My gut feel is it would work. Torsional stability via the yellow members.
groups.yahoo.com/group/Carbondragonbuild...inal&start=1&dir=asc
Only the center section would be constant cord. Size the cord to equal the the cd area or you could build taper in with the leading edge and flap. The arc is constant cord for the center section.
As far as the negative flap.. room could be left between the boom and flap to allow a couple degrees of negative if needed.
Does the current CD flaps go negative?
Karl
--- In
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Kenny Andersen
wrote:
>
> well, the problem is that some things don't scale well. I've actually been thinking of a way to do a truss, but the upper cap still had to be stable, so when I'm modelling that I can look to see how much inertia is required for that section, and see if it can be made weight efficient. With this really light structure, it's often not a problems with strength, but with stability. With heavier structure, you usually get stavility, but just need strength (not always, but generally)
> A sinusoidal composite spar would be cool as well, but dang! It would be a manufacturing nightmare; so, the are a few things that need to be balanced.-- especially manufacturing, though, for instance, a constant cord wing would probably cost you too much weight.
> I do like you flap idea. Is there any reason the flap would need to go up beyond 0 deg?
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 3/22/12, KarlS <kschneider@...> wrote:
>
> From: KarlS <kschneider@...>
> Subject: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: CDII 3-part wing
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Date: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 5:12 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Does anybody else see a center section of the wing? This is more or less the concept to build the wing on I was thinking. Simple it is?
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> groups.yahoo.com/group/Carbondragonbuild...inal&start=1&dir=asc
>
>
>
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., "KarlS" wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I suppose it would require some rigging but it would depend on how far you took it apart. The young lady and gent did it on a slope.
>
> >
>
> > Pip pins and fork connectors wouldn't take that long. The tail boom could be pip pinned on as well if it was in a fork configuration and slid up onto the wing center section.
>
> >
>
> > You could do partial tear downs like the photo of the Mitchell A10 on the trailer I posted.
>
> >
>
> > Design folding wings and you're talking even faster.
>
> >
>
> > Here's a couple good shots of the dihedral and possibly some washout.
>
> >
>
> > groups.yahoo.com/group/Carbondragonbuild...inal&start=1&dir=asc
>
> >
>
> > and
>
> >
>
> > groups.yahoo.com/group/Carbondragonbuild...inal&start=1&dir=asc
>
> >
>
> > Karl
>
> >
>
> > --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Kenny Andersen wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > Right, so if you wanted to put a little dihedral you could do it at the joints outboard joints rather than at the center. In the end, I think the 3-piece wing would likely be a bit lighter, but then wouldn't you want the boom to disassemble? THat makes storing the wing a little more diffidult if you don't. I know the Arc separates the boom form the center section, which means you have to rig the controls every time you hook it up, no? 