1st- Yes. Be at the same scale isn't everything.
2nd- No. The chord is to big for that separation. The best solution is to put the second wing at a upper level. (The turbulence usually goes down.) Like quickie.
Another thing: some times, at some climbing rate, the first wing can produce a 'shadow' of turbolence that make the wings behind with the no control (or lift). That's why the biplanes are so used. They are safer in that aspect.
This is a very important discussion. We have a lot to learn here.
With all due respect to everyone here, as far as efficiency goes, this design was first adopted by Burt Rutan with the Quickie aircraft. That aircraft is arguably the most efficient plane he ever put on the market. I am not saying that I know anything about how efficient this aircraft is or is not, but My Quickie is VERY efficient, and Stable. I don't know the answer to these questions but Burt makes some cool planes and he knows allot about efficiency. My guess is that if it is less efficient than another, its not by much and it makes up for it in stability.
Just My thoughts.
Proteus is a very different design... Just compare the distance between the two wings and the chords... The turbolence from the first wing is not so big( because of the aspect ratio), and it's almost gone when the air reaches the second wing.
And by the way, Proteus is awsome....
Would be interesting to know what the patent covers on this plane. Before anyone goes out and tries to copy it or anything.
Also, it would be interesting to see some detailed specs on the plane. I read the website info and fot the impression autonomous flight was possible, but didn't real get the feeling it was included as part of the standard package for this plane.
I think I got a quote on this a couple years ago and the pricing was up there (60,000 rings a bell). Not sure though.
It is a nice looking plane that looks like it should have lots of lift, but hard to judge even the scale of the plane.
@Tj - Thanks for your explanation. Now I understood your point. Maybe Rutan used a lot of resources to achieve that results.
I don't believe that those guys with a lot of technical resources and money doesn't test his designs in a virtual or real wind-tunnel or something like that. So is very ingenuous by our part to look at one photo and say "this is not efficient". Of course you can say "it's hard to achieve a optimal setup with that kind of design, especially on my backyard or limited lab". But that's the point of a forum like this. I didn't knew that things. I didn't knew the existence of that hard way to tuning it. Now, I know that. :p A lot of learning here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Proteus
You can have an efficient airframe using a setup like the dragon fly but you need to get the rear wing clear of the wash from the front. If you want to play with some fun designs that also are efficient look at some of Burt Rutans designs. I do really like the starship that beachcraft made.
Comments
2nd- No. The chord is to big for that separation. The best solution is to put the second wing at a upper level. (The turbulence usually goes down.) Like quickie.
Another thing: some times, at some climbing rate, the first wing can produce a 'shadow' of turbolence that make the wings behind with the no control (or lift). That's why the biplanes are so used. They are safer in that aspect.
This is a very important discussion. We have a lot to learn here.
Is the seperation of the wings enough to minimize effects due to turbulence, at the scale of the Tango?
Just throwing these out there, one assumes that the Tango must be stable and somewhat efficient as it is commercially available.
Just My thoughts.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1944/1944%20-%200854.html
And by the way, Proteus is awsome....
Also, it would be interesting to see some detailed specs on the plane. I read the website info and fot the impression autonomous flight was possible, but didn't real get the feeling it was included as part of the standard package for this plane.
I think I got a quote on this a couple years ago and the pricing was up there (60,000 rings a bell). Not sure though.
It is a nice looking plane that looks like it should have lots of lift, but hard to judge even the scale of the plane.
I don't believe that those guys with a lot of technical resources and money doesn't test his designs in a virtual or real wind-tunnel or something like that. So is very ingenuous by our part to look at one photo and say "this is not efficient". Of course you can say "it's hard to achieve a optimal setup with that kind of design, especially on my backyard or limited lab". But that's the point of a forum like this. I didn't knew that things. I didn't knew the existence of that hard way to tuning it. Now, I know that. :p A lot of learning here.
You can have an efficient airframe using a setup like the dragon fly but you need to get the rear wing clear of the wash from the front. If you want to play with some fun designs that also are efficient look at some of Burt Rutans designs. I do really like the starship that beachcraft made.