The answer might very well come out differently. If it looks good, then save the project file again.ĭo not by default believe data the program produces! Look at the data - if it makes no sense, then it makes no sense! Delete it, close the program, re-open it, and repeat just that analysis. Close XFLR5, and re-open on that project file. When XFLR5 is screwing up on polars, I find it best to delete all polars for the target airfoil and save the project file. If instead one closes the program and re-opens it, and does the same batch analysis, one gets Type-I polars. Needless to say, this completely screws any wing analysis done using these polars. Now if one runs a batch analysis for Type-I polars on the same foil, one gets Type-II polars labeled and identified as Type-I. If one defines an analysis for a Type-II polar and then runs it, one gets a Type-II polar. Suppose one launches XFLR5 and goes to Direct Analysis. It is a bug everyone using XFLR5 should be on the lookout for. I've wasted a few days of analysis - again - bacause of a bug in XFLR5. I'd like to keep the thread slightly more on track. The peg has to retract before the wings unfold to stay within the span limit, right?-) I just had another idea - fold the wings underneath and then add the retracting launch peg to get back to full "span" for launch. Hopefully, some of you will respond with a picture of these things already implemented!-) Something sort of combining the above ideas is to have the fuselage mounted to a plate or bar that is hinged about half way out towards the outer tip so that it flaps or is put over there for launch and then flips back to center and locks for flight. This could probably happen automatically with the right weight spring so that the fuselage would move out during launch rotation, then the spring would slide it back to center immediately after launch. Both wings could have pegs.Īnother idea is to have the fuselage slide along the wing so that most of the mass is at a greater radius. One idea is to have a low wing plane where the non-throw wing folds under to lie flat with the other wing. I am not sure it is legal - I expect DLG has a few rules other than just a span limit. The simplest thing, having a launch peg that slides out of the wing, is probably illegal since it increases the span. That is very cool! There is so much neat stuff going on with airplanes! Plus, in the case of a DLG, I suspect you'd be reducing launch height with reduction in throwing arm length.Īll that being said, keep the ideas coming. At least for me, it isn't fun (try more like a headache). Complexity, weight, lost stiffness/structure, I could go on. Others use t-blades that are solid carbon, still others solid G10 like on the XXLite.Īs to your scissors idea.I've spent the better part of a year working on that at the office. This is on a design (2012) that has "fat" tips compared with 2014 tech. By the time I'm done, I have 6 layers of carbon in my tips, and there isn't room for much more. We're already pretty close to solid carbon at the tips, at least I am. Now I am thinking the best DLG solution is to make the wings fold back like scissors to reduce wetted surface and sling the thing up by a peg on the tail - better have a pretty fool proof wing extension system for that one !-) Would the gain in aerodynamics warrant trying something like that? It seems that with a solid carbon or Kevlar plate it would be possible to make a very thin tip that could still carry and spread the launch peg loads adequately. Thanks everyone for all the great answers! I am learning a lot about airplanes here.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |