2 inch and reduces
wheels' ou tside diameter resting on the tail angle for takeoff. To com- nose -wheel arrangements (A and B)
the horizontal line. Decide whether pensate, reduce your landing gear and one for a tail wheel (C) .
a nose-down angle is to be used, and legs' "included angle " (see Figure 8) The nose-wheel gear is mounted
if it is, draw th e nose angle at 2 to 3 to lower the wheels and compen- on the rear surface of the ply engine -
degrees to the horizontal line. Nose sate for the squat. mount bulkhead. For a conventional
and tail gear will be discussed later. design, this determines the position
WHEEL DIAMETER of the nose gear. For a canard with a
• Tail-dragger. Draw a line at 15 to Smaller wheels hav e less air drag. rear engin e; th e nose wheel should
20 degrees from the CG, in front of For paved runways, a 2-inch diame- be well forward, as in Figure 9. Note
th e vertical, as in Figure 6A. Where ter is th e recommended minimum; that, in Figure 7, A and B, the shock-
th e two lines in tersect, draw both for grass, a 21;4- to 3-inc h diameter absorbing coil is totally enclosed in
horizontal and vertical lines . The is suggested. the fuselage to reduce drag.
main wh eel s' outside diam eters For tail-draggers, this author
should rest on th e hori zon ta l lin e, NOSE· AND prefers a somewhat forward tail-
with their axles on the vertical. TAIL·WHEEL DESIGN whe el location, with the tail-wheel
Steerable nose- or tail-wheel gear leg supported internally by nose -
TREAD WIDTH sh ou ld incorporate a modest whe el brackets bolted to plywood,
Both trik e and tail-dragger land- am ount of caster. A modest amount as in Figure 7C.
ing gea r should ha ve a lat eral of offset, as in the case of a grocery-
spacing ("tread width," or the dis- cart caster wheel, facilitates steer- MAIN LANDINCi-CiEAR LEGS
tance between the centerlines of ing. Similarly, in th e case of landing Main landing-gear legs should be a
each tir e) of 25 percent of th e gear, such gear tracks well and per- continuous piece of metal from
wingspan of an AR 6 win g (see mits easy steer ing. Too much offset whee l to wheel so that bending
Figure 8). invites "sh immy." An offset of 20 loads do not have to be absorbed by
If the wing has a higher AR, cal- percent of the wheel 's diameter is the fuse lage structure, but are
culate what the span wou ld be for sufficient. Figure 7 illustrates two contained in the landing-gear legs
themselves. ...
~::e~~~ft:;::~:~~fl~se~moSicenJte~lol grav;:
"', ....... al angeI Propeller
-
.. !'w~eel r
_ diame,?
~ plus 3° s-:
10° to W Wheel -:;-_
.1 Wheel diameter 1 ~iameler 2
~'+¥......
Figure 9.
Layout geometry fortricycle Dr bicycle landing gear fora pusher canard.
DUCTED ·COWL
%" ... balsa
DESIGN
For min imum drag , the
cooling-air entry should
be as small as possible,
yet large enough for ade-
quate cooling. Bear in
mind that onl y th e air Figure 2.
The Swift's cowl; note the jacklocation. that actually contacts Cowl top view-internal muffler.
Figure 3. The pusher nacelle ontheSeagull III flyingboat. The NACA inlet and
Cowl section A-A (see alsoFigure 6-internal mUffler). theoutletbelow thespinner show.
absorbed, speeds up in the nozzles ENGINE AND This type of fuselage lends itself to
and exits at considerable velocity. ENCLOSED MUFFLER a wide r forward sectio n witho ut a
British WW II Hurricane fighters' Figure 3 shows a horizontal cross- drag penal ty. Figures 3 and 6 detail
ducted-eng in e coolant radiators sectio n th rough the Swift's cowl th e cowl installation.
were based on th ese principles; they with a mu ffler. Both the engine and Exha ust stacks may exte n d
contributed thrust, not drag. The the muffler are wholly enclosed. It th rough the cowl, and the neces-
hot, expanded air exiting th e duct's has an in let, a diffuse r, a cylinder, sary holes mu st be elongated side-
nozzle provided some jet-like muffler and nozzles; and the exits ways 1;8 inc h for cowl rem oval.
propulsion. This is not to suggest are at points of reduc ed air pressure They ma y also end just clear of th e
th at th ese cowl designs will con- on th e fuselage sides (they look like inside of th e cowl with slightly larg-
tribute thrust, but there will certain- gills on a fish!). The fuselage mu st er, round hol es.
ly be substantial drag reduction. be widened to accommodate th e
engi ne and muffler as in Figure 3. ENGINE AND
INLET AND OUT LET The "teardrop" fuselage was EXTERNAL MUFFLER
SIZING-TRACTOR ENGINES described in Chapter 12, "Improve Figure 7 shows the cross-section of
Figure 1 shows th e side view of a Performance by Reducing Drag." a cowl for an engine equipped with
mod el engine . An em pirical rule of a stock m uffler. While the muffler
thumb, based on experience, is to (and pressure tubi ng to the tank) is
pro vid e an air-entry area that's Cowl "box" outlines exposed, its drag is largely over-
equal to th e area of th e fin ned por- __.----
, !~:~I
, ,y
come by th e jet-like exha ust gases
tion of th e cylinde r, as shown . ,, squirting backward. With an exter-
Whether th e openin g is round, I :
nal muffler, th e fuselage may be
square, or rectangular makes no dif- I
,,
,
narrower, as shown .
,
ference provided the entry has the
, '
area described. ,
,,
I
'' COWL FASTENING
The cooling air exit(s)' rule of ,, '' The rem ovable portion of the
r- -, I
On
________ . 2 shoulder screw
all
Figure 5 A andB.
Goldberg flat hold-down (FHD) installation.
Photo A. Figure 9.
Cowl components areshown partlyassembled. Top view of pusher engine cowl.
GLOW·PLUG ENERGIZING
Cowl bOI top and bO"O~-=-_~"~+: ~o~3~"_Sha: ~xt~nsion With the engine en clos ed, the
--- ----------, glow plug is energized by mea ns of
a two-con d uc tor, closed-circui t
II
II type, Radio Shack phone jack. To
II
II energize the plug, a mating, 1;8-
inch, Radio Shack plug is wired to
t h e ex te rnal power source an d
inserted in to the jack . This is a
maj or safety feature because the
jack ma y be located well away
Short stacks from th at deadly, rota ti ng prop for
plug removal. Figure 6 details the
bronze glow-plug clip that's easily
dis engaged from th e glow plug
when plug replacement is necessary.
Figure 10.
The jack is mounted th rou gh a
Side view 01 pusher engine cowl. 713z-inch -d iameter ho le in a small
square of 1/16-inch plywood. Both
are epo xied to th e inside fuselage
wall so that the jack's knurled nut
pro jects throug h a 5/ 16-in ch -
diameter hole in th at wall. Figures
Permanently install the 12, 13 and I S provide a wiring dia-
engi ne and muffler, con- gram and engine-servo detail for an
nect th e carb-to eng ine- "onboard " glow -p lug energizing
servo linkage, rep lace system that hea ts th e plug in flight,
th e needle-valve needle, but on ly at low rpm. The system
install the fuel and muffler ensures a reliable idle , parti cularly
pressure tub ing from the for 4-stroke engines.
engine to th e fuel tank ,
an d connect the glow-plug ENGINE PRIMING
clip to the glow plug. Priming a fully cowled engine is
Solidly CA the fixed por- easy. Invert th e model on your field
tion to the engine bulk- box to bring the engin e upright.
head, an d clamp the With a squirt bottle, in ject a few
Photo C.
The shaped andsanded cowl. The upper portion has been whole cowl in to position drops of fue l in to the carburetor. If
CA 'd to the engine-mount bulkhead. as before, as shown in th e carb is closed, the carb entry
Pho to C. In Photo D, both forms a small cup which, wh en
parts are ready for paint- filled, provid es adeq uate priming.
ing. The engi ne's accessi- The coo ling-air entry hole permits
bility is evident. this method of priming without
Section C-C
:-- ---~r-r-~T~--- -~
t
- I
i ~I :
t
I I
- ---;---!- -r-
I 31.12"
I Plywood
I
?'::-'~7>1-:-:_=:= ==:
I I
I
-'
"' I I
:s I 3J.l2" plywood
I
,
I
Photo O.
Figure 11. This cowl detail shows thatservicing the
Pusher engine cowl sections andhold-down detail(see Figure 10). engine is easy.
Table of Lip
ordinates Outer surface
'YL Y;Yf
Ramp~ floor~-_-=DePth
0 0
0.1 0.004
0.2 0.084 Entry ratio of Section A-A of 7° ramp
0.3
0.4
0.234 width/depth = 3 to 5
0.386 A'~~
0.5
0.6
0.534
0.612 _ _- " i .- - -+_~.... '-Wt th- W
•
0.7 0.688
0.8 0.764
Glow 0.9 0.842 A
plug 1.0 0.917 1.0 ~ ~ 0
Glow-plug Ramp length "L"
clip
l8-gauge
stranded
hookup wire
(#278-293) Figure 14.
Details andordinatesof NACA submergedintake.
Figure 12.
Onboard glow-plug wiring diagram.
Trimonly ~
Figure 13.
Smallengine servo (Futuba 533-5133).
Figure 15.
Engineservo lengthwise in fuselage.
cowl removal. If, after a flight, the ward , and it could not be reversed, NACA CooLING·INLET
engine is stopped by closing the because that would foul the prop DESIGN
carb, subsequent engine starts don't and prevent the propeller from Figure 14 shows how to develop the
require priming. To avoid "hydraulic rotating. shape of the NACA sub merge d
lock"-having fuel trapped between Cooling air enters the cowl intake . Note the intake width-to-
the piston and the cylinder head- through two, NACA-developed, depth ratio and the ramp floor at 7
apply your electric starter with the low-drag, submerged air intakes degrees to th e outside surface.
model inverted (engine upright ). recessed into the nacelle (or fuse- Over th e years, I've used pusher
lage) sides ahead of the engine engines cowled as described on five
PUSHER ENGINE bulkhead. The combined areas of models . Cooling problems have no t
INSTALLATIONS these intakes is the cylinder area occurred.
Figures 9, 10 and 11 show the described in Figure 1 plus 40 Throughout this chapter, illustra-
pusher installation of the Seagull percent. The exit slot under the tions and photos show inverted
III-a flying boat. The engine sits in spin n er has the same total area as engines (author 's addiction). For
a nacelle above the hull. the entries . The rotating prop upright installations, simp ly turn
For improved streamlining, a 3J4- "sucks" cooling air out of this the photos and drawings upside-
inch crankshaft extension was cooling slot. down! ....
used, as shown in Figure 12. An Construction, shaping and fas-
enclosed muffler is mandatory, tening the removable portion and
because the external muffler would glow -plug energizing are identical
exhaust the wrong way, facing for- to the tractor installation.
.1
ing a column of air backward- Propeller disk
called the "slipstream" as in Figure
1. In the slipstream , th e air's velocity
is increased above th e aircraft's for-
ward speed, and its pressure is
reduced. In addition, a substa ntial
part of this increase occurs ahead of
the prope ller. This slipstream swirls
around the fuselage in the same
direction as the propeller rotation.
A PAIR OF WINGS
A two-blade "prop" is actua lly a
pair of small wings; each has an air-
foil cross-section that is th ick close Figure 1.
to the hub for strength an d rigidity, The propeller's action.
-.
Plane 01 rolation
and actual pitches and blade cross-
sections at 100 percent, 75 percent,
50 percent and 25 percent of th e
blade's length.
Note how the geometric angl e of
Figure2. the blade varies from tip to root so
Propeller pitches.
that the re is a con stan t AoA.
Calling suc h a pro p "cons tan t
on th e engine and redu ces its rpm. resistance. Under these conditions, pitch" is a
For each prop diameter, there are the propeller must operate at higher bit of a misnomer; th e blad e is
several different pitch es available. AoAs or slip, with increased profile obv iously twisted. "Co nstan t angle
For exa mple, a lO-inch -diameter and induced drags. This reduces the of attack" is more accura te.
prop is typically offered in pitches engine's rpm . It shou ld be noted To calculate the pro peller's speed
from 6 inches to 10 inches. The that, while pitch is a major factor in at any point along its leng th is easy.
higher th e pit ch , th eoretically, the speed, a plan e obviously can' t fly Take th e prop tip in Figure 3; in one
greater th e adva nce per revolution, faster in level flight th an a speed that revolution, it moves from A to B;
and the higher the engine load- is close to tha t permitted by its geo- AB is the hypotenuse of a right-
again , reducin g its rpm . metric pitch mul tiplied by the rpm . angle triangle. Recalling high
Thus, both diam eter and pitch In a dive, with th e engi ne at full school geome try: "the square of the
mu st be consi dered in propeller rpm, th e actua l advance per revolu- hypotenuse of a right triangle is
selec tion. For high-speed flight, tion may increase to a point where equa l to the sum of the squ are of
reduced diameter and increased th e prop's airfoil is operating at a the other two sides." In formula
pitch apply; for slowe r flight, very low or a negative AoA. The pro- form and Figure 3:
increased diam eter and lower pitch file and induced drag reduce sub-
prevails. stantially, the prop "unloads" and AB = -,) (ACZ + BCZ)
There are several variations for a th e engine over-revs-which does it
given pitch dimension, as follows no good! Experienced fliers throttle A 12-inc h-dia meter prop, advanc-
(see Figure 2). back in dives for this reason . ing 5 inches per revolution , would
have a hypotenuse of:
• The "no mina l pitch " is measured CONSTANT·PITCH
across th e flat back surface of th e PROPELLERS -,)(12 x 3.1416)2 + 52
blade-usually measured at 75 per- Each point on a propeller blade-
cen t of the diameter. This is wha t rotating and simu ltaneously advanc- or 38.02 inches.
you buy! ing-describes a h elix insi de an
imaginary cylinder. Consider one Tip speed for th is prop turning at
• The "geometric pitch" is mea- blade advancing one revolution; lO,OOOrpm would be:
sured across the airfoil's chord line.
Geometric
PROPELLER AS AIRSCREW pilch
A prop eller has much in common I
with a screw. In fact, th ey are fre- A c
quently called "airscrews." A screw 25%
being turned in a threaded hole will 100%
f+----- - - - - - Diameter x 3.1416 - - -- - --
always advance its full pitch for each
revoluti on. A propeller "screws" into ·1
air that is fluid. The advance per rev-
t i
Tip Root
oluti on is not fixed. A heavy model
with high air drag and in a steep Figure 3.
climb ing attitude will offer high "Constant pitch" propeller.
- ---
lower diam eters are indicated . The the nominal pitch advance per rev V
30 f/ / 0- t/"',,-V V ,..- .!JI
reverse is also true ; lower pitches and on a gain of 10 percent in engi ne
25 r./~ »: ~- I-"" I-"" '-" ~
wit h larger diameters.
THE AIRPLANE
revolutions as the prop "unloads "
from a static position at high AoAsto
the level flight speed at much lower
20~
1 5V~ ~
10 .
~ V~ ':::::-
r:::::-- -
~
I::- :.--
The design of the model has a AoAs. This graph will enable you to 5~
major bearing on the selecti on of arrive at a reasonably close estimate
its propeller diam eter and pit ch . of your model's to p speed, based on 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
The factors are: the engine's stati c max rpm and its Wing loadlng- oz./sq. tt.
prop's nominal pitch. These results
• The weigh t a n d wing loa ding. will never be 100 percent accurate, as Figure 5.
The heavier the model, for a given the model's weight and drag will Nomograph for quick determination of wing
area, the highe r its win g loading have an unavoidable impact, but loading, lift andspeed.
sim ple way of establishi ng the insight in to their design and con-
"weigh t-to-power ratio " is needed struction . They provide tabula-
to perm it ready comparisons. One TO CHOOSE tions of static rpm of an engine
way is to calculate what the weight while it is powering various diam-
in ounc es would be if both en gine
and model were scaled up (or
APROP eters and pitches of propellers.
Table 1 shows Billinton's recording
down) in proportion to 1 cubic This procedure is recommended for of rpm for the Fox Eagle 74 (Model
inch of engine displacement (cid). sefecting propelfers for YOllr modef. Airplane New s, October '91) and
For example, th e Swift is powered Table 2 shows that of Lee for this
by an O.S. Max .46 SF engine, and engine (RIC Modeler, March '91) . In
weighs, fueled, 92 ounces. Its
weight-to-power ratio is 92/0.46, or
O For a given coefficient of lilt
and wing loading, lind the esti-
mated airspeed as indicated in the
addition, Billinton provides per-
formance curves of the 74 in
200 ounces per cid. nomograph (Figure 5). Increase the Figure 7. Note that with silencer
Another example is of a model speed by 25 percent to allow for and standard .330 carb , the brake
weighing 300 ounces, powe red by climbing and any appropriate aero- horse-powe r (b .h p) peaks at
a 1.2ci engine. Its power loadin g is batic maneuvers, e.g., convert a 15,000rpm, and the maxim um
300 / 1.2, or 250 ounces per cid. 50mph estimate to 63mph . tor q ue is in the 7,000 to
This comparison has obvious lim i- 11,OOOrpm range.
tat ions. It assumes that power out- a Look at the rpm/speed/pitch Data of this type- an d the
put of various sizes and makes of W nomograph (Figure 15), and engine manufacturers' recommen-
engines is proportional to their pick out a pitch and rpm that will dations-provide very useful guide s
give you the airspeed you want.
displacemen ts-th is assumption in selecting th e diameter to match
isn 't too far off the mark. It's the pitch and rpm determined from
invalid fo r comparing 2-stroke
A Look at a published evaluation
Figures 5 and 15.
~ of the eng ine you arelIying
with 4-stroke eng ines . Each class and see the reported rpm for various
mus t be separately eva lua ted, e.g., props tested on the eng ine. Also look MATCH THE PROP
2-strokes should be compared with for the rpm range where torque is As previously noted, for a 20-ounces-
2-strokes and 4 strokes with maximized , if this information is pro- per-squa re-foot wing loading, a
4-strokes. Experience indicates vided. Pick a few props that provide 55mph speed is indicated, and a 6-
that 2-stroke models with a 200- rpm within the high-torque range and inch pitch prop turning 8,OOOrpm is
ounce per cid powe r loading th at achieve the desired speed range . on e possible selection . Look at Table
are well "propped" will h ave exce l- 1 (Figure 6) for the Fox Eagle 74. A
lent performance. High er power o
U
Test these props at thelIying IS-inch diameter by 8-inch pitch
loadings, up to 300 ounces per cid, field and stickwith the one that prop would tu rn at aro und
will resul t in diminished, bu t still providesthe best performa nce. 8,OOOrpm. Figure 7 indicates that
acceptable, performance. these rpm aren 't too far off the peak
of the torque curve for this engine.
• The t yp e of perfo rm a n ce ond, a 10xl 0 (a "square" prop ) Another choice could be a 12xlO
desired. In designing a model, turns 11,000rpm sta tic. prop also turni ng in the 9,OOOrpm
selecting a kit to build, or choosing From Figure 15, level flight range. Like low gears on a car, the
a mod el to scratch-build from mag- speeds are estima ted to be 125 and lower pitch of 6 inches would pro-
azine plans, the mod eler has perfor- 130mph-very close! This model 's vide quicker acceleration and better
mance objectives in mind that vertical per formance is that of climb, but lower top speed.
probably reflect his or her flying a "homesick angel"; it perfor ms
skills. The design goal may range vert ical 8s wit h ease and grace. TOOLS
from a slow, stable , easy-to-fly air- There are two items of equi pment
plane (for a beginner) to a fast, ENGINES every serious modeler should pos-
h igh-powe red, aero batic model (for Today's model aircraft engin es are sess. First is a pho tocell tachometer,
the expert). For th e beginner, low fine examples of mod ern engine either digital or ana log, to measure
wing loadings and a h igher weight- technology and precision machin- the static rpm of your engine. It is
to-power ratio of 275 to 300 ounces ing. Most are "over square"- the useful to compare the performance
per cid would be in order. bore diameter is larger tha n th e of props of various diameters and
At the other end of the scale, stroke. Th is author prefers 2-stro ke pitches with th e published data as
consider the Swift. Designed as a eng in es becau se th ey'r e sim pler, described above. These tachometers
sport model with a wing loadin g of mor e rugged, lighter, more power- may be used safely from behind the
22 ounces per squa re foot of wing ful and less costly th an the 4-stroke prop, and they aren't expensive.
area, a power loading of 200 ounces version s of the same displacement. The second too l is a propeller bal-
per cid and with the least drag that Engine-evaluatio n articles, suc h anc er, the type with two sets of
could be reasonably expected- as th ose by David Gierke an d Mike overlapping, free-turning disks .
short of retracts-it is fast, maneu- Billint on in Model A irplane New s, Balance every prop-you'll be sur-
verab le and fun ! It has flown with and Clarence Lee in RIC Modeler, prised how many require balanc-
two propellers. The first, a lOx9, provid e performan ce dat a on cur - ing-to avoid vibration. On rein-
has a static rpm of 12,000. The sec- rentl y avail abl e en gin es an d forced plastic props, a coat of silver
aro und the airplane in th e same direction of its axis. The hea vier
direction as th e propeller's rot ation , th e pro peller and the hig her the
but at higher th an flight speed. It rpm, the great er this resistance. If a
strikes body, wing and tail surfaces force is applied to tilt the plane of
at angles an d increases the drag of th e prop's rotation, it is "precessed"
any obstacle in its path. Its most 90 degrees onwa rd, ill the direction of
un favorable impact is on th e verti- the prop's rotation.
cal tail surface- it causes yawing This effect shows up markedl y
th at calls for rudd er-trim correc- on tail-dragger takeoffs if the tail
tio n. is lifted too soon and too h igh .
The increase in th e velocity of Precessio n causes a yaw to the left
the oncoming relative wind (i.e., (for props ro ta ti ng clo ckwise,
ahead of the pro p) reduces the viewed fro m be h in d) th at could
prop's effective pitch, as does one result in a groun d loop unless
blade's dow nwash on t he next . corrected by rudder action.
Such dow nwas h furth er redu ces The author's flying -boat design,
th e prop's efficiency. The situatio n Seagull III, was in itially flown
is made worse wit h three or more wit h a Grau pn er llx8 prop that
blades. For mod el airpla nes, such was mo unted in a pu sher configu-
m ulti-blade props aren 't recom- ration with the propeller's plan e
mended, except for scale models of of rotation di rectly over the CG
aircraft so equipped. (th e th rust line was 6 inc he s above
In full-scale aircraft, mu lti-blade th at CG). Co ming ou t of a left -
props are used to absorb the high h an d turn, the mod el wo uld en ter
powe r of modern piston and turbo- an uncommanded , gen tle right-
prop eng ines. They also redu ce the h an d tu rn, n osin g down slightly.
propeller's diameter so as to avoid It was easily corrected, but annoy-
compressibility effects fro m ti p ing . Replacing the Graupne r (an
speeds close to the speed of sound. excellen t prop) with a Zin ger
The loss of efficiency in this reduc- wooden equivalent of h alf the
tion must be accepted. Gra upner's weight elimin ated this
peculiarity.
• Asym m etric blade effect. Wh en
th e plane of the propeller is NOISE
paint (after a gentle surface rough- inclined to the direc tion of flight as Many clubs are experiencing prob-
in g with fin e sandpa per for bett er in Figure 8, the advancing blade lems because of noi se that origi-
paint adhe rence) will aid th e ph o- opera tes at a hig her AoA than the nates from two sources: th e engine
to cell to "see" th e prop. Any retreating bla de . Th rust on the itself and the prop eller. Engine
imbalance is easily corre cted by advancing side is high er tha n on mu fflers and tuned pipes now avail-
adding paint to th e lighter blade . th e retreating side. This causes a able go a lon g way to redu ce eng in e
All thi s will narrow th e cho ice to pitching or yawing couple. noise to acceptable levels.
two or three props. However, there
is just no substit ute for actual flight • Pitching moment. When the
test s in yo ur fina l selectio n to thrust line is tilted as in Figure 9, a
obta in th e performan ce soug ht and vector is introduced that causes a
the optimum out put of prop and pitching mo ment. It may combine
eng ine. with the asym me tr ic blade effect.
-
drag will occur whe n th e mod el
flies with its fuselage cen terline
horizontal. The wing's angle of
incidence, relative to that center-
line , will then be th e same as the Nose-up
calculated AoA. Figure 108.
Figures lOA an d lOB show th e Too little an angle of incidence.
4 18.3 4
ZI
~
I
• •• • _
j
I
=r:s-
I
._.
Zero lift -6°
u;~'"'
0.75
Nominal
I pitch
5
8 I
i
I
Z5
38
35
40
58
5
7 I 81
Figure 11.
T 78
Graupner prop section.
I 81
i II
l<A
1 lDI
f ~l
..
••••••••••• ••••.• -
,
~
I
'
'
Zero lift-4°
J:. Geo~etric
, pitch
1 Nomin~~
11
11
lZ
15D
I I pitch
13 2110
14
Z51
15
Figure 12. 18 31D
APepropsection. 17 151
11 411
11
ZI 451
• Knowin g in-flight speeds an d Z1 5111
• The assumption of a lO-percent ZZ +
rpm allows you to calculate th e gain in rpm from static to level ZI
ThiS g ra p h will enable you to a rrive at
Z4 •"
a reasonably close e st imate of y our
actua l advance per revolution and flight was no t too far off. Z5
model's to p speed
~
prop's cen ter. The blad e's airfoil,
. ..... .. ...... . the leading-edge radius and its posi-
...-.- tion relative to the nomina l pitch
all have a bearing (see Figures 11,
12, 13 and 14). ..
Figure 13.
Master Airscrew section.
I~
I ••••••••••••• •••••••
~ Z,ro n, ,'
-y.; '!ieometric
pitch
•••• 0.75'
I !Nominal
I pitch
Figure 14.
Wooden "power" prop section.
_2 .0
c
.. ..
.028 .028
u
~1 .6 ' I
>'< ~ .024
~
c .024
.. ,
~1 .2
u
~ .8
\~ .
:: .020 J .020 \ ) ,;
1.
y~ ~
o
u .016 ::.
0 .016 , \. I /~
/.
~ .4 ~
01
j
~ g . '~>~" '~
'. ~..-../d~30~1)1
.!; .012 R r:! 012 .'. \. d
.. 0 c 0
0.1 . 10'
'" ' .4 :ii .008 0 1.0
0 1.5
li .008
..
~. • 1>6.0
'0 9 0
..
C -.8
:2-1•2
~ .004 Flaool'llJl11bolld...te "" 2.0
standard roughness
'" .004
0
AawodIJl*b--.. .....,;....
.4
I
.8 1.2 1.6
I
.028 .026
1j2.0
.
51.6
c --=- I .024
.020
31.2 CD
::: 3 .016
= .8
c
01
~ .012
.
~ .4
u
'" 0
"0
c
..
o
~
.008
.004
.
c -·4
3! -.8
'" o
-.8 ' .4 0 .4.8 1.2
:.;; Section Ii" ecefticlant
g-1.2
.
C .1
E 0
c
;g
. ~~~
DO~ _ ~
~ .~ ~~ o
R
0.1.10'
XJC
.253 .059
YIC
700,000 and wou ld have been a DRAG would change on ly sligh tly in
bett er cho ice considering the Rns of Other imp ortant considera tio ns are len gth; th e differen ce in th eir con-
th ese mod els. However, 64 1-012 wing dra g, profil e drag an d particu- tr ibution s to each model's to tal
was used in the calculatio ns (see larly induced drag. A model with dr ag would be min imal.
Figures I , 2, 3 an d 4). h igh wing drag in both level flight
and under high G-force will not COMMENTS
perform as well as one with lower • Mode l 1-400-square-inch area.
dra g under both. The cha rt shows The CL of 0.874 is dang erous ly close
some startli n g comparisons of to 641"01 2's CL max of 0.9. Since
level-fli ght d rag to h igh-G-force this model's level-flight drag is the
drag . lowest, it could exceed th e 100mph
This study con siders only total speed, despite its high-G wing drag
wing drag; it do es not include th e of 77 ounces, and it could stall at
drag contributions of fuselage, ta il high speed. Its sm all size would
surfaces and landing gear. Altho ugh adversely affect its visibility, and its
the tail feathers wo uld var y in landing speed is high.
proportion to each model's wing
area, th e fuselages would all have • Model 2-S00-square-inch area.
Model 3-the Canada Goose canard. th e same cross-sectiona l area and Much the same as for model l , with
• Wing-drag coefficient
The profile Co of airfoil 64 1-012 at a
CL of 0.654 is 0.0155 (see Figure 2).
1 400 82 994 77 6.6 29.5 178 0.874 35 The total of both profile and
induced drags is:
2 500 87 1,054 69 8 25 189 0.742 33
Profile CD + 0.318 x lift CL2 x (1 + 8*)
3 600 92 1,115 67 9.7 22 200 0.654 29 Aspect rati o
*8 (delta) is th e wing planform cor-
rection factor. For a wing of taper
4 700 97 1,175 67 11.2 20 210 0.590 27
ratio 0 .6, it is 0.5 .
the exception that the lower CL at with exa mples for any fellow • Wing drag (ou nces)
high G's of 0.7 42 compared with the design er to follow. Drag (oz.) =
C L max of 0.9 provides an improved Total wing CDx speed2 X wing area
safety ma rgin agains t h igh- speed • Cen t rifu ga l force 3,519
stalls. Landing speed is h igh . G's = 1 + (1.466 x speed- m ph)2
Turn radius (feet) x 32.2 At 12 G's,
• Model 3-600-squa re-inch area, 0.0393 x 100 2 x 600 67 oz .
wh ich is th e optimum in th is At 100mph and turn rad ius of 60 3519
author 's opinion . At 0 .654, its feet,
high-G lift coefficien t provides a 1 + (1.466 X 100)2 = 12.12 G's Plug in the numbers, and the for-
good safety m argi n . Its level-fli ght 60 x 32.2 mulas may be solved using simple
wing d rag of 9.7 ou nces is good , arithmetic. Happy designing! A
a nd it s h igh -G wing dr ag is rea son- • Lift coefficient needed
ab le. Lan d ing speed of 29 m ph is CL =
acce ptable. Its power load in g of Gross weight (oz.) x 35 19 x G*
200 ounces per cubic inch dis- Speed Z x Wing area (sq . in.) x K
placement proved satisfactory o n
the Swift, and it is large eno ug h to At sea level, K is 1.00 ; at 5,000 feet ,
be read ily vis ible. 0.8616; an d at 100,000 feet , 0. 7384.
* If greate r than 1G,
• Models 4 and 5-700 and 800-
square-inch areas, respectively. Both CL = 92x 3,519 x 12.12 = 0.654
have the same hig h-G wing drag; but 100 2 x 600 x l
level-flight wing drag increases wit h
the added wing area. Combi ned with
th e models' grea ter weigh ts, th is
wou ld adverseiy affect maneuver-
abilit y. The greater wing area result s
in lower landing speeds and bett er
visibility.
FORMULAS
In developi ng t h is compa riso n, for-
mu las pub lished in previous articles
were used and are rep eated below Model 4-lhe Swan canard.
•t
o.25C ......
Aileron
35%-40%
100%
Flap
60%-65%
~"'~
: I Flap
f------ Fuselage
Aileron DESIGN COMPARISONS
To illustrate the advantages of
HLOs and drag reduction, the spec-
ifications of two models (A and B)
0.03Cr .....:'-- _ are outlined-both designed for
t Drooped LE
!f!!!.. 138%
- ~- - - - - -- - _ . - - - -
stall spee ds close to 20mph. Both
are powered by .46ci engines and
have the same control unit, but
model B ha s an extra (fifth) servo
for flap actuation.
Model A is typic al of many mod-
els seen at an y flying field: exposed
C engine; small spinner (or none);
l
Tapered Wing bare music-wire landing gear leg; big
fat wheels, flat windshield; square
Figure 1. cross-section fuselage; dowels; and
Desirable flap proportions for straight-wing andtapered-wing designs. rubber-band wing hold-downs; flat
1+-- + - - - - 8/ 2 - - - - - - - + l
,.~ . ;,,;~
Leading-edge droop
1.2
=<::..,
Drooped leading edge
.s 1.0
§
o .8
E
.. .6
u
E
:g .4
u
.2
o 10 20 30 40 50
Angle 01attack- In degrees
Figure 6.
Wing Lf modification for Improved stall/spin resistance.
Drag
Drag
Drag
Figure 8.
Slot-lip aileron act/on.
• If the cen ter of lift is ahea d of the • Turns in a horizontal plane-a • Thrust moment. If the thrust
CG, lift is upward ; CF and weight steady, level, coordinated turn in line is above the CG, a nose -down
pull down ward at th e CG. A force which weight acts downward but moment results. If the thrust line
couple is created th at causes the CF acts horizontally. passes through the CG, the result is
mod el to nose up, and thi s assists in neutral. If it is below the CG, a
th e turn or climb. nose-up moment occurs.
VERTICAL MANEUVERS
Assume that a plane flying at SSmph
• If th e cen ter of lift is behind th e is at the bottom of a continuing 200- • Drag moment. If the center of
CG, th e force coup le will cause th e lift is above the CG, the increased
foot-radius (400-foot diameter) loop
mod el to nose down an d resist the drag will cause a nose-up effect. If
(see Figure 1). The combined weight
maneuver. center of lift and CG coincide, the
and CF total 2G's, or twice the
result is neutral. If the center of lift
model's weight, and thi s force acts at
• If the center of lift and CG are is below the CG, a nose-down
th e mod el's CG. The increase in the
vertically aligne d, weight and CF action result s.
load the wing must support is mod-
are neut ralized by lift and do not est. Had the loop been flown at
affect man euverability. 90mph,with a lOO-foot radius, • Maximum lift coefficient. If the
combined weight and CF in small-
the CF would
radius, high-speed turns exceeds
have increased
Speed-55mph Centrifugal force-1 G the wing's maximum lift capacity, a
to SAG's, plus
Turn radius-200 fl. Model's weight-1G high-speed stall will occur.
Total load- 2G's the model's IG
weight, for a
total load of • Structure. The model's structure
mu st withstand the substantially
Pitching
mom~~ t..... lifl (2G) Downwash
6.4G's.
increa sed load without failing .
'\~\~~
Referring to
, : Neutral point-.35 MAC Figure I , the
~ C J 0/ ----= ~ake Download......' resulting force HORIZONTAL TURNS
CG & AC~ L ....- Weight and centrifugal force 2G .. changes are: See Figure 2. With a plane flying
.25 MAC L~Static margin-.10 MAC at SSmph in a steady, level, coordi-
• Lift. The nated, 200-foot-radius turn, CF acts
Figure 1. Wing's AoA horizontally; to provide lift to
Loads in a vertical turn (loop). an d CL mu st oppose it, the model must be
I
- ~o~e~g V NP-.35 MAC ' __
n,
wing's aerody- symmetrical, th ere is no pitching
- Jf ~Download
namic center moment; this increases th e horizon-
Wake
CGat - . . .. of lift, which tal tail's effectivene ss. The increase
•15 MAC is at 25 per- in the downwash angle that results
Pitching Increased downwash angle cent MAC. from the wing's increased lift coeffi-
moment ' ~~ L1n_2G . .~ The generous cient aids the maneuver.
'-....... ,. , ~~.Igher static margin Elevators of 30 percent of the
"'---- NP 11\~ down·
..-::=~ Wake load of 20 percent horizontal-tail area are suggested.
Nose·down ..
MAC ensures The Swift typifies this arrangement.
Load-2G---.- force couple that the
model will be • CG aft of t he ae ro dyn am ic
Figure 3. easy to fly and center (Figure 5). In this configura-
Forward CG loading In 2G turns. very stable tion, the CG is slightly behind the
Goldberg's classic Comet design and couple between - Lift .25 MAC 1""'-- Combinedcenter of lift
advocated by H. deBolt.
The lifting tail has a flat-bottom
cen ter of lift
and CG would
Pitching
mom" , !r /
/ Nose-upforce couple opposing
wing's pitching moment
airfoil and is 35 to 40 perce n t
MAC of the wing in area . Th is
render the air-
plane dan ger-
f ~C, !°lNP Wake
..
Pitching
Combined
center Oll~
mome P1"h'"'~ .-u:::' results, and this
helps with the
m an eu ver.
elevators are sens it ive; a rat io of 20
percent elevat or area to total tail
area is adequate.
L" t
Downwash
The Can ada
Pitching .25 MAC CG NP Goos e and the
momeiJY " y Stali c margin INVERTED FLIGHT AND
Swan had slotted
f Wake
-..:..:.=--).~ 1G Nose-up lorcecouple flaps on both fore MANEUVERABILITY
and aft wings . Of th e seven co nfigura tio ns dis-
Pitching
II/creased d mo ~ nt "- Red uced lin
cussed so far, on ly Figures 1, 2 an d 3
oWl/wash
aI/Ole
THREE· will easily fly inve rted. The rest rely
,~~C7
h~g Combined
center- .
01 lin
t
, .- Increased lin
CG NP
See Figure 9 .
0
Increased nose-upcouple
SURFACE
DESIGNS
on two wings for suppor t. Inverted,
th ese types wou ld not satisfy th e
two critical requ irem ents for longi-
""I(
The Wild Goose tudinal stability:
1f ~ 1( ' - 1utY shown in the
Elevator / ~~
2G load photos illustrates • The foreplane mu st stall first.
th is design . The
Figure 8. h o rizo n tal tail • The aft plane mu st achieve zero
Canard loading In a 2G turn. controls pi tch ,
and both wings
CANARDS have slott ed slaps for slower land- 4 0 . - - - - -- - -r----,
See Figure 8. Like in th e tandem- in gs. The tail's area m oves th e neu -
wing version , th e foreplane mu st tral point aft, and that permits th e 35
lift its share of th e mo del's weigh t, CG to move aft as well.
plus provide additional lift to offset The closer spacing (longitudin al-
th e cambered airfoils' pit ch in g ly) of the wings results in a short 30
moments; this puts the combined
center of lift ahead of th e CG. Since
moment arm from CG to for epl an e
AC. This results in a higher load on
.~ 25
th e distance from CG to foreplane the foreplane to ov erco m e the ...
o
Cl
AC is greater than for the tandem pitching moments of the tw o 20
type , the canard foreplane's pitch- win gs. The combined cen ter of lift
ing -mo ment load is less than for the is thus ahead of th e CG.
15
tande m foreplane . Up-elevato r reduces the for e-
Depressing the forep lane's eleva- plane's load but doe s not reduce its
tors increases its lift and increases lift . The combined center of lift 10
the downwash deflection; thi s moves forward ; CF acting at th e
redu ces the rear plane's lift in the CG prod uces a nose-up for ce 5
portio n "sh adowed" by the front couple.
wing. Both move th e combined The combined elevator down-
cen ter of lift forward. Un der CF, a load an d the reduced foreplane 50 100 150 200
grea te r n ose-u p fo rce co up le load are very effective in pitch . The Speed (mph)
"."·up1,,,,,,..le
Pitching limesthemodel's weight.
mom?:", J~:" MAC yeo .l-+,"Stalic margin
1G load -rt~'-=
1 Wake.. -
lift first. For conven tional tail-la st
"-1I" .25 MAC types , optimum man euverability is
obtain ed by havin g a sym me trical
2 airfoil and ens uring th at thrust,
CG 0 NP
drag and lift forces run through th e
CG. Th is arrangement neutralizes
'- Increased nose- the disturbing moments and allows
up coup le
the tail full effectiveness, particularly
if it is T-mounted.
Except for its airfoil, whic h is
Figure 9. semisymmetrical, th e Swift's design
Three-surface loading in a 2G turn. com plies with these stipulations. At.
Canards, ADVANTAGES
• Increased sa fety. For we ll-
way than conve ntio nal aircraft . The
three-surface design is better in th is
designed, full-scale canard, tan de m- respect because its foreplane loading
wing and three-sur face aircraft, th e may be reduced, but t hree s u r -
Tandem Wings majo r adva n tage of th eir design is fac e s mean mor e interferen ce drag.
tha t it frees th em from th e to o-
often -fata l, sta ll-spin -at-low-alti- • Lim ite d aerobatic capab ilities.
and Three- tu de crash . Though the fore plane The high foreplane loading, com-
ma y stall, th e main wing does not. bin ed with the inability to stall the
aft wing, lim its th e aerobatic capa-
Surface • Shared load; reduced main-wing
area. In a conventional aircraft, th e
bilities of these three classes. (See
Chapter 4, "Wing Loadi ng
wing does all the work; th e horizon- Design .")
tal tail is lightly loaded (downward
Designs in most cases) an d simply contro ls
AIRFOIL SELECTION
th e wing's AoA. On th ese three types
For all three types of forward-win g
of front-wing aircraft, th eir forward
aircraft, airfoil selection is very criti-
surfaces work hard and share the
cal. There are three broad catego ries
load with th e main win g, whi ch
istory rep eat s itself. The first of airfoil: heavily cambered (such as
~~
I
lob
-:
would again be excellent. Its stalls firsl --- A. Foreplane reaches zero
drop . See Ep ple r lill angle first
higher AoA at the gentle stall and its E2 11-a forepl a n e
lower negative angle of zero lift com- airf oil with a sharp
ply with both manda-tory require- stall at low Rn-in
ments. E168 would not be suitable the appe n dix. No te
for either front- or main-wing air- the reduction in th e
B. Bolh
foils, but it would be a good section negative AoA of wings stall
for the horizontal tail-plane of a zero lift as Rn is
three -surface design. reduced . Figure 3. Figure 4.
An airfoil's stall pattern at CL max Using slotted flaps Nose-uppilch as aft wing Steep dive as foreplane hils
and at the wing's flight Rn is another on th e foreplanes of stalls first. zero-lift angle first.
important consideration. Obvi-ously, canard and tandem-
for a canard or tandem-wing fore- wing models for
plane to have sudden-lift-loss pitch control ha s three effects (see Cho rds of less than 5 inche s are to
or sharply stalling airfoils invites Figure 5): be avoided . (For more on these
subjec ts, refer to Ch apter 1.)
) /? . I
I
I would also ben efit th e hor izontal
tailplane.
I
Ii -. -'0 .. DOWNWASH AND
TIP VORTICES
\. / Pos. Dow nw ash is th o ro ughl y dis -
il\l_/ , cussed in Chapter 7, "Hor izon tal
Angle 01 attack
_ NegatlYe -Angle01 Attack-PosltIYe _
"Alpha" -. Tail Incidence", and cha rts for esti-
ma tin g downwash ang les are
Figure 5. provi ded . Each of the th ree, for-
Figure 2. Impact of a 40% chord slottedflap deployed ward-wing aircraft is affected by
Lift curves of three airfoil types. to 20 degrees onairfoil section 214. downwash .
- T Reduced
vert ical gap between foreplane and
main plane of half the aft wing's
MAC is suggested-eithe r th e fore-
-
angle 01
atlack plan e low and th e main plane h igh ,
or th e reverse may be used. The
forep lane -tip vortices will th en pass
Forep lane under or ove r the m ain wing.
Longitud inal separation or "stag-
Figure 6. Figure 7. ger," between 1/4 MAC points of
Downwash impact ona canard. Downwash impact ona tandem wing. each wing, of two to three times the
aft wing's MAC, is ap propriate .
• Can ar ds: foreplane down wash plane's level-fl ight down was h For the th ree-surface design, it is
impacts on a portion of th e aft angle. The part of th e wing th at 's suggested that th e horizon tal tail be
wing (equal in span to that of the out of downwash is left at the AoA "T"- mounted on th e fin where it
foreplane), reducing th e angle of calcul ated to produce adequate lift. will be mo re effective, and th e stag-
attack and lift in the downwashed This calls for a "jog" in th e wing ger be 1 to 2 times the aft wing's
area (Figure 6). and was used on th e Swan . MAC.
A variatio n of th is is to use th e
• Tandem-wing aircraft: the NASA dro op for th at part of th e LOGICAL DESIGN STEPS
whole span of th e aft wing is simi- wing th at 's out of down wash , so • Power and contro l unit selec-
larly affected (Figure 7). that th e inboard en ds of the droop tion . The powe r and control units
are just behind th e foreplane tips. together weigh SO percent or more
• Three-surface models: th e main A simpler method , where th e of most mod els' tot al weight . The
plane is affected as in th e canard forep lane spa n is roughl y half tha t first step in design is to choose
(Figure 6); and th e horizontal tail is of th e main wing, is to in crease th e these un it s an d obtai n their
affected by th e down wash from that wh ole ma in wing's AoA by half the weights.
portion of th e main wing that's forep lane level-fligh t downwash
"shadowed" by the foreplan e down- ang le. The main wing outboard • Overall we igh t esti mation.
wash. The reduced AoA of th e "shad- porti on s will have high er lift coeffi- Obtaini ng a rough prelim ina ry
owed" port ion of th e main wing cie nts, closer to the stall. The weight estimate while th e model is
may be compensated for as follows: Canada Goose used this me thod. still in the conceptual stage is essen-
- For tand em wings of equal span: A third method is wing wash out tial but not easy. The data on weight
for level flight at th e design ed cruis- wit h in creased root AoA an d estimating in Chapter 13, "Stressed
ing speed, the aft wing's AoA should reduced tip AoA. An accura te built- Skin Design and Weight Estimat-
be inc reased by the down wash in twist is needed, but it resu lts in ing," will help. Whe n th e model's
angle generated by the foreplane . an increase in wingtip stall margin size and proportions h ave been
-For canards and three-surface air- an d is stabilizing on a sweptback established, a more accurate weight
planes: shadowe d portion s of th e main win g. appr aisal is advisable. Chapter 5,
main win g should have an in crease In all cases, th e net lift sho uld "Wing Design ," also pro vides
in AoA th at 's equa l to the fore - equal th e calculated lift needed. insight into obtaining thi s estimate.
~~ ~,*~gj"'I------ Area B
DETERMINE
DETERMINE 1. Area A
25 MAC 01 alf-wing 2. Area B-1ess 20% lor downwash
static-margin - 1. Area A
2. AreaB-1ess 20% tor impact onarea affected
downwash impact on 3. Longitudinal separation
Distance N= area A x separation areaaffected Static margin 25% Distance N=area A x separation
total 01 areas A + B 3. Longitudinal separation 01 alf-wing MAC
total 01 areas A + B
Figure 8. Figure 9.
Locating a canard's NP andCG. Locating tandem-wing NP andCG.
't ="L.
be 40 ounces. design speed;
Figure 17 provides formulas for any variations 1;4 MAC 1;4 MAC
calculating the wing pitch and from that speed Thrusllines-T
thrust-related foreplane loads in
ounces. Fore- and aft-plane drag
will require
the same trim CG PM2
~ High
file and indu ced drags, in ounces, for a conven- Fortpl.l •• P"dl'mllh~
;;I.'dl.1JS [. ~\ \ F2 Low
multiplied by the distance, in inches, tional model.
the wing's Y4 MAC is above or below High t!lnJsl PM1 + PMZ+ (ll F1) Low thrust PMl. PM2 • (T I F2) L• .,elthrust~
0 0 D
the CG. If it's above the CG, the • Stability test.
moment is nose-up, or positive, and Two points of FIgure 17.
below it, it is nose-down, or negative critical impor- Additional foreplane loadIng from wing pitching moments andthrust.
Top view
1---+ A To all flap
V4" ply
servo -- ~- Front view
mounts n----+--i?cii;i~~18=i:);~~~~
To thef1apevator
~~
Fuselage
at section
A-A
Figure 19.
Elevator-flap servo Installation.
the aft wing. The major method for 20 degrees deflection and aft-plane
16
tan dem win gs is a plain flap of full flaps to such deflection as balanced
'0
or part ial span on the foreplane . the in creased foreplane lift.
'" 12
;;,
The horizontal tailplane's elevators Slotted flaps provide their maxi -
<'" ..
are the sole pitch control for three- mum additional lift at 40 degrees
-
.......
"''''" , 8
"'-
tiT
",
4
surface designs .
If option 1 is cho sen and fore
deflection so that the forep lane
flap, still under control of the first
.5 ...
_u and main planes provide the neces- servo, may move up to ne utral or
..
0 ..
.si 0 sary lift, th e horizontal tailplane's down to the full 40-degree deflec-
..,'" AoA should be zero degrees to the tion from its 20-degree position for
-4
'"
a: downw ash from the main wing . pitch control. Deflecting the fore-
Th at downwash angle is based on plane flap results in a substantial
10 20 30 40 50 60 th e level-flight lift coefficien t gen - increase in downwash on the aft
Flap detection-degrees (@250,000) erated by th e main wing , which is, wing, reducing its lift and that of
itself, in the foreplane's downwash! the aft flaps in the area "shadowed"
Figure 20. Ch apter 7 provides charts for esti- by the foreplane's downwash.
The effect of flaps andleading-edge slots on mat in g downwash. Any attempt to calculate the aft
theangle of maximum lift. flap deflection angle to balance the
• Directional control. Chapter 9, front flap 's 20-degree deflection
foreplane 's lift provides th e balan c- "Vertical Tail Design and Spiral would have been very complex.
ing upward lift. Up-elevator down- Stability," provides the basis for Instead, cautious flight tests were
loads the tail and unloads the fore- obtaining good directional control. performed, progres sively increasing
plane, reducing its wing loading For tandem-wing and three-surface aft flap deflection on each flight ,
substantially. The for epl an e's mod els, the mom ent arm from CG until balance was ach ieved. Bear in
surplus lift is then adding to th e to MAC of th e vertical tail surfaces is mind th at the foreplane flap could
up-elevator action , causing th e ele- large eno ugh to permit reasonably be raised or lowered to correct any
vator sensitivity. sized surfaces. minor imb alance, and if the imbal-
This results in a very beneficial Canards, particularly those with ance was major, retracting both sets
reduc tion in landing and takeoff small foreplan es and pu sher of flaps would restore the model to
speeds, both flap s-up an d flap s- eng ines , do not ha ve adequate n ormal, flap s-up , flight . This
down. This unique beh avior ha s moment arm s. Recour se is: worked ; the Swan's aft wing slotted
an impact on the three options -Larger vertical surfaces flaps, of partial wingspan, were
listed abo ve. -Booms or fuselage extensions exten ded to 3S degrees in balancing
Option 1 is cons idered above; suppo rting sma ller surfaces. the forepl ane's full-span slotted
option 2 would redu ce th e fore- -Aft wing sweepback and wingtip flaps deplo yed to 20 degrees .
plane's wing loading, its angle of vertical surfaces. In flight, lowering the flaps
attack, its lift coefficient and its cau sed the model to "Ievitate"-
downwash angle. The aft wing's FLAPS at much slower speed, but with no
loading would increase, requiri ng Flaps were previously mentioned, up or down pitch-and the fore-
an in crease in its an gle of attack. and their limitations were briefly plane flap continued its function as
This would bring both wings' air- outlined . Since both fore and main
foils closer to dangerousl y unstable wing s sh are th e pro vision of lift,
conditions, but it could redu ce ele- the additional lift provided on flap
vator sen sitivity. extension must not upset the lift dis-
......
Option 3-having th e horizontal tribution between the wings. Too 1.2
tail lift upward-would add to th e mu ch lift from eithe r win g would ~
foreplane 's loading and would result
in even greater elevator sensitivity.
result in dangerous nose-up or
nose-down pitch. Both sets of flaps
.
'E 1. 0
~
In this author's opinion, optio n mu st be lowered simultaneously for 'ii
8 .8
1 is best. Elevator sens it ivity may th e same reason .
be overcome by use of the eleva - Both of this author's canard 0. .6
~
tor's low dual rat e, or by redu cin g designs-the Swan and the Canada <;;
the elevator's area to 20 or 2S per- Goose-had slotted flaps on both ~ .4
cent of the horizontal tail 's area wings. The foreplane flaps also pro- ..,
'i;
instead of the Wild Goose 's vided pitch con trol as "flapevators." < .2
40 percent. On both model s, one servo actuated
the foreplane slotted flap for pitch o 10 20 30 40 50 60
• Longitudi nal control methods. control, but it was mounted on a Flapdellection-degree s
The dominant pit ch control for slide th at permitted it to move back-
cana rds is a slotte d flap on the ward under control of a second Figure 21.
canard. Another method is a flap fixed servo (Figure 19), lowering Additional flapCL example: .40slotted flap
on the forep lane and sim ulta neo us both th e fore and aft plane flaps depressed20 degrees provides t:,. CL of 0.80
up or down action of ailerons on simultaneo usly- foreplane flaps to to 11ft of basic airfoil sect/on.
elevator under control of the first tics of the foreplane govern landing-
servo. Almost full foreflap deflec- gear design, for all three versions.
tion was needed, in ground effect,
to raise the nose for a gentle landing. • Structural design. The discus -
Flap deflection reduces the sion of stressed-skin design in
stalling angles of both fore and aft Chapter 13 applies to all three types
wings and greatly increases the of front-wing-first airplanes. Use of
foreplane's angle of zero lift this type of structure would simplify
(Figure 20) . For three-surface weight estimating and provide
designs, the same comments optimum weight-to-strength ratios . The Plover glider canard.
regarding balanced flap lift and
simultaneous extension of both GLIDER EXPERIMENT
sets of flaps apply. However, the At first glance, the "Plover" appears
foreplane flap serves only as a to be a tailless glider; in fact it's a
flap; pitch control is effected by canard. The forward-swept inner
the tailplane's elevators so that panels are the aft plane, and the
the foreflap may be deflected 40 unswept outer panels are the
degrees. canard. The in ner and outer panel
Slotted flaps on a tandem-wing aerodynamic centers are shown in
design would present the same Chapter 26, "Construction Designs,"
problems as canard flaps. Slotted as are the area's airfoil sections'
flaps with chords of up to 40 per- neutral point and CG locations.
First test glides, with a vertical
sur face of normal size, were a disas-
ter and the treacherous behavior of
swept-forward wings was forcibly
revealed .
I
1
I
1
When yawed, the retreating
~educed : : Increased panels' centers of drag and lift
hit L: : lilt ! move outboard. The advancing
C< ~
· ~
• ' I r. " I W
panel's centers move inboard. The
' I' • ••••
.. • •• • ••• • • • •
/••• •
' ••
full-scale, tailless designs that HIGH·LIFT DEVICES For an aircraft with a win g CL
employed cambered airfoils had The lift that a wing generates is equal max of 0.90 to achi eve th e Swift's
sweepback and inve rted, wash ed- to the square of its flying speed. stall speed would requ ire a wing
out airfo il sections toward the Assuming a constant AoA, doubling loading of 11 ounces per square
wing tips. This provi ded th e balanc- the speed increases lift fourfold. foot . Because of the lower load ing,
ing force, but certainly did not At high speed, it's obvious that a substantial increase in wing area
imp rove th e wing's lift. less wing area is required (see and weight would result. It is not
To reduce or eli min ate the Chapter 5, "Wing Design" ). At high improbable that this in crease
ai rfoil 's n ose-d own pitching speeds, less wing area means would equal the weight savings
moment, sym me trical airfoils or reduced drag-both profile and that would result from usin g a
airfoil s wit h reflexed mean lin es induced-but substantially higher shorter fuselage and absence of a
were used. In the appe ndix, E1 84 stall and landing speeds . Th e Gee horizontal tail. Using the Swift's
and E230 are two reflexed airfoils; Bee racers of the '30s reflected this gross weight of 92 ou nces, to
E184 h as a low nose-down pitch- philosophy, and they landed "hot." achi eve the 17mph stall, th e wing
in g moment, and E230 has a n ose- To provide slower landing speeds area for a tailless model would be
up m omen t. An E18 4 airfoil with reduced wing area, the mod- 1,200 squa re inches-a 100-percent
plac ed inboard with an E230 air- ern approach is to use high-lift increase. Top-speed performance
foil placed outboard on a swept- (HL) devices (such as split, slotted, would be advers ely affected.
back wing could pro vid e suffici ent or Fowler flaps) on th e wing's trail-
balan cin g force. E168 is a sym me t- ing edge (combined, in some cases, SWEPT·FORWARD
rical airfoil that ha s no pitching with leading- edge slots and flaps). TAILLESS AIRCRAFT
mom ent, exce pt at the stall during Use of these devices results in very Of the taille ss configurati ons , onl y
which the airfoil becom es nos e- large increases in the wing's CL max. the swept-forward (SF) ha s an
do wn and is sta bilizing. Under the conditions described upward lifting balancing force,
Reflexed and symmetrical air- above, the wing's area is determined which adds to the Wing's overall
foil s ha ve substa n tially reduced by its HL-device-assisted CL max and lift, rather than th e downward, lift-
max lift coe ffients; E214 ha s a C L the landing speed desired. Unfortu- reducing balancing force of the
max of 1.25, whereas E230 has a natel y, when deployed, these high- other con figurations.
C L max of on ly 0.78 . Sin ce both lift devices produce hea vy nose- Very few SF taill ess aircraft-
sta ll and lan ding speeds are direct- down pitching moments that are either full-scal e or model-have
ly related to the airfoil 's CL max, beyond the capability of tailless air- been design ed and built, owing to
these redu ced values result in sub- craft (with the exception of forward- two major factors :
stantially h igh er landing speeds or swept types). To overcome this, small
they n ecessitate an in crease in split flaps, which produce more drag • The SFwing has a strong tendency
wing area (lowe r wing loadings) to than lift, are sometimes used. to twist under load, increasing its
ach ieve those lower speeds. On conventional "tailed" air- AoA. Unless the wing is torsionally
planes, the increased nose-down very strong, thi s tendency leads to
pitching moment is compensated flutter and disastrous failure. A stiff,
for by the hea vy downwash angl e heavy structure is need ed. Modern,
increa se provided by the deployed composite, stressed-skin design has
HL devices striking the tail , largely overcome this problem.
and by stabilizer/elevator action.
Obv iously, on a tailless airplane, • An SF win g is directionally unsta-
the Wing's downwash provides no ble and requires large vertical
such compensating force. surfaces for directional stability.
For tailless airplanes (except Since lift is all upward, the nos e-
swept-forward configurations) all down pitching moment of cam-
three factors-CG location, reduced bered airfoils is easily overcome
airfoil CL max and limited use of with an SF wing. Such airfoils, with
HL devices-require an increase in their higher CL max , ma y be used.
wing area compared with con ven-
tional aircraft , and this reduces th e High-lift devices, such as slott ed
tailless craft 's efficiency. flaps, may be incorporated at th e
This author's Swift has 600 square inboard trailing edges. Elevators are
inches of wing area and weighs 92 depressed at the wingtips to increase
ounces (gross) for a wing loading of lift forward of the CG and offset
22 ounces per square foot. Its airfoil both the added lift and the nose-
is the E197, and it is equipped with down pitch of the extended HL
slotted flaps who se chord is 30 per- devices that are behind th e CG. In
cent of wing chord, and which occu- this condition , both elevators and
py 60 percent of the wing's trailing flaps add to th e wing's total lift.
edge. The CL max (flaps extended 40 An SF wing characteristically
degrees) is 1.80; stall speed is 17mph. stalls at the wing root first. Because
~ =>
nation to see a parallel between this reflects thi s capability.
SFwing and a canard config uration: In RIC model term s, th e tailless
plain win g con cept is alive and well
~
• In both, lift is upward. in Bill Evans' "Scimitar" series.
. .
• The can ard foreplane and the SF SWEPTBACK AIRCRAFT
wing 's outboard areas mus t both o i
Sweepback (SB) favors high er aspect
stall first. ratios. For a given angle of SB (mea-
sured on th e Y4 cho rd line) h igh er
• The aft wing of a canard and the ARs result in longer tail mom ent
inb oard portions of a SF wing must arms for better lon gitudin al con-
arrive at their angles of zero lift trol. Higher SB angles have the
before that of the foreplane or out- same effect but result in lower lift.
board panel. High ARs demand greater
Figure 4. stren gth and high er weigh t. Also,
Canard design technology is thus Hoffman disk-type alrpane. swee pback in duces twist under
applicable to SFtailless design , with flight load s, an d that tends to
one major difference: the inner good . To obtain the correct CG, a reduc e th e Wingtip'S angle of att ack.
portions of the SF wing are no t tractor engine and propeller were Good , tor sional stiffness is required
affected by dow nwash from the on ly choices . The major disad- to remedy this.
the outer portions. In canard vantage, longitudinally, of the plain During th e '30s, the Germa n
design , downwash from the fore- wing is the short tail-moment arm . Hort en brothers developed a series
plane significantly affects the aft- Obviously, lower aspect ratios of flyin g wings as shown in Figures
plane and is a design consideration. with the resulting longer chords
wo uld be an improvement.
Coupling low AR with heavy taper
~-_ .-
sharply tapered wing with an AR of
5.4. Its airfoil was heavily reflexed,
without washout, and uniform
across the span . Inboard trailing-
edge elevators provided pitch con-
trol; ou tboard ailerons provided roll
control; and a rudder controlled yaw.
The AV 10 performed well and
was granted a French certificate of Figure 5.
Figure 3. airworthiness, but no further devel- The Harten brothers' lirst "Ilying wing"
The 1935 Faurel A.V. 10tailless lightairplane. opments occurred. Structurally, th e sailplane01 1933.
• Washout toward th e wingtips. has 174 square feet of wing area and
wing loading of 13.2 pounds per Figure 10.
Wenk-Peschkes "Weltensegler" sailplane
• Elevators inboa rd and ailerons square foot. (1921 type).
outboard on th e trailing edges. The Davis's top speed was a brisk
150mph---excellent, on 65hpi stall plane. This design illustrates the
• Yaw control was provided by air speed was a modest 42mph, thanks combined plain and sweptback
brakes placed outboard on both the to its low wing loading. Its empty wing plan form, with a rectangular,
top and bottom surfaces, flush with weight was 565 pounds, so it carried dihedralled center section and
those surfaces whe n not being used. 73 percent of its weight as useful anhedralled, sweptback, outer pan-
No vertical surfaces were used. load. els. The outer panels are set at lower
The wing is sharply tapered and angles of attack to provide the
• Dihedral on the lower wing swept back 28 degrees on the 1;4 download to balance the forward
surface. CG. Controls were on the trailing
edge of the outer panels.
~
• A cabin arran gem ent th at, in Th ese outer panels, like an
later mod els, requ ired th at th e pilot inverted V-tail, provided both hor-
lie in a prone position, completely izonta l and vertical surfaces. The
enclosed in the wing. elevons acted, in concert, as eleva-
~~
tors: but differentially as ailerons.
One version had an enclosed 60hp The downswept controls also
engine driving a pusher prop on an acted as rudders into the elevon-
extension shaft (Figure 6). For RIC . ~:=.:::t:
==)::1-L
== ...L -L
I: = = induced turn, thus overcoming
models, an electric motor enclosed any adverse yaw.
in the wing, with an extension shaft, Figure 8. As Figures 9 and 10 illustrate, the
driving a push er prop at the wing's The Davis Wing. wing was externally braced, it had
trailing edge would be practical. an AR of 11, and it weighed a low
Figure 7 illustrates th e Buxton 93 pounds for a span of 53 feet and
glider of 1938. Th is interesting chord line. Controls consist of split- an area of 195 square feet. It flew
design had a thin, high-AR wing, drag rudders outboard and elevons successfully, but later broke up in
symmetrical airfoils washed out to inboard. Wisely, the narrow tips are flight , causing the pilot's death.
the wingtips, and vertical fins and equipped with fixed leading-edge Figure 11 portrays a British pro-
rudders at the wingtips. Outboard slots to delay wingtip stalling.
elevon s provided pitch and roll con- Obviously, th e pusher engine and
trol. The pilot was hou sed in a pod prop are best. No dihedral is needed
below th e Wing. Small split flaps on sweptback wings.
were used at the wing roots. Richard Engel's "Winglet" (Model
Airplane News, March 1994),
powered by a pusher .40 and with a
wing area of 900 square inches,
is a good example of a flying -
wing design.
m~
been developed. Figure
16 shows one such
design-the Landwerlin-
Berreur racing mono- leading- - ~
dg droop
plane of 1922. This
"Buzzard"-type aircraft
featured separate eleva - ~ l Increased vertiul talllf'!1
1nct'll$Id moment arm
Incn.~d rudder ...~
tors and ailerons and a
low -aspect-ratio tail
fin . It was powered by a
Cross-section {t:
C III ~
~3a~lp tins
Figure 13. 700hp engine.
The 1930 Abrial A-Viii light delta-wing Figure 17 (from an Figure 15.
airplane. Aeromodeler annual) Delta RPV configuration modifications.
H.4lI ChO~fi
Desp ite washout, swe pt -bac k,
1_ highly tapered win gs are prone to
~
Closed
Plyol
Open tip-stall ing at high angles of
attack. Th is resul ts in loss of lon-
Figure 21. gitudin al control. Fixed LE slots,
Spoil-flapdesign. as sh own in Figure 22, delay th e
stall about 9 degrees an d in crease MACl MAC 2
surface only. the max CL substa n tially, but ha ve Formulas
Placing the spoiler's LE beyond very low drag. Both Northrop an d Distance Y (ACIDeation) = (AreaA I Xl ) + (Area 8 I X2)
(Area A + Area 8)
70 percent of the wing chord Davis used th em at th e wing ti ps, Wing MAC . (Area A I MAC 11+ (Area 8 I MAC 2)
avoids the lag between control extendin g for 2S percent of th e (Area A + Are a 8)
action and response, which is char- wing's semi-span.
acteristic of spoilers located farther The basic dimension s for the slot Figure 23.
forward on the wing chord. shown in Figure 22 may be applied AC andMACof mult/-tapered wings.
Spoilers create desirable into-the- to any airfoil sectio n.
turn yaw, because onl y the spoiler
on the inside of the turn is raised; its
mate remains flush with th e wing.
0.?6 ~ l~T.JIIJ=i~ r:~~
~_ .:=ft :e> ,,+,r
+ .
The Hortens used spoilers on ~ 0.?4tL tJ8I
~ 022 ' ,
s ~!I
I s·t+- .
I -;" I I j "
I I
I
.
I
I
I I
lO /D
and spoilers lie flush with the wing
surface and cause no drag . ~ .OI4 I I ,
~.?
I
0
ii.olo
,
SPOIL FLAPS I
,j, I ,
Spoil flaps are shown in Figure 21. ~OO8
They were used on th is author's a. 006 I
,
"Dove"-a powered glider. The spoil I'
u .004
I
I
,
, 2
o
.0 4
.. -
I
. I ~ I
I I
~ 0 , - ./
Dove's wing area. Extended, they ~ , I
6
f- ~
U ' ..1_ i ~
I 1 ,,
,
, ,
4 :.....684r..,: Oe<4 f ' I
,
'Tf' . , +1
2 , I ,( I . 1 -r-1
0
. I !
,
I
I : : ! ' I ' ~\~
I I I . 'i l l ' ~
8+ I
Hi - ~-+-!-t=tE.\1::
, . . .\--f-
6 ,
,I , , :
._ --++ -+-
8 j6
4
.2_
,
LI D
,i\.
I
I
,
I , I
,
, ,
,
i ! /Y IA I
, I
I
I I I ;/,1 I I I I
I
, I
, I I I
0
I , I ! , ;, I I I I I , I .. !
8
I
, I I ! ,. ,
I ,
~';f , ,
I
I I
e I I
/2 C. I Co I
I I I
I c. '• •A,rfo il:2R, -15 ' O z .o,o ,I
- It /i-j;../ , i
08 Vt![ ( f l /s ec .j : 70..3
~Ze~~5fn~o;;:;,t;o.~· I.';;~:J.(!to.°Ooo - .2
I
~-'i
b't'
,
.CW . -8
! I I
W~re f("$fed: L.M.AL T("sf : V.DT. 1/77
Corre c t ed for t VI'Vl t! /- w olf effeet. -. H=
-
R.N (e'fUfio,e! 8.090.00 0
Dol/!: ' -2 7-34 tesr - VO.T.1177
48 1r
I I
16ar~
I ;
!:' 0
16..,2 8 4 0 4 8 12 /6
M 9 /(" o ( o tr oc» , a (rif!tr e e sJ . re f~rr~
20 24 28 32
t o r o of chord
.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 10 12 1.4
u « co effic ie nt, CI.
Anq'. 0'
a"~, a C. . ... - M .... $1
-<lIUWt.-t:Kial " CWt; T __ wit .. ' - ' . .... oIoiC
STATIC MARGIN
As previously discussed, the AC and
NP of tailless airplanes coincide . For
stability, the CG must be ahead of
the AC/NP. This produces a "force
couple"-lift upward and CG down-
ward-that must be balanced by a
1 , I rear download.
I ,,
,
, I
The larger the static margin (the
I
I
I
, I
,, distance between the CG and
I AC/NP), the greater the aft down -
C" , , I I •
I I , load necessary. Centrifugal force cre-
, ,
ated during maneuvers requires an
increase in all three : lift, weight at
the CG and balancing force.
Large static margins, however, are
more stable longitudinally; small
margins promote maneuverability,
but reduce stability. A safety margin
~~ ~ ~ 0 4 8 ~ ~ . N M R
M g ' . of af1 aclf , ct (d~(r~e 3J r e t err ea f a r o of c hOrd (SM) of 5 to 10 percent of the wing's
MAC is suggested.
Figure 26. TaperedNACA 00-15-3.45 (4 to 1) airfoil The swept-forward wing obtains
equilibrium by increased lift created
toward its tips. This permits the use
of cambered, high-Cj-rnax airfoils,
healthy stability margins and high-
lift devices.
WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION
This is important, longitudinally, for
tailless airplanes, because of their
28 limited longitudinal control when
I
2.
L/. compared with "tailed" airplanes
3 20 (Chapter II , "Weight Distribution in
go /s , I
Design"). Massing the fixed weights
, ,
{) /2
J1
of power and control units as close
to the CG as possible is recommend-
c.
ed for tailless designs. Positioning
o f
(J -./
the fuel tank on the model 's CG will
-: avoid a possibly destabilizing shift of
e - .2
Airfoil : 00 -/5 - 3.45
the CG as fuel is consumed and the
R,N. (e ffec t;.,.) 8, / 3O,(}(XJ
DoTe: 9 ~28 ·3"
o .Z . ., .6 .8
Te3f : V OT- IIlS
1.0 U l 4
tank becomes lighter.
Lilt roe" ;".· '" t'i
C... _.. .. .~ ,~
LOCATING THE AC AND MAC
Figure 27. Tapered NACA 00-15-3.45 airfoil In Chapter 1, "Airfoil Selection,"
graphic methods for locating the
WASHOUT AND SWEEPBACK provide root and tip airfoil ordi- AC and MAC of straight, tapered
Figures 24, 25, 26 and 27 reflect nates and aerodynamic center loca- and sweptback wings are explained.
wind-tunnel tests performed by tion. "S" is wing area and "b" is For multi-tapered wings-such as
NACA on four different wings. All span. Although tested at high Rns, the one shown in Figure 23--obtain
were stable at the stall (pitching these wings are a useful guide for the Y4 MACs of each panel (A and B)
moment becomes nega tive). The swept-back designs. using the methods shown in the
wing shown in Figure 24 has a aforementioned article. Calculate
reflexed airfoil and 8.5 degrees of DIHEDRAL the area of each panel (in square
washout. The wing in Figure 25 also Sweptback and delta wings need no inches) and , using the simple formu-
has a reflexed airfoil but no washout. dihedral. The plain and swept- las that accompany Figure 23, obtain
The wings shown in Figures 26 and forward types should have the dihe- the wing's AC and its MAC. A
27 have 3.45 degrees of washout. dral angles that are suggested in
In Figures 24, 25 and 27, the Chapter 9. Combined plain and
taper ratios are 2 to 1 from root to sweptback wings need a healthy
tip. In Figure 26, the wing's 4-to-l amount of dihedral in the plain sec-
taper invited early tip-stall, along tion to compensate for the
with reduced CL max. These figures anhedraled tips.
nY
the hull's (or float 's) trim angle at Water rudder
e~triP~_,,<_ - _~
th e "hump."
-The "beam " is a critical
dimension.
-The "step depth " is also a critical
dimension.
-The "angle of deadrise" bears on Section A-A
1-
Section B-B
Maximumbeam
$echonC-C
the hull's planing performance.
o
Tumblehome - -- - - - - "
~Q
-The "deck" is only a reference
line. The top contour is the design-
er's choice.
'">".,"'". J n
I=- Spray strips
,- -
I
I
- Tnmangle
--
A
'8
---
-l'---..-
CG ------- C
16'
2.4 6
14'
ui 2.0 5
CD
DISPLAC EMEN T ~'2°
w
1 1.6 ,/ 4 ~1 D'
UJ w
~ 1.2 LIFT
3 ~ 8
0
~ OFF ~ 6'
~ 0.8 8° 2 <
en .<,
...~
"
UJ 4'
a: 0.4 ,
STERN POST ANGLE S 20
Figure 3.
Resistance andtrim angles; short afterbody andsternpost angles of 6, 8 and10degrees; beam2 loading at 2.5 oz. persquare inch.
16'
2.4 6 STERN POST
14' ANGLES
ui 2.0 5 /7
DISPLACEMENT
0'
Omph 14mph 27mph Omph 14mph 27mph
Figure 4.
Resistance andtrim angles; long afterbody andsternpost angles of 6, 8 and10degrees; beam2 loading at 2.5 oz. per sq. in.
An em pirica l so lu tio n to the percent of 6 inches, or 0.5 inch for name: "plani ng ta il hull. "
beam pro blem was devel op ed by an each float. This author designed, built and
analysis of the wing load ing s versus flew a model with this hull-the
beam- load ing of some 25 model Figures 1 and 2 show th e best CG Flamingo (see Chapter 26, "Con-
flying boats an d floatplanes, as location: along a line at 10 degrees to struction Designs"). Powered by a
shown in Figure 5. th e vertical, ahead of th e step/ Torpedo 0.15cid engine and con-
The curve in Figure 5 averages the forebody bottom com er. trolled by a Babcock receiver and
various po ints and may be used to The wing's optimum location is escapements, it flew well; the hull
determi ne your mod el's beam as fol- with its center of lift (Yo! of MAC) ver- was efficient.
lows: tically in line with th e CG. Some years later, it was modern-
ized with an 0 .5. Max O.35cid engine
• Estimate your design 's gross weight PORPOIS NG AND SKIPPING and a 4-channel radio that provided
(Figure 6 will help). Porpoising is th e up-and-down oscil- rudder, elevator aileron and engine
lation of the bow that occurs beyond con trol.
• Divide gross weight in ounces by hump speed . Skipping occurs One very und esirable trait sur-
the model's wing area in square feet on land ing when th e plane touches faced: th e Flamingo always weather-
to provide its wing loading in ounces down several tim es. Landing too fast cocked pointing downwind-not
per square foot. co ntribu tes to skipping, but good for takeoffs ! This was because
adequate step depth (8 to 9 percent of its narrow afterbody, rearward
• Refer to Figure 5, and select th e of the beam) avoids both of these CG and deep step, all of which
beam- loading th at correspo nds to undesirable cha racteristics. combined to make the model's
th e wing loading. For example, a stern sink low in the water.
wing loadin g of 20 oun ces per PLANING
sq uare foot (horizon tal) calls for a TAIL HULLS
bea m- loading of 2.6 ounc es per Durin g th e
square inch of beam (vertical). 1940s, in search
o f impro ved Beam = ~ ~g!!UQU 0
• Divide gross weight by the beam - p erf orman ce , Beam2 loading
loading. The result is th e forebody's NACA co n ti n -
wette d area in square inc h es. ued it s towing- 0
a
' 20 No spray control·LH With spray control-RH
lrf1 ~
Z 1 10 would have
3 1 00 boat-like bows;
U
• JO o for more mod- ~adrlse
g 80 erate dut y, A . Flat B. V·bollom C.Dornler
~ 70 0 bow s may
~
u 50 ~ 0 have a more
a 50 00 0
streamlined D. Flared E. "Edo" F. Cathedral
~ -"0 CD 0 sha pe. The double flared
i3
5.SP~
~ 30 0 type illustrated
0
0
0 in Figure 10
0
'0
0 has proven
00, 300, 600' 900, 12001 15001 18001 2100z 24001 2700z
i tself for
GROSS WEIGHT INOUNCES. model hulls G.Suggested bollom
and floats, and Figure 8.
Figure 6. it's not diffi- Hull andlIoat forebody bottoms andspray
Engine displacemenl vs. gross weight. cult to make. control.
Formula(cubic
volume lor wingllp 1I0at
inches) = " X" (CG movemen t inl nches) x gross weight (ounces ) x 3.5
Distance · Y" (Inches) x 0.58
Angle 01 heel-IIoatsubmerged
--I e
\ CG movement · X" __ -/
-- -----_
Seagull III in a flaps-down landing. Note the
-- - .... well-controlled spray from the forebody bot-
tom andthe plane's "at the hump" an/tude.
between the float and hull center- 75% of length and width
lines. The corrective buoyancy in at botlom
ounces has to be converted to cubic Front
inches and increased for th e reserve Total
buoyancy. The formula in Figure 11 depth
for float volume does all this and
includes a 2S0-percent reserve.
To design a float that has low drag
and the required volume is not diffi-
"Fishtail"
cult. Layo ut a block that will provide
the volume in cubic inches that pro-
vides the calculated buoyancy (Figure 1I0at volume (cuIn.) x 0.58
12). The width is the float beam Beam formula =
Hull beam 2 10ading
based on the hull beam- loading; its
length will be roughly four times that
of th e beam. Both depth and beam Wingtip 1I0at volume (cL)
Block length= --.:.....:..-- ----'---',---,
are calculated using the formulas in Beam [ln.] x etleclive depth (In.)
Top
Figure 12. Draw the 3-views of your
float in and around this block as
shown. The float bottoms should be
Figure 13.
flat with sharp chine corners. Development of "Thurston" float from basic bfock.
The float bottom sho uld be set at
THE THURSTON FLOAT
'ffi:
The Seagull III incorporates th e
Beam fOrmula =V 1I0at volume (cu.!n.) x 0.58 Float depth= Float volume (cu.in.) Thurs ton float at its wingtips. These
Figure 12.
Method of developing float tines from basic block of wingtip float volume.
Basic
~----------:c--:-lue;;;nOigl'h.h:::::::::::::::::::::;:---'
'I. MAC 1% 01wing area-aileron
-~A 8o/.-Rudder onIY _ _-l~1-
Proportions f o r ......- 1.5 10 2 !Chon!
_ _ _ _ 01 wing area
AR 3105
Elev. - 35% ollail area
Aspect ratio6
.25 chord
75%01II mlspan
CG
90'
Depth 8.5%
ot lorebody
length See Fig 2 lor hull
- --_·__··_- w ._ . ._J>.__ Beam bonom design and
C .25 I chord stern post depth
All • 40%semi-span
Chord
Figure 3.
Basic flyingboatproportions.
m, Spray
,L Step
Strlp L-+::-~~::r-~;,,;:-,=:.e::!c~
Eng. disp.
(cid)
Maxtlnat
beam (in.)
Step
depth (in.)
7/16
0 10 2375
Forebod; V 0.15 2.5 151.32
0.25 2.5 151.32
035 2.825 1!.1
04 0 3.00 9/ 16
045-6 3.25 191.32
0.50 3.375 %
0.60-1 3.5 11/ 16
_. ...L._.L j __
i
l....-.l .
i..- 50% 01 semi-span --..: Figure 2.
Basic twin floatproportions.
l~~ ~ ~
,-
Bto 10% 01 length 13% 6% :q
V~~?JL.J.!::~~---===It==~, \
Rudder 35% VT
.....·.... . . . . . . ..J(10·
Pivot
l==]::~=t===ti~~~~ ~5;C
Flap
optional
• CG
25% Mac I
•
I Semi
span Section NACA 0012
I
Aspect ratio 4.8
section NACA 001
area 20% of wing
elevator 40% H.T.
!...:-----~I-
Optional
Aspect ratio 7 to 10 ~
Aileron
slotted flaps
25%
30% chord
chord
Taper Root 2 - 11Pl and~ % .25
semi- MAC
span
Aspect ratio 6
Figure 4B.
Basic gliderproportions.
_.- 25C
Figure 5.
Basic aerobatic airplane proportions.
AIRFOIL LAYOUT PROCEDURE • Leading-edge radius and location th e ch ord lin e, from the leading
Every serious modeler should know of its center. edg e. Some in terpolat io n is
how to develop an airfoil from its ne cessary.
published ordinates. All measurements are percentage of Depths abo ve and below the
These describe each airfoil by the chord length. An exception is chord line are measured in 1/ 50 -
three meas ureme nts: th e Clark Y, whose depth is mea- inch intervals; some interpolatio n
sured from its flat bottom, not its is n eed ed . The necessary calcula-
• Chord length and stations along chord lin e. With the bottom level, tions are sim ple.
the chord. the Clark Y is at an angle of attack
of 2 d egrees, measured on it s Stations
• Depth (ordinates) above and below chord line. Cho rd length x station percentage.
th e chord line at each This author measures the sta- Example: chord 7 in. x station 50 is
station . tions in l/ lO-inch intervals, along 3.5 inches from the leading edge.
Ordinates (depths) for a high-aspect-ratio tapered wing tical line at each chord station. In
Chord len gth (in.) x percent depth with many different ribs, this pro- Figure 68, the ordinate lengths,
2 cedure is both long and tedious. above and below the chord line
Example: a 7-in ch chord with Given chord lengths, airfoil have been measured. Using French
7.88% depth at station 50 is 7 + 2 x setion designat ion s, skin thick- curves, the points are joined
7.88 = 27.58 fiftieth s above the ness/spar location and sizes various smoothly to outli ne the airfoil. ....
chord lin e at station 50. companies can provide very accu-
rate computer-generated airfoil sec-
Most calcul at ors have a "Constant" tions at a reasonable cost.
feature. Using it, th e cho rd len gth Figure 6A illustrates a layout of a
is entered once; the sta tion or ordi- 7-inch chord E193 section with ver-
nate percentages on ly are needed
to complet e the calculatio n.
Note th at ordi nates below th e
chord lin e are negative, e.g., -2.5 . I
o .10 .20 .30 .40
Chord 7 inches
.50 .60
~
.70
Stations
.80
~
.90
..I
1.00
Nose ra d ius
Qu o ted as a percentage of the
chord's len gth, NACA airfoils, such
as NACA 241 2, locat e the center of
the nose rad ius by "slope of rad ius
through th e end of chord 2120."
Simp ly measure 2 in ch es from th e A- locating stationsand verticals
chord leadi ng edge; erect a vertical o .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00
line 0.2 inch h igh , above th e cho rd
line. The d iagon al, from th e cho rd
line to th e top of the vertical line ,
locates th e cen ter of th e nos e
radi us. On a lO-inch wing chord,
this radius would be 0.158 in ch.
Laying out o ne airfoil sectio n take s B- Measure ordinatesand draw curves
15 to 20 minutes. For an un tap ered
wing, thi s is no problem . However, Figure 6.
Drawing £193 from ordinates.
Construction
Designs +3.5 0
mmI!LE!m- - - - - - ....
Immm- - - - Type t:lIlUlltJ
Type urp/liblollllllort GrOll welgbl 7S oz.
Groll welgllt 110 oz. (I.nd); Wing ar• ..............................44411/. IR.
121 oz. (nlBI) Wing loading '4.3 oz. III. It.
Wing a~• ..........................666I11. I". Engine , ,............•3010.•35
Wing loading '4.3 oz••• tt. Prop 11Jx5 0I11JxB puhlr
(I.nd); tI.• oz••• It. (nlBI) Power loading 215oz./cld
881m2 loading 3.33 oz.
Engine ............................................•41 (Modll AI",,.,,, 1IIWtI, ..". '81)
Prop 11x6
Power loading 239.9oz./rld(l.nd);
213oz./rltJ (11II"')
43.75"
0
+1.6
r~H~t+~~ , 150
~~~J.~~Ofd;X:: r::S
15"
~
u:i i--:<= l -
II>
-. 5" I.-
(Model AI",I."" NIIWB, SBpt. '93) ~f.
-. ~,, ~m~
-. 8.25" '--
Type
GrOSS welgbl
==zt:==
EIImlm- - - - - - - - - - -
tllrltl-lllrlll. ".""
f11 oz.
1!I!1!II- - - - Wing area 226 III. In. (Iorsp");
Type pOWtlrsd glldIT
4!iIJ III. In. (III p8); 11211I. Ill.
Gross welgbl 55.375 (1ItJrlztJIIm1 mil)
Wing area 60211I. In.
Wing loading 21.7oz./dd
Wing loadln 13.16 oz./Iq. If.
Englne 46SF
engine 16
Prop APe 11116
Prop APe 8X4 Power loading 210.8 oz./dd
Power loading 367oz./Cld
(Mod,1 AI",I,,,,, 1IIwI, Jan. 'II)
(1Iodel AI",I,,,,, NIIWB, NOli. 1994)
1+--- -- - -- - -- - 43.5"- - - - - - - - - - -
Inverted LE slot
\ Pivot
.1..
• E168
Stab llator section B-B
Mass balance
Span
mD----------
; ,. j,;
., JYpe
--- S
57.75"
GrOSl weight : 81
Wing area .,.
Wing loading 25.4 DZ./ItI. II.
Engine 46
Inverted L.E. slots Prop APC 11x1 IN 11xT
Slotted flaps Power loading 191.3 oz./fI1I
(30% Chord)
eetA A
Slot lip aileron
/rl - " -.
Pivot
"':.1 Slot lip \
14"
~" ~'~ ~7 --..0;:::::-"
...-
--':::" \:
-'".
, , Fixed L.E. slot /
- -_ _: :'C ---
~
Wing section A.A Slotted flap /
1.125"
Flap pivot - . +
Dihedral 3 0
1lDII- - - - - - - - - --.
_ ",ortAIoBt plBn,
GrOSl weight 113OZ.; 143oz. (wA/08I6)
Wing..... .. :; 76B.,. In.
Wing loldlng 211.112 DZ./BIt. 11.;
26.5 oz. (wA/DBI6)
EngIne 45
Prep APC 1M
Pow8r loading 251 oz./rlll;
317oz./CIII (wIl108I6)
(llstlB11lIII1fIIt, JIm, '91)
Ouler panel AC
I
I
3.6"
chord
6.46"
average chord
Dihedral 5°
CG ~
_L E193-
Bottom
6375"
6.63"
mmD- - - - - --....
... . . . . . .. . . ... . .•mpIJllJl_
IIy/IIf'"
Gross weight 4IIoz.
Wlig 11'8I 2511 If. III.
WIng loading 23I1Z./1f. It.
BeamZ loading 3.26 oz./lti. It.
Englnl 16
Prop .. 7x4 /IlIIIItI1
Power loading 261.6 oz./CIII
(fIDdB1 AmtItJn, Ot:t '87)
mm!I!J]]I- - - - ----,
. . . ....................................ttyI",1JuI
8r8a weight 112oz.
Wing 1I'8I 1BfIII. In.
Wing loading .. . 23.3 oz./lll. fl.
Btlmz loading 3.1111Z./1f. I".
ElgI 4Idd
Prep 11Jl8 puB/IM
Power IoadIH 243 oz./rld
-,
.. . 12 ..co '0
"
OUA
-, -, ..
- 0 300
""",,
CA
C CI\
.~ --
/--
01
(/- O.
07
u
II
07
-01
... ~
es os
1/ - 0.100
rr- Eppler airfoil 168 is
symmetrical with no
0'
o.
I:, t"' pitching moment,
I
" except at the stall, duro
-01 0 .. 0 .. 0.10 0.12 0' 4
il-'o '0 II
ing which the airfoil
;;'
- I<
cw
J\I
OUA
-03 becomes nose-down
\\ 01(10
andis stabilizing.
- os -05
\\ O,1!lO
\\
t~ ~::
-01
0.200
- 01
\~
"'- 0....
II
"
Cl
c: ---............ Cl
- "'5
001
" 12 -,
'-
~
Eppler 214 is anaft·
loaded aIrfoilthathas
good lift. II starts to lift at
a negative angle of attack
and has camber near the
trailing edge.
- ,
.12 .. co .. II
OUA
II
" -.'
001
-, -, .rs
Cl Cl
-."
-,
" "
~
Eppler 211 is a foreplane
airfoil wIth a sharp stall
at lowRn. Note thereduc-
tionin angle of attack of
- , zero lift asRn is reduced.
-,
· ......
......
~
Eppler 222 Is alsomoder-
atelycambered. It has
good 11ft andlowdrag at
lowRn andIs thinner than
Eppler 197.
MODELlWINOKANAl
UNI STUTTGART
E 222 110211
CL eM
-.35
12 •.3
1 -25
.....
Eppler 184 Is a
reflexed airfoil with a
low, nose-down pitch-
Ingmoment.
I
10
-2
' 2 12 -.3
-e
c --==--_
• eoooo
• '00000
CL
·25
eM
, 200000
8 -,2
e -.1!l
~
·2
I
-e · 11 2
-, 25
RIC MODEL
AIRCRAFT DESIGN
• CHOOSING AIRFOILS Have you considered customiz-
ing one of your models to
• WING LOADING enhance its performance? or
• CG LOCATION designing your own RIC model
airplane? If you have , this book
• BASIC PROPORTIONS contains a gold mine of practi-
.~
cal guidance, hints and tips that
• AEROBATIC DESIGN
will guarantee your scratch- ...
building and model-customizing success. From aerodynamics to structures
and control surfaces, Andy Lennon offers practical solutions and an under- - --- -
standing of why they work.
Which type of airfoil should be used? How should the weight and balance be
calculated? How can a plane be designed so it will be stable and have very lit-
tle drag? Should flaps be incorporated, and are they beneficial in reducing
landing speeds? With several decades of designing and flying successful model
aircraft, Andy answers these questions and many more in a practical, concise
way that will help you with nearly any project currently on your workbench.
Andy's book presents a thorough and comprehensive introduction to the
intriguing world of model aerodynamics. It's jam-packed with graphs and
charts that are easy to understand and extremely helpful to the new or sea-
soned designer. Airfoil selection , the all-important wing-loading calculation
and finding the proper CG location are just some of the topics to be found
in the opening chapters.
Learn how to design efficient horizontal and vertical tails , determine horizon-
tal tail incidence and estimate the downwash that affects that incidence. Andy
explains why these estimates are necessary and tells how to do it. Reducing
drag is a constant battle for the model designer; Andy shows how to do it
by properly shaping fuselages, streamlining land ing-gear wires, and cor-
rectly mounting the wing on the fuselage. If you 're seeking improved
aerobatic performance or a design that will perform well in a high-G turn,
Andy again spells out the answers.
Interested in building unconventional models that utilize canards or three
lifti ng surfaces? Andy clearly sets out the design principles. Sec rets for suc -
cessful seaplanes and floatplanes are also covered. Andy tops off his book
with a look at a few of his published designs, all of wh ich incorporate the
design pr inciples presented in this unique volume.
Whatever your modeling background , this book will be a valuable refer -
ence source in your RIC library, and it will never be outdated. Filled with
timeless insights that range from the findings of early NACA reports to
approaches adapted in modern aircraft, this work will serve you well time
and time aga in.
2023 12/05 2M HG
ISBN: 0 -911295-40- 2
i A'
II IIIII 90000>
--(
AirAGE
M E D I A
lIirDlane
modelairplanenews.com
NE\NS
9 78091' 295405
PRINTED IN THE USA
II$19.95