I took another shot at designing a fixed wing. I don't have any serious plans with it yet. Just a design experiment like my last one wich turned out to be all looks and no efficiency. This one is a flying wing design. And again, I have no clue and need some expert advice. As of now it has a 2.5 meter wingspan run by a 13" pusher prop. I think that may be too small? The cutout for the motor is 40mm, I thought that may cover all the size motors that it could run on. It has an internal front mounted tilt camera similar to my quad design. The slit in the front allows a 17° tilt up and 90° tilt down. I posted lots of pics because it's kinda hard to perceive its form due to its streamlined shape. But don't let the shape fool you, it has a payload bay thats 10cm at its deepest point, 20cm wide and 45 cm long.

I'd like too add that I was inspired to go through with this by very motivating dialogue with Curt Olson who built the Resolution. Great guy, great machine!

Views: 26989

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You talking about the big green P40? That was before my time, but if you have specific questions I can dig up more on it. 

Yes, the P40.

I have already been in contact with Seeop about this many moons ago.

Those are indEEd BIG bIRRRds! And beautiful :-)

This is a really nice looking model, the latest C4D does great renders.

Love the look of the transparent wing image.

Saw a similar project on here called the Viper X-10 which also looks pretty bad ass but not quite as slick as this thing.

I think the vent for the motor and ESC cooling is a good idea.

Im in the process of designing a long range drone and am wondering why most of the designs on the market look like bricks with wings?

I have an industrial design background but no experience in aircraft design.

Personally I would have thought the best design would be a powered glider setup with a large wingspan and removable payloads that are plug and play.

Attachments:

never make a flying wing unless there is a compelling reason that excludes a conventional layout...

 

the efficiency loss isn't worth it if you are concerned with endurance...

Absolutely right

I agree, but in my experience wings seem to handle gusts of wind better then a traditional setup. So it might be worth the effort for specialized stuff. And they do look much more sexy then flying planks. :)

A flying wing is *less* efficient?  I thought they were more efficient?  Or are you saying that it's not worth all the other problems just to gain the efficiency?

for flying machines that don't have peculiar requirements, (like limited wingspan, high subsonic/transonic/super sonic speeds, RCS etc) anything that doesn't look like an open class sailplane is not optimized for endurance or range.

a long slender tailboom with a small tail on it (vertical and horizontal) is less overall drag particularly when weighed against the loss of lift suffered by a flying wing due to sweep/twist or a reflexed airfoil....

 

when I see the germans creating flying wings that are beating out the conventional configuration, I will believe that threshold has been crossed.

@Richard: Thank you for your kind words. I tend to agree concerning design. I like an equilibrium between form and function without one compromising the other. Not an easy task.

@Mike: Thank you for your input. A flying wing design was the only option for its deployment purpose. And the things you mention are actually the focus of the current stage of development. A scientific study possibly and ironically assisted by a German university.

So... you're saying that a conventional setup is more efficient except in extreme circumstances?  Interesting.

Then why does it seem like so many UAV people are into flying wings?

Because they are simple

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service