This is fly-able. It will pull left on take-off roll. In flight it slowly rolls right. It is manageable.
The take-off issue can be fixed by rearranging the landing gear.
The tail mount needs to be on the line of thrust.
The main mounts need to be on the wing to be balanced. They need to be on the same line perpendicular to the line of thrust. They should be mounted to parts of the aircraft that are at the same hight from the ground, to avoid inducing roll while weight-on-wheels. The main mounts should be equidistant from the line of thrust.
This should lessen the pull on roll out up until the tail lifts from the ground. Then the asymmetric drag hits. Be ready to adjust rudder position(yaw).
The slow roll is easily fixed by applying dead weight to the port side fuselage. It seems counter intuitive, but the CoM must be slightly to port of CoL. The port side of the wing has the same amount of lift, but more leverage than the starboard wing. I am basing the wings on CoL, not on their wing bases.
To fully balance the roll, leverage rears its head, again. 50 lbs of mass in the port forward fuselage will have more affect on roll than the same 50 lbs placed in the port aft fuselage. The forward section is farther to port than the aft section, so it has more leverage on the roll axis.
It should take no more than 200 lbs of dead weight to balance the roll, and, done correctly, the pitch as well. The trick is in finding the magic mass split for the different port fuselage sections.
You might find flight easier if you reduce the size of the ailerons(roll control surfaces). Leave the pitch control surfaces as they are. They are set for looping.
Specifications
Spotlights
- CoBros2 7.1 years ago
- TigerEye35 7.1 years ago
General Characteristics
- Predecessor 22 Part Challenge
- Successors 2 airplane(s) +7 bonus
- Created On Android
- Wingspan 25.6ft (7.8m)
- Length 33.0ft (10.0m)
- Height 11.4ft (3.5m)
- Empty Weight 2,591lbs (1,175kg)
- Loaded Weight 3,932lbs (1,783kg)
Performance
- Horse Power/Weight Ratio 0.127
- Wing Loading 14.8lbs/ft2 (72.2kg/m2)
- Wing Area 265.7ft2 (24.7m2)
- Drag Points 1863
Parts
- Number of Parts 20
- Control Surfaces 5
- Performance Cost 202
Thank You, @napkin7
But it does have some problems that I have never fully addressed.
Wow, this is really cool. Amazing how stable it is! Great work
Thank You, 4, @Wpieter
@ProvingMars I never knew that, thank you for that piece of history! :)
@horizoneer Mr Ponds wanted to save the few remaining P-51's.
Correction: (That is Mr Pond [no 's'], but it is the Ponds Racer [with an 's'])
@horizoneer ..be original. That is the best answer. Before WWII the best new ideas in aircraft were coming from the air racing circuit. New, original, pushing-the-limits ideas. After WWII, with so much excess military hardware to be had, new development in propeller driven aircraft stagnated. Most racers were variations of the P-51 Mustang. One Gentleman, I think in the ninties, tried to change that. If you want more info on that look up the Ponds Racer.
@ProvingMars YEA SO LET'S ALL MAKE CRAZY PLANES, NO MORE EXACT REPLICAS UP IN HERE GUYS!!!!!
@Maxwell1 lol
Yes... err... noice...@horizoneer
@horizoneer As I commented below,.. why be normal?
@Maxwell1 noice
Pardon my french, but dafuq
Ahh. Wish the U.S. film industry wasn't so high in the 70's...
Also, you're very welcome.@ProvingMars
Thank you for clarifying that matter @Maxwell1 . Ms Fisher would not have gone without the very best.
No no no no no. It can't be cocane. It's probably what Carrie Fisher smoked in the 70's.@CWhat016
Indeed my logic defying wizard friend.@ProvingMars
@Moronindustries Thank you. I did forget to put the logic in the description. My logic was 1.) to comform to a challenge (22 parts or less) 2.) Be different. Asymmetrical everything with the cockpit (and it's mass) fully to starboard. 3.) Make it fly, without compromising my initial design concept. - I failed. The v.stab. is mounted to starboard , not port. And is nearly verticle. BUT, it does fly.
Must've smoked a cocaine xD @Moronindustries @Maxwell1 @ProvingMars
@Maxwell1 Why be normal?
Logic? Where we're going... we don't need logic.
Modern art in a nutshell...
What logic!??!