Gary
One of the reasons I wanted to try a low aspect ratio A-6 is that it has always seemed like the big spars that A-6 requires will really mess up the airfoil on a skinny wing. It would be an uneducated guess on my part that this could be causing the effect that you're seeing.
----- Original Message -----
From: Warthodson_at_aol.com
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] A-6 design variables
Bill,
That is the way I use it too.
But some of the changes that produce positive results theoretically, for
example changing wing airfoil from 4% to 2% camber & changing stab airfoil from 2%
to 4% camber, don't work for me.
Gary
In a message dated 3/18/2006 3:58:36 PM Central Standard Time,
wdgowen_at_earthlink.net writes:
Gary
From what others have told me, Bernie's program was pretty specific for 65cm
F1D. I still use it to compare the effects of changes to a design. I figure if
a change produces a positive result in the program it might be beneficial in
real life. When it tells me that my PP will do 25 minutes I don't necessarily
put much stock in that.
The program is a pretty good tool for predicting stability. A big negative
number for the static stability margin can mean the model will be difficult to
trim.
Bill Gowen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SPONSORED LINKS Radio controlled Power source Aircraft
Flying Newcomers Outside
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "Indoor_Construction" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Indoor_Construction-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on Sun Mar 19 2006 - 13:02:13 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:44 CET