Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
Stick and Tissue Logo
 
  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Obscure Aircraft Cookup (Read 1472 times)
Reply #17 - Mar 25th, 2019 at 2:49pm

Kerak   Offline
Senior Member
I Love YaBB 2.5 AE!
Roy, Utah

Posts: 2285
****
 
"Bigger does fly better," for obvious reasons...the only thing that's scale is the wing...not the air.  Wink  If you embark on the journey...go bigger.  You're doin' a lot of homework not to tackle the big challenge.  Cheesy Grin Smiley

Neal
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #16 - Mar 25th, 2019 at 10:23am

alfakilo   Offline
Global Moderator
Retired USAF and TWA.
St Louis, MO

Posts: 943
****
 
Kerak wrote on Mar 23rd, 2019 at 7:08pm:
What's the wingspan?

Here's the next step...scab a motor stick onto the side...with rubber motor and prop. 


13".

The motor idea is sorta like a No-Cal set-up...sounds like a good middle step before going for a full build.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #15 - Mar 25th, 2019 at 10:02am

staubkorb   Offline
Senior Member
Stick & Tissue
Germany

Posts: 1328
****
 
Hey AK, that C1 could be made to fly as you've already determined.  Increasing the span of the canard will definitely help (retain the chord), but you could reduce the incidence to about 5° and get rid of some of the nose weight.  Dihedral  is OK.

The F19 Ente has been successfully rc'd as a large scale model so it could very well work Free Fright.
----------------------

Would this qualify as "obscure"?  The Swedish SAAB J-21a is not that well known or modeled and was further developed into Sweden's first jet fighter.
 


WWWoFF
Wonderful Wacky World of Free Flight
(with a bit of rc thrown in for giggles)

Comparing Spammers to a pile of organic waste is an insult to the organic waste!
IP Logged
 
Reply #14 - Mar 23rd, 2019 at 7:08pm

Kerak   Offline
Senior Member
I Love YaBB 2.5 AE!
Roy, Utah

Posts: 2285
****
 
Wow!  That is really great, Alf!  What's the wingspan?

Here's the next step...scab a motor stick onto the side...with rubber motor and prop.  Keep the provision to enable moving the CG...see how it's location changes.  Don't you wonder if the original designers/builders did any of this?

Really...that would be a great model all by itself if it were given a legit color scheme!

Super job!  Unique et magnifique! Smiley

Neal
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #13 - Mar 23rd, 2019 at 3:29pm

alfakilo   Offline
Global Moderator
Retired USAF and TWA.
St Louis, MO

Posts: 943
****
 
This is a peanut sized glider based on the deBruyere C1. Initially, I balanced it as shown but with more weight to make the fuselage longitudinal axis level. The balance point was estimated using the CG from other canard designs.

These other designs suggested a larger canard with considerable dihedral and some incidence thrown in for good measure. Dihedral was added to the upper and lower wings. The tail remained per the original plan.

The initial glide tests resulted in a definite nose heaviness. I removed one of the weights and got a reasonable glide out of it, with several repeated similar results, enough to suggest that the design may actually work! The pics show that the model balances in a nose up attitude.
 

de_bruyer_test_1.jpg (36 KB | 15 )
de_bruyer_test_1.jpg
de_bruyer_test_2.jpg (33 KB | 16 )
de_bruyer_test_2.jpg
IP Logged
 
Reply #12 - Mar 16th, 2019 at 10:30pm

neoflight   Offline
Full Member
...now how am I gonna
get that down!
West Tennessee

Posts: 201
***
 
This might fit the bill

Per Wikipedia,

The F 19 Ente was a high-wing monoplane with a canard layout and fixed tricycle undercarriage. The pilot sat in an open cockpit, while an enclosed cabin was provided for two or three passengers. The canard was mounted on short struts above the nose of the aircraft, ahead of the cockpit, and the two engines were housed in nacelles mounted under the wings.

The F 19 design was set so that the front stabilizer would stall some moments before the rear-mounted main wing, which in theory made the Ente virtually stall-proof.

The first example flew on 2 September 1927 but was destroyed on 29 September during a demonstration of single-engine flight, after a control rod snapped. Focke-Wulf co-founder Georg Wulf was killed in the crash. Nevertheless, a second aircraft (D-1960) was built, flying in late 1930.[2] This was used for a promotional tour of Europe the following year which took it to Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK. On 7 November 1931, it was demonstrated at Hanworth Air Park, flown by Focke-Wulf chief pilot Cornelius Edzard.

Later, it was put on display at the Deutsche Luftfahrtsammlung in Berlin, where it was destroyed in an Allied air raid in 1944.

 

fw19_ente_3v.jpg (115 KB | 15 )
fw19_ente_3v.jpg
IP Logged
 
Reply #11 - Mar 14th, 2019 at 12:57am

alfakilo   Offline
Global Moderator
Retired USAF and TWA.
St Louis, MO

Posts: 943
****
 
Wiki says the airplane got about 25 feet into the air and then rolled inverted and crashed. If we go down the roll stability line of thinking, then some things are apparent...no dihedral anywhere, short wingspan, odd aileron concept that may have contributed to roll problems. Other than that, little info found so far.

I think a test glider is a good idea! Bigger foreplane with considerable dihedral, added dihedral to main wings, eliminate the weird ailerons, CG forward of the wing leading edge.
« Last Edit: Mar 16th, 2019 at 7:31am by alfakilo »  
IP Logged
 
Reply #10 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 8:50pm

Kerak   Offline
Senior Member
I Love YaBB 2.5 AE!
Roy, Utah

Posts: 2285
****
 
Now that is really an unusual design, Alf.  Be helpful to have some info as to what the aircraft did on its initial flight attempt...nose/tail heavy...got the CG wrong?  If you're serious about getting it to fly...might help to come up with some kind of mockup...a general configuration you can make "adjustments" to...and once you've got her floating along...launch into a full-blown scale version.  How about something like a dime(nickel)-glider?

That is a wild design...would have been great if it had proven successful!  Very advanced! Smiley  I'd be tempted to "hedge" on that wingspan as well...longer...as well as the foreplane (canard).

Just my thoughts.... Wink

Neal
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #9 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 3:34pm

alfakilo   Offline
Global Moderator
Retired USAF and TWA.
St Louis, MO

Posts: 943
****
 
Here is something not seen often, a French WW1 pusher that really pushes the envelope. If I dive into this, I'll be counting on you folks to help get this thing into the air!

I'm thinking of building a peanut sized glider first to see if there's any chance of it flying. I'm starting with the assumption that the airplane needed dihedral and a bigger foreplane.

Oh, and I think it's pronounced like "duh brew-yeah".
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #8 - Feb 10th, 2019 at 2:07pm

Sky9pilot   Offline
Administrator
Stick & Tissue
Kelso, WA 98626 USA

Posts: 10914
*****
 
Another great airplane and nice find.  My guess on the thing sticking up behind the engine was an exhaust vent to keep the exhaust out of the cockpit while doing ground test and engine runups...IMHO
 

If God is your Co-pilot...switch seats...
Your attitude will determine your altitude!- John Maxwell
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Jn 8:32
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - Feb 10th, 2019 at 10:58am

alfakilo   Offline
Global Moderator
Retired USAF and TWA.
St Louis, MO

Posts: 943
****
 
This Vultee V-11T probably qualifies! Pres Bruning has a peanut plan for it. Anyone have an idea what that thing sticking up behind the engine is? The airplane was used for engine testing.
 

V-11T_1.jpg (66 KB | 18 )
V-11T_1.jpg
V-11T_2.jpg (21 KB | 17 )
V-11T_2.jpg
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - Feb 8th, 2019 at 6:30pm

shipwreck   Offline
Senior Member
Navy Vet
Medina Ohio

Posts: 269
****
 
I started a Mystery Tailless fiction fighter years ago but never finished it. Just brushed the dust off of it. If this qualifies for this I would be in.
Paul
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:22pm

pb_guy   Offline
Senior Member
So I'm just a kid at heart.
Youbou, BC, Vancouver Island

Posts: 1460
****
 
I think that anything posted in the mystery aircraft section would qualify as well as anything that was a one-off, or that was an obvious experimental version of a known aircraft, like the Grumman XF4F-3S WildCatfish.
ian
 

WildCatfish.jpg (185 KB | 16 )
WildCatfish.jpg
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:40am

New Builder   Offline
Senior Member
Amherstburg, Ontario, Canada

Posts: 1051
****
 
I can't join either, I'm up to my elbows in the Marcoux Bromberg and I have come to realize that I don't have the time and, as with Mike, I build way to slow as well. Would, however, like the definition of "obscure" that you will be using. Look forward to the outcome and some terrific models.
Mike
 

Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it. (Salvador Dali 1904 - 1989)
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - Feb 6th, 2019 at 9:45pm

MKelly   Offline
Senior Member
Helotes, TX

Posts: 814
****
 
Can't join in on this one now - I'm overcommitted on builds and I build too slow.

Mike
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print