Pretty sure that wont fly, too many violations of physics, but hey, I am wrong a lot sometimes
Hey, if I can design and fly(got the video to verify a
full flight take off, fly around and land, not crash) a plane that morphs the wing from perpendicular to swinging aft(-45 to a swing forward of +30ish) in flight which NASA hasn't done. What it took is go search the data found in the wind tunnel reports.
As for the FSW(no fuselage so I am not sent wrong videos) , I know exactly what needs to change from tunnel data to perhaps get it to fly. I am trying to change the flow pattern over the wing. If not, will add AS3X to assist plus the use of canards.
It is actually what you know or what you have come across or develop. He hasn't looked at my stuff at all.
What if I said you now can fly a 5 bladed 64 mm EDF with a 1300 3s lipo for almost 10 min and real slow as a trainer and real stable.
How about a STOL plane that can come in at 40-45 degrees from 100+ ft high and land at a very high angle of attack(no flaps) and stop short as well as take off a short distance. And it is not a tail dragger.
It is called a stabilizer that changes the air flow (it gets rid of turbulant flow) which reduces drag giving it stability and a longer flight time.
And he claims I don't do my work.
So, it is possible that it might not violate the laws of physics.
Just like the video of my X-47B, I knew what the problems of rudderless planes are, I just used 2 servos and a thrust vector nozzle to cover the yaw problems. Hey, no gyro needed if you know what to do. Full flight twice. Not a fluke. I did add some other rules to make it fly.
Since the direction changed in the thread, guess it is time to end it about gyros and rudderless planes.
