My wing. It's about to get real!

Patrick

Member
Hi all!
So I'm on the home stretch, and have a few questions maybe you could help me out with. I love input. I'll post a string of pictures in case you're like me and enjoy looking at what keeps people up late at night building stuff. It's fun. This is my first plane of my own design, and Josh was right, designing is awesome. And in this case, since I stuck with things I already knew from FT, not that difficult! So here goes-
image.jpg
As you can see, the "plan" has been approved. No turning back now.

image.jpg
So I guess you just draw some lines on the foamboard? Yup, but you have to actually think about the shape of your plane vs the shape of the foam board and adjust accordingly, I had some unacceptable seams at first. I really wanted to build the semi symmetrical airfoil you see mocked up there but I wasn't there yet, and figured I needed to do what I knew first, and do it next time. Just build something!

image.jpg
More lines. Gotta get a square so I can draw lines more... squarely.

image.jpg
And the craft has a bottom. I just taped the seams, folded back, filled with glue and taped over, like in the versa. Next time I build this I will have thought ahead and cut out more widgets, notches, holes and what not. If I do this a bunch, I may be able to think ahead and not have to cut holes while the plane is inconveniently glued together!

image.jpg
The spars, three layer for the big section, two layer on the outside. Error here was not making them contiguous. I left a space for the vertical stab, between the bigger inner section and the outer smaller bit, which fits nicely but does nothing for strength. Need ideas for engineering that particular joint! Any one? Help?

image.jpg
It's oh so versa. Ok. That's... tall. Hope that works. I did the exp. airlines thing with the peeling back of the paper inside. Works nice, not as strong as the FT method. Would work awesome with ribs. I might do ribs for the semi symmetrical shindig.

image.jpg
Quick! Tape it together haphazardly! I want to see what it looks like. Oh kind of weird, hope she'll fly. Baby blender, et al for scale comparison. It's pretty big. For the plans, I used the scale 1mm =1cm, so it didn't look big on paper, but it's over two meters! This thing will look awesome if it flies.

image.jpg
Ok. What? Well, David said to go big on the stabilizers and trim if needed. That's what David said, so I certainly listened. Not sure if that is a good place for it. I'm putting the elevons on the outer wings past the stab. They will be 6cm long and 45cm wide. Think that's good enough?

image.jpg
I was going to go for a pusher config, but truly, I have had headaches with that concerning cg on the versa. That's because my motor is way way heavy but still, I wasn't trying to chuck this thing in the air from the poorly designed outer wing! So, ala the mighty Kraken, I have joyously decided to go with two DT 750's! How to mount them... You guys ever hear of a "power pod?" I think I'll just use this plan I have here and make it longer and add a diagonally cut top thingy. I measured angles and everything, and guess what? It fits!

image.jpg
Popsicle sticks are comforting. Familiar. Drilled it on the bias as they say. I actually thought about how to do this for a few minutes. Then I remembered, maybe use skewers in the foam and through some wood like every swappable you've ever built! Works.

image.jpg
Better than I expected. This measuring thing sure is handy. I used the metric system and boy is it a lot easier for me. Well for that angle I used a protractor so that's pretty much the one system I guess. But I measured that angle on a line that I drew in a metric way! And I looooved it! I mean. A lot. Why don't we all use that again? Why inches? Is it really worth holding onto, America? I'm for metric, sign me up. Anyway, I'm so very pleased with how happily solid, yet removable this thing is.

image.jpg
This is a weird picture and I don't know why it's here. You can see the silly Popsicle stick I had glued on the top of the wing to hold on the pod, which I did away with as you'll see in the next picture.

image.jpg
I mean, that's your idea? That's how you are going to hold the nacelle in place? Have you any other ideas?

image.jpg
Ah yes, I like that much bettah! Popsicle stick inside the wing, could even be put in the plans, so you could do it from the inside without shenanigans and big holes!

image.jpg
And these are upside down I guess. Idk why, but I'm going post this thing before I lose the attachments! Again. They only hang out for an hour? I'd even go so far as to say I was... dissatisfied.

image.jpg
I ended up putting a big long piece of angled aluminum stock to brace the whole wing on the bottom, got tired of trying to find carbon fiber. Not too heavy, but not too light. Might do the job though. But hey, Anyone know a good way to attach a wheel to the pod? I think maybe a will do two in the back and one up front in the middle maybe? Was it the fowl flyer that had a really cool gear that would work here? What does josh use on the Kraken? I think he may have had something like that on the big cruzer, I'll have to look at that episode.

So in review my questions are:
Ideas on that spar joint on the outside? And all joints for that matter?

Two meter wingspan, 6cmx45cm elevons on the outside section, any thoughts on the appropriateness of that?

Landing gear? Help? Episode referral?

Thoughts on spar or construction methods to make stiffer?

Two DT 750's enough? With 11x4.7? Probably won't be too fast, but I don't think these flat bottom airfoils do well at speed, I think I just want to maybe drop bombs and such.

I thank you for taking a look at my creation, I would appreciate any input wholeheartedly!
Thanks again.
Patrick
 
Last edited:

ghost civic

Senior Member
I love the twin prop setup. something about twin prop planes just seems cooler.
the shape looks good to. only thing id change is making the vert stabs more angular to match the rest of the plane, but that's just personal preference.

I haven't been at this long enough to say if those motor/prop combo will work, but sounds like it should.
 

Patrick

Member
Yeah those things are definitely doing their own thing right now! The thing would look sinister with a more angular approach. I agree, I've always wanted a twin just because....
Thanks!
 

makattack

Winter is coming
Moderator
Mentor
Nice twin engine wing! If you're looking for undercarriage ideas, check out the FT Cruiser build. It's essentially the same twin engine/power pod with wire formed foam gears.
 

Patrick

Member
Nice twin engine wing! If you're looking for undercarriage ideas, check out the FT Cruiser build. It's essentially the same twin engine/power pod with wire formed foam gears.
Oh, duh, thanks. It's already been done and expertly presented even. I forgot about the small cruiser because I wrote it off as too complicated for me at one point due to its twin engines. Cool, now I'm confident it will roll down the runway at least!
 

MEGAjig

Member
How in the world do you figure out the CG for something like that?

It looks awesome so far. I bet it could carry a kitten on top.

Looking forward to the maiden video. Good luck.
 

engineer

Senior Member
How in the world do you figure out the CG for something like that?

I may be wrong, but I think find the center of pressure first, then make sure CG is in front of that. I think CP can be calculated like finding center of mass in geometry.
The first post shows a full plan w full dimensions, so I calculated it. It's a little hard to explain in one post, but I added up the area of each shape, multiplied each area by their individual positions of center relative to the front edge, added THAT up, and divided by total area. I get CP at 42.6 behind the the nose, so CG should be ahead of that.
 

engineer

Senior Member
I made a few assumptions (flat plate, negligible bernoulli's), consider air as constant distributed force, balanced the moments relative to the leading edge (tabulated each rectangle and triangle from the plan). My thought is that if the CG was on CP, if you drop the airframe, it'd fall without changing orientation. It was a bunch of years ago since I did anything like that, but it felt right, and the number was in the right ballpark.
 

engineer

Senior Member
Ok, Down to the math! (I hope this wasn't Patrick's homework... if so, Spoiler alert! Show your work! And all that!)

So i divided the frame in half, since symmetric, each half will have same CP (in the direction that matters). I started at the top with the rectangle/nose (15x40=600), The center of the area is 20 from the leading edge, the effective moment is a unit force (1 pressure/area) x Area (600) x Distance to edge (20) = 12000 Force-Distances @ leading edge.
Same goes for each shape down the line. (ex, next shape is triangle 40x55/2 =1100 area acting at the 1/3rd point (40 x 2/3 = 26.66 from the leading edge, adds to moment of ~29326) and it goes down the line, making sure that the distance used is relative to the leading edge for each shape (next lower triangle is 30x50/2 at 50 distance which is 40+1/3 of 30).

After you have all the moments (torques), divide the resulting total moment @ leading edge by the total area (166785 Distance-Forces / 3920 Forces (1 force / area) = ~42.55 distances.
 

MEGAjig

Member
After reading all that I would just strap some weights on it and guess / estimate where the CG should be and toss it into some high grass. Keep trying until it glides nicely and see where it balances. Not the prettiest method but my BA in Economics does not come in handy calculating the CG of a radical wing design. If I ever have a wing that needs CGing I know who to turn to :)
 

engineer

Senior Member
Hahaha, that was mostly for earthsciteach! (Its a good idea to keep your audience in mind when writing, he's got an engineering degree, so he probably got all that.)
Typical flying wings have many calculators available, but this one was a little more complicated. The one earlier referenced is pretty great, but not sure exactly how to use it for this purpose.

But, if you do have a complicated wing shape and REALLY want to do MATH instead of tossing it a few times, let me know and I'll be happy to help!
 

earthsciteach

Moderator
Moderator
So you estimated the Cp at the centroids of each given shape and took a weighted average. It prob does a reasonable job, but do you feel it is adequate in terms of the pressure distribution over the airfoil profile? This makes sense from a Newton's 3rd perspective. But, can you safely discount the pressure distribution caused by Bernoulli's?

Sorry... I get REALLY excited about these kinds of conversations! :D
 

engineer

Senior Member
I totally get it, earthsci! I don't work in my field of study anymore, so i'm really excited to talk about stuff like this. My degree is in civil engineering, but the common curriculum in the engineering dept went through sophomore year. My specialty was structural, so distributed loading and analysis of beams (read: "wings") looks like math I've done. BUT, I only required to go through Fluid Mechanics 1 (laminar flow and hydraulic calculation mostly within pipes), so my understanding of fluids/air not in pipe and how that generates lower pressure above the wing, is a bit weaker. However, with foamboard, there's a lot of flying things that don't really scale up, and a lot of the time, people are looking for that slow-fly. I think (just gut-feeling here) that Newton's governs more of RC flight in general (until reaching some scale speed, which will be different depending on what the model's build material is).

So with that being said, I'm pretty sure the internet calculators for flying wings also don't look at airfoil profiles when calculating CG. I'm confident that it will be "close enough" (read, within an order of magnitude, lol!).
 
Last edited:

adamd

skunkworx hobbies
So with that being said, I'm pretty sure the internet calculators for flying wings also don't look at airfoil profiles when calculating CG. I'm confident that it will be "close enough" (read, within an order of magnitude, lol!).

I was just about to say this! Though it is a great place to get a ballpark on the cg, at the end of the day I just end up sliding battery's and/or adding penny's ;)
 

earthsciteach

Moderator
Moderator
100% agreed engineer and adamd. I find that the flying wing calculator predicts the cg to be too far rearward. And, I also agree that Newton's 3rd governs far more of rc flight than previously thought.

Are you taking the Cp to be same as CL? Just wondering.
 

engineer

Senior Member
"too far rearward"? Interesting and good to know! Sometimes all the math in the world doesn't mean as much as experience!

Hmm, I'm still admittedly new to rc and flight, so I'd not really figured CL in relation to CP or CG... My guess is that CL would be best right ON the CG, so that level flight doesn't cause changes in pitch. Don't know how I'd calculate the true CP or CL though.

I'm sure the argument could be made that CP and CL are the same, so maybe "CP" wasn't the right label. Maybe "Center of Alpha-based Air Deflection"? Or "Low Speed Air Moment Location on a Wing"? Hahahah! I'm sure there's a better-funnier one to be made!
 

earthsciteach

Moderator
Moderator
CP behind CG is a very "rocket scientist" type thing. It is critical for stable rocket flight. For airplanes, the real determining factor is the neutral point. This is the point about which all moments sum to zero while in level flight. The cg can be ahead of or behind the NP depending on the configuration of the plane. Most often, the cg is slightly forward of the neutral point. The rule of thumb that is used most often is the cg should be slightly forward of the center of lift (CL) which can be assumed to be at 1/2 the wing chord. Therefore, a cg placement at 1/4 wing chord is usually close enough to get you flying for a conventional, rc airplane.