FlyingWings Cloud Horizon - Endurance wing

[skyscraper]

Well. It wont easily fit in my car (Saxo)  but then maybe I'm not the target market...

regards
Andy

[stevec]

I don't see why compromises would have to be made in a 2 piece design, or even easier 3 piece.
a CF tube sunk in the wing  near the trailing edge and one near the leading edge and then have a box fuselage that have corresponding CF rods sticking out of,then some way of connecting them with maybe a dowel sticking vertically up each side of the join, the only load the joining sytem is taking that it wouldn't normally is a couple of PSI holding the wings together all G forces would be on the spars...

it is very difficult to do it in a way different to what is already out there, but there don't seem to be many patents/ intellectual property rights observed in modelling anyway.

The Ritewing method is really neat but there are only so many ways you can join two wings together temporarily.

/Steve

[BlueFlyer]

I understand why people would want a 2 or 3 piece wing, but for me a 1 piece would be fine.... it would keep the costs down a lot, keep the build simple, keep the wing much stronger and I would feel much better about my aircraft if I knew it was permanently stuck together whilst in the air.

any fixtures/fittings used to temporarily keep the wings on would introduce areas for possible failure which simply won't be there if it was a one piece wing.

dont like a 1 piece 1.8m wing because it won't fit in your car? then don't buy one, no-one is forcing you.

Honestly, this would fit no problem in my 5 door civic with the seats down, I've had 2 part built skyhunters in the back of mine many a time, another 1.8m wing laid on top is no bother for me.

[stevec]

agreed but if there was an option to make it a 3 piece then it may make it feasible for more people, don't want a three piece wing ? don't buy the kit to make it a 3 piece... and just build it the old fashioned way.

If I could I'd make a 2 piece venturi. just simply because I would like to take it in my motorhome with me when we go away, and although I could get a 17 foot long wing into it, I don't think I'd get permission from the Mrs! however if it packs down into a pelicase size box then I can hide that under a seat in the motorhome!!;)

if the option was there then it would open up the market in a very limited sector of the hobby and make these things more cost effective to design and produce.

/Steve

[skyscraper]

A 3 piece would work best IMO. All the gear Vtx RcRx etc goes in the centre section, so no issues with connectors. You could put elevon servos in center scetion too so you only have a mechanical linkage to make or put elevon servos in outer sections, which means one servo connector to attach each side..
That is how I was planning to do my conventional 6 footer "one day"  anyway..

I'm suspecting  its just too difficult for the MK dream team to do it though.. :D  It would add weight though but 6ft is too big to be practical for me.. I'm having to think how to make a two piece fuz for my Aether for that reason... 

regards
Andy

[wgt40w]

Making tough decisions to avoid un-necessary compromise is sometimes the hardest part of the design process Andy.  ;)

Wrong - years of experience proves to me that:

It is far tougher for a designer to decide to include design compromises, so as to maximise sales/ profit potentials. 

[Ynot6]

although a bit big, i like the 1 piece method. i hate messing about setting up. my 330 quad goes in a case, with the props on, i just take it out, and fly it. my Y6 has to have the front arms set to their flight position and screws done up, to much faf. i'm going to re build with captive nuts to reduce set up. the only wing i've seen that i could put up with setting up and knocking down is the xeno. just pull a pin out and fold in half.

[Billy_boy_2010]

Making tough decisions to avoid un-necessary compromise is sometimes the hardest part of the design process Andy.  ;)

Wrong - years of experience proves to me that:

It is far tougher for a designer to decide to include design compromises, so as to maximise sales/ profit potentials.

I agree.

The designers and creators always resist compromise. But the marketing guys have the final word because they know what sells. Steve Jobs is perhaps the exception to this rule.

This isn't going to be a crazy high G force wing anyway is it? The strength advantages will be very low IMO.

Those who want a permenant wing and wish to reap the (relatively small) benefits of additional strength and reliability can glue a detachable wing together easily and forget about it. The only penalty they would pay would be a little more gorilla glue and the carbon sheath- 100g tops i reckon.

Those who want the detachable option can keep it detachable and everyones happy.

I like the idea of keeping the servos in the centre section to reduce wiring- but as this is an efficient wing the motor is likely to be a low kv and the prop v large- so the control rods would need to be at a fair angle outwards to touch the (far apart) elevons. The mechanical disadvantage would be high.

[Brucey]

Did no one read the bit where Neil said it fits in the back of a golf? That's fairly portable in my book. Not like you need a yank tank to move this thing around!

[BlueFlyer]

I see having the servos in the centre section completely pointless... all for what? to avoid connecting 2 x servo plugs?

what would be the alternative? connecting 2 x mechanical linkages?

Either way there would be some "connection" of some sort, just keep it simple and leave the servos on the wings.

[Billy_boy_2010]

Did no one read the bit where Neil said it fits in the back of a golf? That's fairly portable in my book. Not like you need a yank tank to move this thing around!

Golf's aren't small cars. And his would be a hatchback. With the rear seats folded down. That means

anyone with a saloon- no chance

smaller hatchbacks- no chance

more than two people in the car- no chance

Any other luggage (unless travelling alone and you put it on the passenger seat- no chance

My 60" wing is pretty unwieldy but just about fits across the back seats of my 3 series estate. Another 10" would need the seats down which is very awkward.

IME bigger wings are flown far less frequently because they are just a pita. Making it collapsible (but easy to be glued permanently) would increase its market vastly imo and won't put off the purists. 

[skyscraper]

I see having the servos in the centre section completely pointless... all for what? to avoid connecting 2 x servo plugs?

what would be the alternative? connecting 2 x mechanical linkages?

Either way there would be some "connection" of some sort, just keep it simple and leave the servos on the wings.

I prefer repeatedely connecting and disconnecting mechanical linkages ( servo clevises) than repeatedly connecting and disconnectig electrical ones, since you can feel if they are knackered nd they will better handle rain ( or you have to think about waterproof connectors) But to get the linkages you might have to make some design compromises.. either lengthen the elevons, make them torsionally stiff , fit torque rods etc.

Anyway If its a one piece wing, it will be lighter but less practical. Mind you for a 6 footer I prob wouldnt have a wing anyway.. A conventional layout is proven to always be more efficient.

regards
Andy

[Billy_boy_2010]

I see having the servos in the centre section completely pointless... all for what? to avoid connecting 2 x servo plugs?

what would be the alternative? connecting 2 x mechanical linkages?

Either way there would be some "connection" of some sort, just keep it simple and leave the servos on the wings.

Anyway If its a one piece wing, it will be lighter but less practical. Mind you for a 6 footer I prob wouldnt have a wing anyway.. A conventional layout is proven to always be more efficient.

That's an interesting point and one I have read elsewhere before.

Also given perhaps one of the bigger advantages of a wing- it's broad speed envelope- will also be less useful on an endurance plane- just what advantages does a large wing have over a large plane?

More robust
Better able to cope with wind- either greater stability in a crosswind or improved headwind penetration

Anything else?

I would love to see a comparison between this wing and a skyhunter with identical motors. Slowest speed, optimum cruising speed and handling characteristics with say 40k of battery onboard.

[Brucey]

The other advantage is quicker to assemble because there is no assembly! ;D

[Billy_boy_2010]

Ha that's certainly true! There would be nothing more annoying than forgetting a carbon spar either