Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
November 24, 2017, 12:47:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Just look at that profile: Fairey Long Range Monoplane  (Read 945 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Duncan McBride
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 74

Topic starter


Ignore
« on: November 11, 2017, 06:39:51 PM »

I found an old plan from the Wings Model Airplane Co. on Derick Scott's site, http://www.model-plans.co.uk/index.html  He printed up a set of plans, and was kind enough to include a print of a wonderful 5-view from Aeromodeller, Feb. 1986.  The Wings plans departed enough from the 5-view that I've decided to work from the 5-view directly.  There are some some marvelous sites with pictures of the LRM and accounts of the flights of the two that were produced.  Google 'Fairey Long Range Monoplane'

I just think this is a crazy beautiful airplane.  It screams "Golden Age of Aviation".  It first flew in 1928, when having only one wing was remarkable enough to warrant making that its name. The purposeful design is so extreme that it almost looks like a Bill Barnes fantasy ship.  

Yeah, i know it has an 18% airfoil, big wheels, and a short nose, but just look at that nose!  Oh man, is there an airplane with a prettier nose than that?  I can't resist.

Drawing begins.  To help with the thick airfoil I'm going big - 54" span.  Wish me luck.

Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Just look at that profile: Fairey Long Range Monoplane
Just look at that profile: Fairey Long Range Monoplane
Logged
flydean1
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 416



Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2017, 06:58:35 PM »

That thick wing calls for a built-up main spar, and wing ribs.
Logged
atesus
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 21
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 640




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2017, 07:39:33 PM »

I just think this is a crazy beautiful airplane.  It screams "Golden Age of Aviation".

I have a similar crush on this one Grin
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Tupolev-Ant25/IMAGES/Tupolev-Ant-25-Museum.jpg

Beautiful airplane, good luck with your project.

--Ates
Logged
Duncan McBride
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 74

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2017, 07:59:13 PM »

Hi Dean,
Yes I think I'm going to go with two spars like the original, but built up instead of solid wood.  Then use diagonals to stiffen the two and give torsional strength.  Sort of like a rubber duration motel fuselage, only straighter    Grin

Ates:  Thanks for your good wishes.  So you know what it's like to have a crush on an airplane?  My advice is to go for it!

I'm re-reading Bill Henn's articles to help force myself to use really light wood.  I have some light wood I've always been afraid to use.  I guess now it's time. 
Logged
duration
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 380



Ignore
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2017, 05:44:20 AM »

Duncan & Dean;

Both should be good fliers, but minimal FAC bonus points. 

There is also the Koken-Ki, built in the late 1930s by Tokyo Gas Company. Clean, lots of wing area, nose length seems doable. Silver & red color scheme. There is a fair amount on the internet. Try this one:  www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/koukenE.html

Didn't the French (Farman?) have one too?

Louis
Logged
Work In Progress
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 275



Ignore
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2017, 06:20:19 AM »

Are you enlarging the horizontal tail? With that high-camber airfoil and short moment arm I suspect it will benefit the model.
Logged
Crabby
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 64
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,519


I never met a modeler I didn't like



Ignore
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2017, 12:14:22 PM »

I am wondering if a lifting tail would be advisable here to help with excess weight aft of the CG.
Logged

The Threadkiller!
Work In Progress
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 275



Ignore
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2017, 01:22:43 PM »

Better to get the CG in the right place.
Logged
flydean1
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 416



Ignore
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2017, 07:14:31 PM »

Another long-winged plane which is modeled from time to time is the Beardmore Inflexible.  The name says it all.
Logged
Crabby
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 64
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,519


I never met a modeler I didn't like



Ignore
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2017, 08:02:24 PM »

Not to stray off subject but the Bristol 138 is another one. How goes it so far Duncan?
Logged

The Threadkiller!
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,728



Ignore
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2017, 02:57:10 AM »

Just so happens one was flying in Holland lat weekend. There will be a picture on the International indoor flying thread.
Logged
Duncan McBride
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 74

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2017, 09:39:53 AM »

Hi to all.  Interesting ideas and some neat references.  I've calculated the tail volume, and it looks like I need to increase the size of the stab by about 28%.  Drawn up it doesn't look too weird because the wing is so huge.  I want to leave the stab leading edge where it is, so the extra length will require the fuselage to be lengthened a tad so the tailcone will end up where it should.  Hope that's ok.

Leaving for Palm Bay.  And the holidays are coming, so progress will be spotty. Excelsior!
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Just look at that profile: Fairey Long Range Monoplane
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,728



Ignore
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2017, 10:36:33 AM »

I've calculated the tail volume, and it looks like I need to increase the size of the stab by about 28%.  
But using the alternative method of just looking at it, it doesn't need enlarging at all!
I was going to do a diesel version but after sizing it to hide the engine, it would be 8 foot span.
Logged
Yak 52
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 53
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,166


Free Flight Vagrant



Ignore
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2017, 01:29:37 PM »

I just did a very quick and dirty tail volume calculation and got about 0.4. That's a bit on the margins of sensible (similar to an RC glider) going for 0.5 would be a little easier to trim so may be worth a 10-15% linear enlargement. But like Bill I'd say 28% is quite a lot  Smiley

It's definitely worth keeping the tail LE is the same place because the enlargement then gives you a slightly longer tail moment arm. This is again a little close to the margins at 2.5 times the mean chord. Going a little longer should help you avoid phugoid problems.

A small tail like this won't be lifting though, so expect to use a little more decalage than a bigger tail, maybe as much as 3-4 degrees.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,728



Ignore
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2017, 02:05:45 PM »

I confess I don't understand tail volumes and other calculations. I don't decry them - that would be ridiculous - but I do wonder how the limits of what will work and won't work, are set. What I do know is that the FLRM will fly perfectly well with that scale tailplane; certainly a slow-flying lightly-loaded model (what would be the point of any other kind?). In plan view the thing looks no worse than the Puss Moth in front of me. I suppose it comes down to how important scale accuracy is. The problem will be dihedral.
Logged
strat-o
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 198



Ignore
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2017, 02:12:30 PM »

The rudder is so large that you may be able to get the horizontal stabilizer area you need by tilting the rudder over a couple of degrees!  Cheesy
Logged
Pete Fardell
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 53
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,744




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2017, 04:14:59 PM »

I first came across this aircraft book in this Biggles comic book, published in 1978. I seem to remember it even has a three view of it in the back, although I may be wrong about that.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Just look at that profile: Fairey Long Range Monoplane
Re: Just look at that profile: Fairey Long Range Monoplane
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 273



Ignore
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2017, 04:36:53 PM »

Decent depiction of a quality English car in the story there as well Pete.
Logged
flydean1
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 416



Ignore
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2017, 04:50:03 PM »

Keep in mind the rules we fly in the USA via the Flying Aces Club are quite different.  Flight time counts, not realism.  Just a different way of doing things. Hence, our scale models will generally feature mods to improve stability without adding gobs of nose weight.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,728



Ignore
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2017, 05:12:45 PM »

Ah - that makes sense.
Logged
Duncan McBride
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 74

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2017, 05:57:27 PM »

I confess I applied the recommendation of Don DeLoach and calculated the area necessary to achieve a tail volume coefficient of .65, calculated as in the Bill McCombs book.  Then I applied the Bill Dennis theorem and looked at it.  It looked good.  I'm going with it.

Dihedral is going to be a tangle.  Every picture you see, every rendition you see (thanks for those comics, those are priceless) shows that straight, blade-like wing.  Is a little dihedral going to ruin the whole effect?  There is some inherent dihedral due to the high wing and the thinning of the airfoil from bottom to top, and I can fudge that a bit as I use a thinner airfoil towards the tip.   I do remember Dean flying a peanut Wright Racer with no dihedral that circled perfectly, around and around.  But I think I might have to have a break in that straight line across the top of the wing.  It will still be pretty enough, won't it? 

Free flight is hard.  Free flight scale is darn near impossible.  That's what makes it so cool.
Logged
piecost
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 262



Ignore
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2017, 06:11:42 PM »

This is an interesting thread. Making changes to provide adiquate stability whilst retaining the asthetic of the full sized is where art meets science. I like the idea of retaining the flat upper surface and sneeking the dihedral in via the wing thickness. An option is to reduce fin and rudder area instead of increasing dihedral or to allow the rudder to float on a floppy hinge. Perhaps you could make several tail sizes and see what works best.
Logged
danmellor
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 38
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,860




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2017, 06:39:01 PM »

I seem to recall Dave Chinnery doing a big electric R/C version, back when electric still meant 14 pounds of batteries. It is indeed a lovely subject and good luck with yours...

Cheers,

Dan.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,728



Ignore
« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2017, 02:39:25 AM »

The wing defines this aeroplane, doesn't it. Indoors you would get away with the flat-top wing; it reminds me of the Cessna -  similar layout:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYOSeIN79R0
Outdoors may be trickier in rough conditions but if alterations are routinely made for performance, why not add a little dihedral?
Logged
flydean1
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 416



Ignore
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2017, 08:40:36 PM »

The Dayton Wright Racer got away with the flat wing because of the large amount of lateral area below the wing.  It was effectively a shoulder wing airplane.  Peanut Fikes and Laceys also do well with a flat wing for the same reason.  Lateral airflow in the wing/fuselage area provides "dihedral effect". 

I remember trying it for the first time.  Finished the basic model late one night and with a bit of clay for balance and no prop, I tossed it toward the open garage door.  It disappeared into the gloom floating away!  Thankfully, I covered it with silver tissue and found it by flashlight about 30 feet out into the side yard.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!