WHICH WING - REAR DELTA with FRONT CANARD?

Some questions ...............


I’m in the early stages of investigating different airframe possibilities – looking at the pros & cons of different layouts, shapes, sizes, wing profiles etc etc ……… which inevitably leads to a whole bunch of questions


Integrated Dynamics – a Pakistan company which manufactures UAV’s & Target Drones, has amongst their products a UAV called the NISHAN II - best described as a rear delta wing type wing setup with forward canards (have I described that correctly?). The NISHAN II airframe is also available with a turbine in place of the conventional piston/cylinder type engine.


What interests me about this design (and any other airframe with rear main wing and front canards) is a point noted by builders of a home made aircraft called the VELOCITY (which adopts a very similar wing layout), is: if velocity drops to stall speed (for whatever reasons), the airframe automatically drops its nose to avoid stalling i.e. as the nose drops the airframe will start to accelerate. As acceleration builds up, the airframe starts to level off ……..


I would imagine in a UAV scenario, with total power loss and in a passive mode (i.e. with no power to implement correction inputs of any sort) there is going to be a “yo-yo” type response to some degree i.e. a  "stall/nose drop/acceleration" cycle will keep repeating its self until the airframe gets back down to earth, at which point, depending on what point in the stall/nose drop/acceleration cycle the airframe is in when it touches the ground, the impact will vary from very mild force to max force (max been that combination of velocity and angle  that results in max force)………… (?) That of course is a worst case scenario - it shouldn't be to hard to setup a degree of independent powered correction, even if only to help a state of equlibrium to be arrived at, at which a balance between airframe attitude and speed can be arrived at to avoid the "stall/nose drop/acceleration" cycle repeating its self constantly down to ground level. But thats another issue altogether .......


Just how much speed has to be gained each time to level off is largely down to airframe COG and mass/weight distribution, and  how big the front canards are i.e. the larger the front canard for a given airframe mass/weight distribution the sooner it will level off ….. … and again, how accurate my understanding of all this is, is also another story (I’m sure there is considerably more to all this than  I am grasping?).  In other words, a model builder could tailor their UAV’s centre of gravity and mass/weight distribution to ensure whatever rate of recovery/response they felt appropriate (?)


My knowledge on aerodynamics & UAV model design is very poor at best - but any wing setup that results in an aircraft or model which looses power, to “automatically” fall into a recovery orientation as described above, has to be a rather cool solution/response to loss of power/stalling.


Now, all the above comments/questions are rhetorical (just ideas bouncing around my little brain), but before I throw loads of time into researching the viability of building a model along the above lines, I would be grateful if one of  you more experienced members on the forum could share an opinion on the general overall stability of airframes with the wing layout as described in these note (i.e. airframes with rear delta type wing & front canard)


The whole “automatic recovery” characteristics of  airframes with this sort of wing layout is one matter, but importantly at this stage for me is how stable do they tend to be (suitable for a video camera?)?

Do they tend to be setups that require constant input (autopilot or manual ) to keep on course/heading/orientation? The comparison of course is against conventional airframe layouts (i.e. airframes with large forward wing and small rear wing).


Any other general comment regards the suitability of this sort of layout for a flying model would also be appreciated.


Thanks guys


Patrick



 



 



 

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • There are some aerodynamic schemes and their tuning parameters to avoid stall. Integral fuselage, forward-swept wing, different wing profile from root to tips and so on. The "Canard" scheme more efficiently use the carrying surface - a canard generates an upload, in contrast to a conventional aft-tail which typically generates a download that must be counteracted by extra lift on the main wing. Also, the canard helps control the airflow on the wing, especially at high attack angles and low airspeed.
    These planes can be configured for stable "parachuting", without any climbing. So, the simplest scenery is to set failsafe to stop engine, deflect elevons maximum up and wait for landing, more or less soft :-)))
  • And canard or tandem wing configuration take more runway to take off - probably only mater more on full size airplane but there you go.
  • What you are referring to is called "static stability". Almost all aircraft (including conventional wing/horizontal tail) designs are stable. Some are barely stable (relaxed stability) and some designs are unstable. Any unstable aircraft requires constant control input to keep it flying.

    The advantage of a canard-delta design is that the canard produces lift while it provides stability. The horizontal stabilizer on a standard design actually pushes down. The downside of the canard is that it creates downwash on the wing which reduces its angle of attack.

    Some Aero-101 for ya.

    Tom
This reply was deleted.

Activity

Joseph Udofia liked Joseph Udofia's profile
Wednesday
DIY Robocars via Twitter
Jan 28
DIY Robocars via Twitter
RT @Heavy02011: ⁦@diyrobocars⁩ : A Home-brew computer club* for Connected Autonomous Driving. talk at #piandmore ⁦@PiAndMore⁩ on Jan 23rd h…
Jan 23
DIY Robocars via Twitter
RT @a1k0n: New blog post! Deep dive into my ceiling light based localization algorithm which runs in 1ms on a Raspberry Pi 3: https://t.co/…
Jan 23
DIY Robocars via Twitter
Great new guide to using @donkey_car https://custom-build-robots.com/donkey-car-e-book-en
Jan 23
DIY Robocars via Twitter
RT @chr1sa: The next @DIYRobocars virtual AI race is tomorrow morn at 9:00am PT. You can watch live on Twitch https://www.meetup.com/DIYRobocars/events/275268196/
Jan 22
DIY Robocars via Twitter
New version of Intel OpenBot! This resolves many of the issues with the first version, including a much smoother tr… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1352395636369313798
Jan 21
DIY Drones via Twitter
Using ArduRover with an RTK GPS https://ift.tt/2N9I3RO
Jan 18
DIY Drones via Twitter
Jan 18
DIY Robocars via Twitter
Jan 18
DIY Robocars via Twitter
Jan 15
DIY Robocars via Twitter
Jan 15
DIY Drones via Twitter
Jan 14
DIY Robocars via Twitter
RT @Heavy02011: @diyrobocars : A Home-brew computer club* for Connected Autonomous Driving on Jan 23rd, 2021 https://www.meetup.com/Connected-Autonomous-Driving/events/275728684/ #Meetu…
Jan 14
DIY Robocars via Twitter
Jan 14
DIY Robocars via Twitter
RT @Heavy02011: ⁦@diyrobocars⁩ Autonomous Driving Assembly at #rC3. join us at https://rc3.world/rc3/assembly/diyrobocars-f1tenth/ ⁦@f1tenth⁩ ⁦@DAVGtech⁩ ⁦@DWalmroth⁩…
Jan 11
More…