elliptical wings?

rightseatwonder · Post by **rightseatwonder** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:07 pm

Umm WTF?

Discuss.

moocow · Post by **moocow** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:01 am

Kind of a like a bi-plane with wing fence?

Slappy the Squirrel · Post by **Slappy the Squirrel** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:36 am

Good way to cut down on induced drag....

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:34 am

Reminds me of this thing I saw in Cambodian Tire yesterday

WTF over Happy Festivus

5x5 · Post by **5x5** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:59 am

I'm thinking it would be a dream in crosswinds.

Inverted2 · Post by **Inverted2** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:13 am

Are those wings metal? Although an ugly aircraft, whoever built it is very skilled with the english wheel!

Dagwood · Post by **Dagwood** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:44 pm

Does it fly?

I thought this type of wing is only in the development stage. Sort of like a solution to the oil problem... there is none!

C-GPFG · Post by **C-GPFG** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:11 am

Slappy the Squirrel wrote:Good way to cut down on induced drag....

Exactly. Would there be any vorticies as there isn't any wingtips?

trampbike · Post by **trampbike** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:53 am

Wing tips alone don't explain induced drag, lift does... So if this plane flies, there has to be some induced drag.

yzfer · Post by **yzfer** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:44 pm

Even if there was a reduction in induced drag, the increase in parasite drag would be overwhelming if the thing even flies.

If induced drag is drag caused by the production of lift...one could assume there will be induced drag, but the lack of wingtip vorticies makes me wonder....there for sure won't be induced drag once you get the thing supersonic though...

niss · Post by **niss** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:01 pm

Here is a question, on a bi-plane why do the high pressure on the bottom of the top wing, and the low pressure on the top of the bottom wing not mix and equalize?

Shiny Side Up · Post by **Shiny Side Up** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:39 pm

niss wrote:Here is a question, on a bi-plane why do the high pressure on the bottom of the top wing, and the low pressure on the top of the bottom wing not mix and equalize?

They do interfere with each other's ability to produce lift and increase the ammount of induced drag each wing produces. This can be offset to some degree by staggering the wings, one ahead of the other. To find out more read here.

The eliptical wing design above isn't the first time this type of wing has been tried. Indeed it has the advantage of largely eliminating induced drag produced by the wingtip vorticies, though then also suffers from the disadvantages of the biplane layout as suggested in the link above. Difficulties in construction are the largest disadvantage of the eliptical design, but it also doesn't gain anything that much more simpler, cheaper and easier to make solutions give. Just speculating I would say that the above design probably has some stability issues in all its axis of movement.

wabano · Post by **wabano** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:16 pm

It's an IFO...Identified Flying Object, or the Coanda effect and its strange machines...
http://www.laesieworks.com/ifo/index-all.html

Invertago · Post by **Invertago** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:11 pm

Is the radial engine part of this space age idea, or just part of the round theme?

On that note, I suspect it uses round steam gauges not glass cockpit in keeping with the spirit of the experiment!

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:47 pm

Its obviously made for the Wet Coast so the pilot need not get wet while alighting from his throne.

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:43 am

I think it looks cool as hell, and I'd fly it in a heartbeat!

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:28 am

It would still have vortices. Otherwise it wouldn't fly.

WRT bi-planes, most if not all modern bi-planes have their wings staggered (either forward like the Camel, Stearman, Waco, Pitts, et al, or reverse like the Beech 17) to help with overall flying characteristics. The elliptical wing would have the same problems as an un-staggered biplane.

Here are some other interesting ideas with regards to wing shape, each with a varying degree of success...

The F-117 needed high thrust engines, a bunch of computers, and wings to stay airborne. This do-it-yourselfer proves you don't need any of those.

The US Navy's attempt at a STOL aircraft, the flying pancake was surprisingly stable at low speeds; but without the agility of a fighter or the utility of a helicopter.

If one wing is good, and two are better, why not make as many wings as you can?

wabano · Post by **wabano** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:19 pm

Yes! the Philips Multiplane II

However, if you had added two R-2800, it would have flown, and with enough
taxpayer subsidies, you could have sold a shitload of them!!!

Add enough big engines and you could make a yellow brick shithouse fly!!!

Nine wings and eight engines carrying one hundred passengers...good luck!

elliptical wings?

elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?

Re: elliptical wings?