airnico

Tony, I'm very sad to see that you are really going this way....

this is what happens everytime you walk on a different way: everybody else walking on the opposite direction says "hey, you are going the wrong way..."

as the radius increases going from the L.E. to the T.E. where is the right point to measure it? should the radius be 12"(as indicated by Marc) at the center of the spar cap?

there's not really a lot about the savier airfoil on the net. the wind tunnel test was interesting but I'm still not satisfied. what is the reason this airfoil was generated?I have read on CP that the roncz airfoil has not to be used on a Veri because it produces too much lift: did Klaus modify it to let it work with the Veri's wing or was he looking for even more performance? I mean: the savier airfoil was developed(if I understand correctly) to be used on Klaus' Veri, not on a long-Ez so at the end is this airfoil superior to a standard Roncz in terms of drag or lift or just in the middle between a Roncz and a GU so that it was possible to put it on a Veri remaining far from a deep stall? do the savier airfoil overcome the GU or the Roncz airfoil?

I was not refferring to the nose, it's quite simple to put the nose tip on the centerline, the hardest thing on a rounded fuselage is to get exactly the same left/right curvature(3 axes)from the firewall to the nose tip. somewhere you could find that your fuselage is larger on left or on right and it's difficult to correct it because you have a shape that is rounded on all the 3 dimensions and when you make a change on 1 axis you change all the 3. do you remember the rubik's cube? you try to adjust a face and you mess all the others.... Tony, great job fixing the cowl and great job with the new one!!!!

Tony, you report a difference in the cowl symmetry: did you also check the fuselage for left/right symmetry? building a rounded fuselage I found that this is one of the most time consuming aspect of the job and although I'm using a professional automotive bench I see that it's almost impossible to do better than a 1 millimeter clearance(difference) between left and right. this is basically due to the fact that every measurement that you take on a curved surface can have a small error and half millimeter on the right side and half on the left side give you a total of 1 millimeter error that I do not think to be really influent on my aircraft behaviour but nevertheless make me scratch my head. do you think the berkut is perfectly symmetrical? to know that the berkut has this kind of problems too makes me more comfortable......

and this is even more shocking..... do you think he'll develop a new toy or is he going to quit at all?

just visited their website: did they really buy the company just to convert the berkut in a UAV???

A lot of fun!! I definitely want to have one! where can I find plans to build it??

ok the picture is really clear!

wow, thank you! I blended the wing root into the fuselage with a radius of 3,75", it's nice to see, but following the 10% rule the radius should be more or less twice, that means that it should involve the canopy in the upper part of the wing. I wonder if this radiused junction is a good thing for flow separation or creates especially on the leading edge a lateral airflow running spanwise messing up the adiacent airflow: this is why I'm undecided on blending the wing root/fuselage intersection. the strake is not an airfoil so there would be no lift loss but I'm afraid that the airflow separation could be worse.

I'm wondering about the right shape to give to the fuselage/wing junction to minimize drag. a general concept says that the fuselage portion that crosses the wing should be straight but this would not be very easy to do in our planes unless we want to have a very large tail. some very good planes have absolutely no radius between wing and fuselage, other planes have large radius that are really nice to see but what about their effectiveness? gliders usually have radiused wing/fuselage transitions and this should mean something, but our plans say nothing about this area. Rutan's CAFE champion catbird had no radius at all. the only radius plans talk about as an optional feature is the transition between canard TE and fuselage but no special instruction are given. in this point the radius should go backward and upward but how much? I have seen upwards radiused TE transition too but I think this is a mistake. can you give me some good info??

Tony, I can't wait the time to see it!!

very interesting: may you talk me about these materials please? what is a digital camouflage painting?why digital? I agree and would like to see the equipment you are using but unfortunately the link you provided doesn't work.

do you know why they lowered the canard's position? did it produce any measurable effect?

I agree with wolf: there's a lack of information about structural glues. although flox works good, I do not believe that we have to close our eyes and say that if it was Burt's best choice in 1980 it must be today's best choice

guys, what is the reason for all this secrecy? I'm a cold war nostalgic too, but it's been many years ago.....

european DynAero uses (or at least used 5 years ago) an epoxy glue called AXON adekit A170/400.

do you have a homepage vortal?

I looked for his website but was not able to find it: can you point me in the right direction?

what is happening with the intruder?any update?

guys, how do you build the curved foam piece that links the wing to the winglet? and how do you make the spar trough on a curved surface? I mean, it's not possible to hotwire it or at least I do not see how I could. are you using the same wing blue foam or a superior density?

the top pieces are actually one piece, not two half cylinders, bolted on the slotted tubes. Waiter, I have the gear, so if you need to know something feel free to contact me.

very nice, it seems to be very small and light, what are the specs??

do you have any pics of this aircraft? I searched it on google but found nothing: just curious to see it....