On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hmm, (I'm guessing here), but I would think it would not matter where the > cg was located vertically. The CG is generally checked horizontally on the > underside of the wing surface only. If it's balanced correctly what > difference could it make? > The only detrimental thing about a low wing is the loss of stability > through packing a fuselage rather than carrying one. But couldn't you > increase the dihedral enough to make up for it anyway?
I think you could *decrease* dihedral, and this is why: if roll is normally gained by the increase in lift on the outside wing, then, on a less stable (read: changes attitude faster) plane, it will roll faster. To compensate, the dihedral should be less. It can't be zero, of course, because then there would be no roll to start with. > Good discussion, I'm scratch building one here myself, and had been > thinking about ways to keep the tail section from trailing through the > wing vortices. That was my thought. Also, cooler. I've seen some slope racers that have a low wing (I'm looking through my ooold RCSDs fromthe 80s that someone gave me and I see a couple; one called Penetrator, one called the Song Bird, another called Slopar, ...damn, I think the one I really liked was in a book I no longer have.), and I think that the low fuse may be prevalent because of the javlin throw and the necessity to have something to hold. The fact that this isn't widely done, though, leads me to feel not that it's not a good idea, but that it *may* not be, and it would be good to proceed with caution. Dammit, tomorrow will be a beautiful flying day, and me with nothing to fly. -J RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
