FW 42

[kiwi g]

Going for a fly  barry. waiting to see if FW is going to fly

[A.A. Barry]

Kiwi, nope it was not a sucess this morning,, more adj needed, :- wing lifeted fine but not the canard, it did "whizzes" on the frt. wheel (no damage), after much discussion in the club, things that may help are shift C/G back, airfoil on canard or larger and larger rudder.possible extra fins in "prop wash"

Stacks of power, but no luck, I will carry on

Barry 

[kiwi g]

COG may seem the logical thing but the problem is the main flew first.. it may seem that the cog needs to go back but . I reckon it may need to go forward to put more weight on the main  hench making it look tail heavy so the canard flys first. going back just adds proportion weight to the plane. Iknow you should never fly a tail heavy plane but the canard is different.

Hope this makes sense.

[kiwi g]

Reading that seems wrong but remember barry we are shifting weight not adding it . by shifting it forward the rear is becoming heavier on th main wing

[Erfolg]

Seem to missing something? Has it flown?

[kiwi g]

Erfolg ,barry said it main wing flew first and canard didnt lift so ended up spining on front wheel.

[Erfolg]

Seems I do not see all the correspondence.

 

Could there also be an issue with the fore plane not being at sufficient angle of attack?

[A.A. Barry]

Erfolg, na I don't think you have not missed much, thanks for the PM,

going to go with idea, to shift the C/G back, and get the weight off the frt. and increase the canard so it has a lifting aspect. it has to fly or else Mr Tank would not have built 6 of them..........correct????????

Edited By Barry Wetherell on 11/08/2009 14:22:39

[kiwi g]

Hi barry.

You probably are correct

Im working on a therory that its backwards to a normal plane .

if you move it back you are making the canard to wing moment longer so maybe actually making the nose heavier .

because the canard flys first by moving it forward you are displacing weight to the rear as the main wing ,motors become further back.

 

I may be incorrect and dont want to start a discussion on COG but its worth thinking about.

Cheers kiwi g

[A.A. Barry]

MORE Q's.......on the canard elevator is up up, or is down up?????

[kiwi g]

Down is up on the canard barry? think of the wind moving over the surface. front edge up back edge down relates to up same as positive incidence. on a standard plane elevator moves up pushing the tail down so to speak  Canard moves down pushes nose up.

 

[kiwi g]

Barry you didnt did you , get it the wrong way no wonder the wheel stayed on the ground

[A.A. Barry]

Yea, well that is what i thought, but just making sure

[A.A. Barry]

NO i didn't , but I was thinking , ...........maybe

[kiwi g]

Yea Id have to admit ,,, I got it wrong the first time. it just didnt look natural till you sat back and really took a look at it.

[A.A. Barry]

Well, yesterday morn, was the day, slight breeze, all looks good, I had shifted the C/G back about 50mm, almost to the wing leading edge, handed the tranny to the club mystro, and away it raced........lifted off to about 3mts high "dipped "a wing and could not pick it up........ Harrah it flies.......cartwheeled over once on the ground and after checking for damage...... only slight..... but had to take it home and fix it,  the problem was ... the alerion rates set too low.

OK....easly  fixed for next week

But at least it will fly, how good ????? watch this space, for episode 5

A.A Barry  

Edited By Barry Wetherell on 17/08/2009 02:17:06

[kiwi g]

Good one barry. it flys.  dipped the wing , cause..?

 wow moved COG back 50 mm to wing leading edge.I thought that was where you had started. hence the move it forward comment..

well we will be waiting till next weekend now..

[Tim Mackey]

Well done Barry - any film ?

I am sure you will sort the initial testing flight problems out, so best of luck for the next one!

[Erfolg]

Barry

 

We both seem to have suffered, recently from overtaxing our ESC.

 

I have also suffered from having a CG to far rearwards, Just be sure that you do not do the same, My CG problems led to a tendency to spin, under any circumstance, to fast a reduction in power, to tight a turn, pull out of a dive to quick (from the top of a loop). No issues though with aileron sensiivity. Which do seem independant of CG.

 

So best of luck and keep trying. The frustration is that you are never really sure, well not until a good many trouble free flights are under the wings

 

I have just been reading about the HP Manx, a tailless aircraft. It apparently exhibited pitch stability problems. It seems that an attempt in a wind tunnel was made to fix the issue, by fitting small canards in front of the nose. It was never done, as far as the article reads, as better solutions to drag reduction were found, which were incorporated into what became the Victor.

[Simon Chaddock]

Barry

You say "Mr Tank built 6". I thought they only built a full size mock up, if this is so then you are moving into uncharted territory as far as flying the FW 42 is concerned.

 

Focke-Wulf did build two of the F 19 canards but the first crashed and killed Georg Wulf, co founder of the company.

 

Most interested to see how it all pans out. 

[Erfolg]

Simon

 

I believe you are correct, the FW 42 is a design in "Secret Luftwaffe Projects". There are a couple of photographs. Seems the death knell was the rejection of the design by a Japanese delegation.

 

With regard to the F19, from what is written, it crashed due to the failure of part of the control linkage to the canard.

 

In respect to the model, I do not think that there is any fundamental reason why the project should or could fail. Many canards have built and have flown satisfactorily. The real issue is that the overall efficiency, is no better than conventional layouts. The configuration has however been used in full size aviation with some advantage, in specialist roles, such a Voyager. What really surprised me, is that I saw on USA web site that was apparently related to the FIA, that the accident rate for many Rutan designs, was no better than similar conventional aircraft. I understood that a significant concept in the Rutan designs was improved safety, particularly avoiding a stall.

 

Anyway we are modellers who liked to do our own thing, crashes are an accepted part of the deal, we just manage if they are to happen safely. Although I do see success as the outcome of this venture.  

 

Erfolg

[kiwi g]

if the COG is to far forward it may porpoise as the canard tries for lift . it will fly.!

 if its rear it will just be ugly to fly and spin and snap.. but we wont know and can only guess untill you get some flight time with it..., Sounds to me your on the right track.

[Erfolg]

My own canrd had a tendency to wander and fall of to the side. Do not think it was Cg related.

 

From memory the CG range was not at all critical. The further forward, just a higher stall speed and a higher sink rate.

 

Futher back I seem to remember that the directional control became less certain.

But this was all of 20 years back, so memory is dim.

 

Erfolg

[A.A. Barry]

guy's this week i am going to shift the C/G 1/2 between the last 2 efforts, to try and get to a piont where it will lift graduallly, not of like a scolded cat

 love all you input

  Basil  Tank

Edited By Barry Wetherell on 18/08/2009 13:28:31

[A.A. Barry]

Guys, just to keep you in the "loop"  (ex controliner), still too windy to fly the FW42, all set to go, but that wind gets up too early, for me and it is unpredictable to when there is a "window" to get down to the field, SO until I can report more it's ....................

A.A. Barry