Stable wing designs

[fychan]

I thought about building the Stuka next, because I thought with the gull wing design it'd be super stable & a good learner aircraft...

But when someone in my office asked what benefit the gull wing gave I realised I had no idea - so I wiki'd it. It turns out that the gull wing does not add any stability - and in fact has a reduced stability over a standard dihedral wing design. They were generally added to naval aircraft to add support for the landing gear which takes a bashing on moving decks, and the reverse gull wing design was used on sea planes to keep the engines as far from the water as possible. So that shot down my idea of a nice learner craft.

Anyone got any suggestions of a WWII plane that is suitable for RC conversion & that's gonna be easy to fly?

[lenard]

Didn't Guillows use to make a Fiesler Storch? Probably hard to find now and I have no idea what size they are.

[supercruiser]

That inverted gull wing also gave better ground clearance for a big propeller while keeping the landing short-- to save weight. For instance, the Corsair. That plane has a 14 foot + diameter prop, imagine if it had a straight wing how heavy and long the gear struts would be.
My recommendation for a WWII aircraft kit would be the Hellcat (the one with 30" span) for r/c. The Avenger(500 series) would be a good flier but, I think it's a little small for an r/c conversion.

[Daniel, a scratchbuilder]

I suggest building and designing your own planes. Like I do!!!!

Daniel.

[cdwheatley]

Daniel, I appreciate that you are a very enthusiastic and knowledgeable scratch builder, but I think you might find that your quest to convince other members of this forum to join you will fall on deaf ears. I may be wrong, but I would imagine that most people who post here have neither the time nor the inclination to design and/or build a model from scratch. I, for one, am quite content to carry on building my Guillow's kits and indeed gain great pleasure and satisfaction from doing so. So can we please have no more similar 'suggestions', thank you.

[Daniel, a scratchbuilder]

Daniel, I appreciate that you are a very enthusiastic and knowledgeable scratch builder, but I think you might find that your quest to convince other members of this forum to join you will fall on deaf ears. I may be wrong, but I would imagine that most people who post here have neither the time nor the inclination to design and/or build a model from scratch. I, for one, am quite content to carry on building my Guillow's kits and indeed gain great pleasure and satisfaction from doing so. So can we please have no more similar 'suggestions', thank you.

Ok, I appreciate that. Carry on those Guillow's kits!!!!! I'm building/designing my own model aircraft (airplanes) just to test my new ideas not at a great expense and to gain aerodynamical data. I'm studying for aircraft (airplane) designing and for business- I will make my own aircraft (airplane) company.

Daniel

[fychan]

I may one day be tempted to build my own design - however, without the benefit of an aeronautical background or training, I'd have to start with the old 3 planks of shaped wood (like the cheap polystyrene things that were so popular when I was a kid, with a clear plastic nose weight & blue prop ) and work up from there.

Not only will working on Guillows kits save me a lot of time and effort on building planes that would never fly no matter how perfectly crafted they were, it will also (hopefully) teach me some common factors in planes that fly (wing area ratios etc).

Funnily enough the New Scientist article I quoted in the laminar airflow thread has some intriguing designs, including an almost bi-plane idea where the tail wings sweep up and over and forward to become struts foR bracing the main wings - to keep the strength and reduce the weight - with the ide benefit of increasing lift - Looks a very col design, and one I might be tempted to try building at some point - but not until I'm satisfied I can consistently get planes that were designed to fly to fly... if you follow me

Hence my original Q about the stable wing design - as a place to start and build my confidence

[Daniel, a scratchbuilder]

I may one day be tempted to build my own design - however, without the benefit of an aeronautical background or training, I'd have to start with the old 3 planks of shaped wood (like the cheap polystyrene things that were so popular when I was a kid, with a clear plastic nose weight & blue prop ) and work up from there.

Not only will working on Guillows kits save me a lot of time and effort on building planes that would never fly no matter how perfectly crafted they were, it will also (hopefully) teach me some common factors in planes that fly (wing area ratios etc).

Funnily enough the New Scientist article I quoted in the laminar airflow thread has some intriguing designs, including an almost bi-plane idea where the tail wings sweep up and over and forward to become struts foR bracing the main wings - to keep the strength and reduce the weight - with the ide benefit of increasing lift - Looks a very col design, and one I might be tempted to try building at some point - but not until I'm satisfied I can consistently get planes that were designed to fly to fly... if you follow me

Hence my original Q about the stable wing design - as a place to start and build my confidence

What are you saying? I get all other stuff. But all the planes I designed and built myself flew very well, and even better then the kit ones. Of course, I do have aeronautical (airplane) engineering background, but I figure that to build your own well-flying model you don't need as much of it (unless you are designing the model for critical purposes- like I do)!!! All you need is some imagination and a litle knowledge of aerodynamical forces.

Dnaiel.