hi
just off subject for a second.
that idea of a plank flying wing using my carbon dragon wings......well i was thinking last night it may work with out a fin/rudder.
i remember being curious as to why a paraglider is stable in yaw with out a fin/rudder.so i went looking for the reason...what i came up with was that the centre of mass was ahead of the centre of drag....basically there seemed to be moor drag behind the pilot than in front of him so the aircraft tracks.

two questions.1 did i find the correct answer for why a paraglider is stable in yaw?
2 well i guess i need question 1 answered first.


On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Kenny Andersen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:


well, the trick is taking advantage of the way the free-body diagrams of the beam works.


I went to the Arc site tonight and down-loaded every pic I could get my grubby little hands on. Interestingly enough, they, for whatever reason have gravitated toward the basic configuration I was suggesting which was kind of a 'box' with the tail attach and the 'pod' attached and the wing split at the center -- it kind of makes sense. I will say they've come up with some interesting solutions! And it is quite an elegant little ship to be sure -- I didn't see any plywood...


I'll be looking at those for several days! One thing though, the way they got the flaps set up was pretty interesting and didn't look too terribly complicated. In some ways it would be easier than flaperons as there is no mixing...


I think they are using the same stuff on those leasing edges as the Axel -- that stuff might should be checked out -- I wish their site (composite manufacturer) had more information on that.


--- On Wed, 3/28/12, KarlS <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:


From: KarlS <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: 3-piece wing
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2012, 7:39 AM




Understood. Thanks Kenny. Yes you are right the pilot overstressed the airframe.

I still think a continuous spar/d tube running through the highest load point could be better. Just my personal opinion.

Karl

--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Kenny Andersen wrote:
>

> there is nothing that says the 3 piece, or the 2-piece wing will be stronger, that's just a matter of how it is sized. Now, one may, in the end, be lighter, but no reason one should be any stronger than the other. Also, if I remember correctly, the failure came as a result of pilot-induced over load (even according to the pilot! As I said earlier, before realizing that they had switched to a 2-piece wing, I do think that should be lighter for the same strength.,_._,___