Just an update.:
Flight Report
Finally got to maiden the AeroDagger, and it never became more apparent that trimming tosses can only get things in the ballpark — launching a glider is the only accurate way to get an idea of how balanced it is and how it performs.
Results:
> Since this was in part an experiment to ascertain that swept wings like deltas don't require any dihedral angle, I'm happy to confirm that it was absolutely stable and glided with no hint of roll problems, even in the day's 5 - 7 mph breezes.
> It flew “right side up” consistently on both the initial two trial flights (1/4A3-2T and 1/23-2T, which were under-powered) and a subsequent A10-3T flight (more on that below).
> The flat plate wing didn't disintegrate under the A10-3T boost and there were no visible stress cracks or fractures visible on the "stick and tissue" main wing. (Huge sigh of relief).
> The glider as trimmed was nose heavy. Since there’s no way to reduce the weight up front any further, I elected to install a pair of trim tabs to the canards, giving them a negative 18° pitch to help raise the nose. While I admit there
might be a danger of causing the glider to loop under power, it’s been my experience that with canard gliders it’s far less likely to do so than putting in too much incidence on the stab of a “traditional” glider, even if it’s only a degree or two. I also have the launch CG set so that it falls right above the canard wings, negating any pitching moment tendency during boost. At any rate, adding trim tabs has far less extreme effects than increasing the angle of the
canard wing itself. Thankfully all launches have been vertical and straight thus far.
> Anyway, I made a subsequent flight on an A10-3T, and while it boosted higher and posted a better 39-second flight time, it’s now has a moderate stall, which hurt performance and time in the air
a lot.
I intend to remove the small bit of tail weight on its aft end, and will try to reduce the trim tab angle, maybe set it to 15° and see what happens.
