waltr
Well-Known Member
Is there any incidence between the canard and main wing?
Maybe make fuselage longer, sticking behind wing so less weight needed.
Maybe make fuselage longer, sticking behind wing so less weight needed.
Canard wing is preset at negative 3° relative to the main wing. I didn't want to mess with increasing the canard angle and risk it looping into the ground. That said, I've cranked up the angle with BG canards and get around the looping problems by adjusting the booster pod length and/or weighting the nose cone so that the launch CG falls right over the canard wing.Is there any incidence between the canard and main wing?
Maybe make fuselage longer, sticking behind wing so less weight needed.
Probably mostly due to the extra 3 1/4" of wingspan and reinforced pylon on the "2nd gen" Cici which was released later.Wow, that is a pretty big difference in the weight.
Probably would. Too late now though, the pod's epoxied on and trying to remove it now would likely destroy or damage the pod and pylon/fuselage. Anyway I'm curious to see how the Cici will perform completely unchanged as sold.Just a thought...
Would moving the pod rearward a bit avoid needing tail weight?
I would think that even with pod back an inch it will still launch straight.
That's what I'm mystified about. This most current build is from an original unopened kit. It's not a clone. I didn't make any changes to it. I'll be flying it without the tail weight to see what kind of flight it puts in.I built and flew many CiCis and all the other Edmonds kits. I don't remember any nose heavy needs rail weight, they all balanced exquisitely well.
But I do remember he was very particular about the grade and consistency of balsa, it was a little lighter than the densest stuff.
Others have noted similar things in their efforts to clone some designs, like Ecee Thunder.
Huh? Sounds counterintuitive (unless I’m misunderstanding). CG is dependent on center of mass, determined by weight distribution along it's longitudinal axis once in glide mode, so the longer the motor tube, the further forward will be the glider's overall CG, which is the primary problem I'm confronted with.hard to fix once built.
seems like an ”a priori” solution would be to start with a longer body tube (nose cone further forward) when you build it, so it is likely to be effectively “nose” heavy, although ACTUAL additional mass is simply tubing, the CG is affected mainly by the LENGTH rather than the weight.
trimming in this case (since it is going to be nose heavy) would involve actual ”trimming”, cutting off forwar slips of body tube (BEFORE gluing in cone) until you get the right CG for a good glide. Could even use a tight external tape wrap to actual test fly it before finally gluing the cone in.
Enter your email address to join: