Aerodynamics Discuss the concepts of aerodynamics here

Focke wulf ta 183 question

Old 03-08-2010, 11:30 PM
  #1  
pattern14
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
pattern14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,241
Default Focke wulf ta 183 question

Need some aerodynamic advice on this one. decided to build an epp edf version of this 2nd generation luft jet, but I have some serious misgivings about the the tail section. Sorry I don't have an archive picture or plan to show you, but the 183 has a short squat fuse, swept wings and a single large vertical fin, sharply swept back, with had a "T" tail, exhibiting some dihedral. The info provided from the original documents stated that the small "T" tail was used for trimming only. I am using a 30 degree flying wing as the basis for this one, and have have made the hollow fuse to house the fan unit etc. My question is- if I leave the elevons as elevons, and make the the 'T" tail as a fixed surface, would that be a practical exercise? The only other option would be to turn the tailplane into a working elevator, and the elevons into ailerons. My other flying wing type luft planes work brilliantly, and I am keen to try this variation on a theme. It is no big deal to change control surfaces, but I would really prefer to stick with the flying wing advantages. Thanks in advance....
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	planes 2 056.jpg
Views:	240
Size:	158.7 KB
ID:	122737   Click image for larger version

Name:	planes 2 058.jpg
Views:	296
Size:	180.5 KB
ID:	122738  
pattern14 is offline  
Old 03-09-2010, 05:37 PM
  #2  
Sparky Paul
Super Contributor
 
Sparky Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,116
Default

I would try it with the fixed tailplane.
The elevons won't be as effective as elevators due to the much shorter moment arm, but it would be interesting to see what would happen.
I'd anticipate a sluggish response in pitch, something like spoilers/flaps would do. but it might be acceptable.
Sparky Paul is offline  
Old 03-10-2010, 12:46 PM
  #3  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

The elevons would have more elevator authority if you used the scale 40 degree wing sweep.....

Steve
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 01:34 AM
  #4  
pattern14
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
pattern14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,241
Default worst flying plane yet!

Thanks for the advice, but I decided to shelve this one for a while. It flew, but only just, and was very difficult to trim. I did cut and re-angle the wings to 40 degrees, but it made no practical difference. I even tried my 360 degree vectored thust nozzle, but the whole aircraft was just simply too unstable. I must have checked and adjusted everything a hundred times, but the best it would do was circle and maintain height with very carefull attention. It did not handle the wind at all, which makes it useless for where I live. Not a fun plane to fly. Further research revealed that the original was actually produced in Argentina post war, renamed the " Pulqi ", but was also a very poor handling aircraft, and scrapped fairly quickly. Still, it was a good learning experience, and I developed some great new techniques for making hollow eppp fuses. I also found there is a Mk 111 version with a conventional tail that looks promising......... cheers
pattern14 is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 07:51 AM
  #5  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

The elevons would not explain why the model was 'unstable'.. I fly freeflight jet models that have no control whatsoever and they are perfectly stable in flight..
I suspect that something else is wrong with the model. Underpowered possibly?.. Flying an underpowered model on the edge of stall is pretty unpleasant.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 10:10 AM
  #6  
BEAR-AvHistory
RDRC
 
BEAR-AvHistory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NC USA
Posts: 599
Default

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
The elevons would not explain why the model was 'unstable'.. I fly freeflight jet models that have no control whatsoever and they are perfectly stable in flight..
I suspect that something else is wrong with the model. Underpowered possibly?.. Flying an underpowered model on the edge of stall is pretty unpleasant.
This is a hard plane to model.

If the model is a direct copy of TA-183 Design II or III it will be unstable.

The original never flew due to both the end of the war & projected instability issues.

Its successor the Argentine FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II was developed by project director Kurt Tank from the locally designed IAe-27a Pulqui II merged with Tanks fuselage & the British Nene II engine for Juan Peron.

Three of the four prototypes crashed, instability & catastrophic structural failure & the project was cancelled. They bought surplus F-86F-40's with Canadian engines from the US.
BEAR-AvHistory is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 12:59 PM
  #7  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

Bear,
While i'm sure youre right and the real plane if built would have had 'issues' several models of the Te-183 have been made, a few commercially, and they actually fly very well. Here's one: http://www.rbckits.com/shop/index.ph...od&productId=9

I've also seen a small freeflight Ta-183 powered by a small rocket motor and even without the benifit of radio control it was stable enough to fly just fine. Chances are the real plane would have been a different proposition though, the issues with swept wings were not fully understood at the time.

Pattern14,
One of the tricks with swept wing planes that can make the difference between the model being easy to fly and a pure nightmare is washout .. Did you build any washout in?

Steve
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 01:20 PM
  #8  
kenchiroalpha
Retired Master Chief USN
 
kenchiroalpha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,837
Default

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
Bear,
While i'm sure youre right and the real plane if built would have had 'issues' several models of the Te-183 have been made, a few commercially, and they actually fly very well. Here's one: http://www.rbckits.com/shop/index.ph...od&productId=9

I've also seen a small freeflight Ta-183 powered by a small rocket motor and even without the benifit of radio control it was stable enough to fly just fine. Chances are the real plane would have been a different proposition though, the issues with swept wings were not fully understood at the time.

Pattern14,
One of the tricks with swept wing planes that can make the difference between the model being easy to fly and a pure nightmare is washout .. Did you build any washout in?

Steve
Hi Steve
Another model that comes to mind is
http://www.hobby-lobby.com/huckebein_6957_prd1.htm
So you are right in that airframe is airworthy, just needs some thought when designing the control surfaces
Take care
Hank
kenchiroalpha is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 02:37 PM
  #9  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

Originally Posted by kenchiroalpha View Post
So you are right in that airframe is airworthy, just needs some thought when designing the control surfaces
Take care
Hank
I think there is too much focus on the control surfaces. The rest of the plane cant be ignored. If the plane was "unstable" than it's likely that the problem was nothing to do with the control surfaces. A properly designed plane will fly just fine without any control surfaces at all (as in freeflight). I'm sure if the basic design is right then elevon only will be ok.

Steve
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 02:56 PM
  #10  
kenchiroalpha
Retired Master Chief USN
 
kenchiroalpha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,837
Default

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
I think there is too much focus on the control surfaces. The rest of the plane cant be ignored. If the plane was "unstable" than it's likely that the problem was nothing to do with the control surfaces. A properly designed plane will fly just fine without any control surfaces at all (as in freeflight). I'm sure if the basic design is right then elevon only will be ok.

Steve
Hi Steve
Not to disagree but ive been flying F/F for over 30 years now and even if the control surface isnt adjustable but designed into the airframe its still a major concept that needs to followed when designing any aircraft whether it be F/F C/L RC Or full scale to get a well flying and performing aircraft imho
I was also a Aviation Machinist mate in the US navy for 23 years so i am well versed in aerodynamics
All of the versions of that particular model that fly well use ailerons and elevator so why not follow suite with a proven design
Just my 2 cents
Take care
Hank
kenchiroalpha is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 05:29 PM
  #11  
BEAR-AvHistory
RDRC
 
BEAR-AvHistory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NC USA
Posts: 599
Default

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
Bear,
While i'm sure youre right and the real plane if built would have had 'issues' several models of the Te-183 have been made, a few commercially, and they actually fly very well.

Steve
Agree, that's why I said "If the model is a direct copy of TA-183 Design II or III it will be unstable" since I don't know where the plans for the model came from.

If the model was built from the original drawings it would have been very frustrating if not impossible to get it to fly well.

We built a virtual one for our combat series a while back; like our Horton Go-229 & Heinkel 162 it has significant compromises from the full scale version to get it to fly well in the simulation.

Kevin
BEAR-AvHistory is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 09:01 AM
  #12  
pattern14
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
pattern14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,241
Default just to add.....

Thanks for the input everyone. One of my favourite things is to try something that looks tricky just for the challenge. The original was a flop, as previously stated, but that doesn't mean it could not be made to fly, with some tweaking. My He 162 was also not a good flyer, although it still flew. Some of these luft experimental planes were just like that. But to add..... I removed the tail, added wing fins, and the plane flew much better. The problem may have been any number of variables, but I will attempt it again one day. I tried an edf Blohm and voss p215 as well, and it would not even glide, and actually somersaulted end over end Moved the COG everywhere, did numerous adjustments, and it still flew pretty ordinary. Then i built a Junkers ef128 as a pusher, and it flies like bird, and is one of my favourites. Same goes for the Me 163 Komet and Arado "Projekt 1" both are brilliant fliers. Sometimes It just doesn't come togetherStill, it's all fun and a good learning curve.... cheers
pattern14 is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 10:22 AM
  #13  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

Originally Posted by pattern14 View Post
I tried an edf Blohm and voss p215 as well, and it would not even glide, and actually somersaulted end over end
The P215 can be a great little flyer. I did a design for freeflight rapier rocket power and providing that generous wing twist (washout) is added then it goes really well.. One of the best flying models I've designed, it won it's class at the freeflight NATS in the USA.

Heres a video of mine: [media]http://www.ffscale.co.uk/movies/SB2.mpg[/media] (remember this is freeflight.. no R/C! )

Plan available here: http://www.ffscale.co.uk/jplans.htm

Kit here: http://www.shortysbasement.com/index...ewCat&catId=84
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 04:33 PM
  #14  
kenchiroalpha
Retired Master Chief USN
 
kenchiroalpha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,837
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
The P215 can be a great little flyer. I did a design for freeflight rapier rocket power and providing that generous wing twist (washout) is added then it goes really well.. One of the best flying models I've designed, it won it's class at the freeflight NATS in the USA.

Heres a video of mine: [media]http://www.ffscale.co.uk/movies/SB2.mpg[/media] (remember this is freeflight.. no R/C! )

Plan available here: http://www.ffscale.co.uk/jplans.htm

Kit here: http://www.shortysbasement.com/index...ewCat&catId=84
Hi
Outstanding, Shes a beauty
That was a wonderful flight
Thanks ever so much for sharing that with us
Take care
Hank
kenchiroalpha is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 11:36 PM
  #15  
pattern14
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
pattern14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,241
Default best laid plans...

hi Jetplaneflier, I actually downloaded those plans a couple of months back to use as a guide. My planes are all direct strike combat planes made from epp and coreflute, so I don't use balsa except for control surfaces, as it is totally unsuited for combat. The problems I usually face are trying to build something near scale, Like the junkers ef 128 and Komet pictured below, that are also indestuctible and totally aerobatic. The Ta 183 and p215 were an excursion into the borderline areas of hollow epp fuses and unconventional design. I know they can both be made to fly, as others such as yourself have done it, but their suitability for knocking each other out of the sky was always a gamble. The p215 wing tips in particular were totally vulnerable. Still, it's great to see the success you have had, and that is one nice looking plane I am currently working on a pusher version of the p215, so I will send you a p.m of it's progress. I know washout is great for stability, as i used to use it in my earlier F/F rubber planes, and electric gliders, so it is food for thought. Bit tricky with epp, as it can't be steamed like balsa and silkspan, and has 99% memory. Still, there is a solution somewhere...........
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Planes 041.jpg
Views:	211
Size:	151.8 KB
ID:	123333   Click image for larger version

Name:	planes 2 049.jpg
Views:	225
Size:	179.4 KB
ID:	123334  
pattern14 is offline  
Old 04-07-2010, 02:04 AM
  #16  
pattern14
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
pattern14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,241
Default the plot thickens.....

After rekitting the B&V p215 as a pusher, I was rewarded with an amazingly flying plane that looked just like the edf version, but bore no similarity after that. It literally flew out of my hand, with almost no trimming needed. Extremely stable, almost impossible to stall, and very gracefull in flight. No idea what is going on here, but all I did was change the propulsion system. My 11 y.o son Isaac claimed it as an early birthday present, and has spent hours looping, barrel rolling, immelmans, strafing his brothers etc. I am going to try the FW 182 as a pusher now...........
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	pl 001.jpg
Views:	205
Size:	100.4 KB
ID:	124903   Click image for larger version

Name:	pl 004.jpg
Views:	191
Size:	23.6 KB
ID:	124904   Click image for larger version

Name:	pl 005.jpg
Views:	195
Size:	24.1 KB
ID:	124905  
pattern14 is offline  
Old 04-07-2010, 09:12 AM
  #17  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

Originally Posted by pattern14 View Post
After rekitting the B&V p215 as a pusher, I was rewarded with an amazingly flying plane that looked just like the edf version, but bore no similarity after that. It literally flew out of my hand, with almost no trimming needed. Extremely stable, almost impossible to stall, and very gracefull in flight. No idea what is going on here, but all I did was change the propulsion system. My 11 y.o son Isaac claimed it as an early birthday present, and has spent hours looping, barrel rolling, immelmans, strafing his brothers etc. I am going to try the FW 182 as a pusher now...........
Hate to say "I told you so", but what the heck I'll say it anyway...

"I told you so":

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
The elevons would not explain why the model was 'unstable'.. I fly freeflight jet models that have no control whatsoever and they are perfectly stable in flight..
I suspect that something else is wrong with the model. Underpowered possibly?.. Flying an underpowered model on the edge of stall is pretty unpleasant.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 04-07-2010, 11:34 AM
  #18  
pattern14
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
pattern14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,241
Default more to it perhaps?

Hey Jetplane flier, still does not explain why it would not even glideUnderpowered is one thing, but I still tend to think it was the fuse cross section and the large intake duct causing havoc with the aerodynamics. It would just flop onto the ground. The pusher version has an Identical cog, wing incidence, reflex and all up weight. It glides like a sailplane. It still has me guessing. I appreciate your input and advice though; pity you are on the other side of the world. Not many people in Tasmania I can take my plane to and ask for advice. Either way, it all turned out for the best- a great plane to say the least. cheers
pattern14 is offline  
Old 04-09-2010, 11:09 AM
  #19  
pattern14
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
pattern14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,241
Default forgot to add....

I ended up trying a HET 6904 with a typhoon w3 inrunner on a 4s lipo, and it made no difference what so ever to the handling. This powerplant would lift my two metre he 162 airborne with no effort. It had power to spare. The 360% vectored thrust nozzle was used for all the test flights. With all due respects, a free flight plane does not need to do complex aerobatics, only fly in a relatively straight forward manner, and usually not in stong winds. This plane was totally deficient in the full aerobatics and snap rolls etc needed in a combat plane, and was incapable of mastering even a 20 knot wind. I just wish I had a plausible explanation for all of this
pattern14 is offline  
Old 04-09-2010, 03:05 PM
  #20  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

I agree 100% that a freeflight plane does not need to do aerobatics.. It's usually unintentional when they do.. But they do fly in wind, providing you are prepared for a long walk to recover.

The issue i had was you said that the plane was 'unstable' and blamed this on use of elevons.. It's hard to imagine how the control surface set up alone would cause the plane to be genuinly unstable. But there are plenty of other things that could cause it.. If there is one thing freeflight planes do need to be it's stable, and like i said, they are stable without any movable control surfaces whatsoever.

If the problem is that your model wont do aerobatics then that could very well be a control surface issue.. If it's that it 'handles badly' then perhaps you could give a few more details? 'badly' is not very specific.

Steve
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 04-12-2010, 10:17 AM
  #21  
pattern14
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
pattern14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,241
Default defining " badly "

Hi Steve; "badly" was just that- poor response to control input, pushed around very easily by the wind, unpredictable flight path, would not hold a line, etc. It felt like the reciever was faulty, or the servo's were under and over reacting. The more i think about it, the more it seems that the very squat deep fuse and very wide high tail were susceptible to cross winds, and the large diameter air intake for the edf unit were resonsible for a poor laminar airflow. The air was flowing into the fuse as well as over it; most of these problems vanished when the nose was filled in. I fly in strong winds most of the time ( the roaring forties trade winds lash Tasmania, and New Zealands' south island), and lots of planes don't do well in these conditions. R/C is unpopular here partly for that reason. Like Sherlock Holmes reputedly said " Once you have discounted everything else, what you have left, no matter how improbable, is the answer." I am building another couple of edf planes right now to see what i can figure out.....cheers.
pattern14 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
barmonkey
Warbird Electrics
49
06-21-2010 05:09 PM
Jim Jackson
Airplanes - Electric For Sale & WTB
5
12-10-2008 12:08 PM
Nightmenace
Warbird Electrics
33
09-05-2007 11:04 PM
Grasshopper
Warbird Electrics
5
06-02-2006 09:50 PM
Heiner
Electric Ducted Fan Jets
40
04-26-2006 06:39 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Quick Reply: Focke wulf ta 183 question


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.15711 seconds with 22 queries