Custer Channelwing 1

[spriggig]

Layperson here re: Custer Channelwing
He built at least three working examples and asked the entire world for a "peer review" and everyone laughed? WTH? Google says no one talks about this (apart from the "official" site). So, I'm asking you learned folks--is this ostensibly proven technology useful today?

 

[crysta1c1ear]

I believe mounting the engines above the wings so that the plane gets extra lift from the wash over the wings has been a standard practice in the past.

The Channelwing just seems to be the same technology taken to the extreme. So personally I don't have any problem believing it. If I ever make a model aeroplane I'll consider it.

 

[crysta1c1ear]

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Girls_and_Airplanes_Aviation_Calendar_Models/fly girls.jpg

As I se it, this is another example of the technology used but not refined and perfected.

 

[IRstuff]

Dunno, looks pretty perfected to me ;-)

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[dalcazar]

One of the proposals for the project that culminated in the V22 Osprey was a craft with 4 channel wings similar to the bell X-22 with the ducted fans, but the top half of the ducted fan missing and the whole duct/wing being larger. Obviously it never passed the design stage.

Custer got the idea for the channelwing from seeing the roof fly off a barn, and he had NO engineering schooling whatsoever, he went by the seat of his pants rather than base his designs on "good science" yet it worked for him and the technology does indeed work.

The concept has problems though, firstly, it's relatively inefficient for going thru the air so it's slower than a conventional airplane, and it can't hover so it doesn't have the practicality of either a helicopter or a V-22 Osprey. So secondly, I'm sure it'd have great use as a niche aircraft, but I don't personally think that there is sufficient of a market for a company to tool up for producing it, unless the military buys into it as well.

 

[rb1957]

i can't comment on the aerodynamic efficiency, but structurally it's looks a mess.

and you've lost the trailing edge for flaps.

and isn't most of pressure on the inner face of the channel not acting in a direction to support the weight of the plane (ie radially in the channel, as opposed the vertically for a conventional wing).

 

[GregLocock]

Well, yes, aerodynamically it is a mess. Quite whether it is a worse aerodynamic mess than an egg beater or a VF22 is another question!

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[IRstuff]

V-22? The Osprey is in no way a fighter


Unless you're refering to:

http://www.steelfalcon.com/Macross/vf22.shtml

;-)

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[rb1957]

why fighter ? ... OP doesn't mention it, and i think the pic of the spit was only to show the conventional installation has slipestream effects already included.

 

[IRstuff]

Response to Greg's posting of VF-22.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[GregLocock]

Sorry, I obviously scrambled V22 and F22, that really would be a mess!

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.