Peasant_Pilot

in all honestly i dont have any huge attachment to the name Valkyrie but iv been considering giving it a better designation lately as its really not the same aircraft when i first started

yeah, she has been really helpful so far, specializes in LSA type aircraft and composite so I feel she would be the right person

this is more of just a slight visual update, have made very minor adjustments and have been in initial discussions with Sonja Englert about structural development, weights etc

Working through that over the next few weeks to make sure it's going to work where it is. Will keep you upto date

Essentially sitting between the spars, seating is at 35 degrees I'm aiming for a safe +6 - 4g's

has 107 sq ft of wing area as it sits, attached is a quick spec sheet to give some more insight, and while I'm tinkering away with a retract option, ultimately it will be standard fixed tricycle. I firmly believe for RAUS it is the most suitable

the JMB VL3 has a similar tail too and to a lesser extent the WT9 Aerospool. id say it would have to work, and these planes are going quick too

So last night I burned through the night to redesign the tail section, I've been really happy with the profile of the aircraft but I always had in my head id have to really beef up the tail section due to it being quite small in the tail end Cross sectionally, so I've incorporated the vertical stabilizer more so it's more as one structure instead of seaming like a separate entity, iv increased the size a little of the top and bottom strakes and essentially created a much stronger cross section, while I still need to get used to it, I feel this is more where it needs to be structurally. I ended up 3d printing some 10% scale tail sections of both and doing some twist tests on it and the new design was far superior in strength and resistance to twisting. Obviously, it's not the same thing but it's a proof of concept to a degree. see in the picture the comparison to the previous design in the tail section to the new one, new design is on the bottom. ill also add in a couple of colour renders to see what you think

It's interesting, I remember reading about the Cobra Arrow, it originally had stabilators on it, but they had some issues with Pilot induced oscillation, so they switched to elevator in a later version to negate it. just had me curious

What are people's thoughts on stabilator vs elevator? I like things relatively traditional but I'm curious top hear people's thoughts on it

I really appreciate that, very wise words and unfortunately im a bit of a sucker for trying to do everything on my own as well , I'm actually a fabricator but have learnt design the last 2 years and very much enjoy both aspects of it. I'm going to take your advice and reach out to some people as far as development and production goes and get a few of the right people on board, i have a bit of money there to spend and i think you are absolutely right in what you have said. Probably the best advice i have had and really appreciate the informative and positive response will keep you updated with how everything is developing

That's actually something iv wanted to do, I started out back in the day building my own rc stuff from scratch and I still very much have a soft spot for it. I like your thinking though.....that's something I could start on pretty quickly I think. Good to see other RC enthusiasts still kicking about

It's definitely a massive undertaking, and the idea might never get off the ground(no pun intended).....but the process is extremely enjoyable developing it from the ground up. learning CAD design and understanding aerodynamics and seeing the quality improvement in my work makes the effort enjoyable and worth while. Honestly never thought I'd be capable of getting this far but I'll keep sharing progress on it.

Appreciate the interest honestly, The stress analysis I've only been able to test on componentry, bulkheads, firewall, landing gear. as far as the airframe goes that's something I think that will have to be done and tested/experimented with once i have a test airframe built, same as for CG and so on, i can only do so much in CAD and CFD and it will be something when it comes down to vibration, flutter and twist load tests will need to get further expertise on. as far as the design goes, wing position, airfoil, aspect ratio angle of incidence, dihedral, pilot position, control surfaces, washout i have based that all of various existing aircraft I've studied and what I was wanting to achieve, I've spent countless hours going through many plans sets, talking to Engineers and trying to get everything where it needs to be but really there is a lot to be tested outside the CAD Programs I looked at a lot of aircraft of similar size that I was wanting to design, took a bunch of measurements off aircraft like the SportStar, TL Sting, Pulsar XP, Falco, Lancair 320 etc. and have tried to work within similar bounds. started with a sketch how I wanted it to look then altered it to suit the important things As far as performance goes, looking realistically at 120kn cruise on a tricycle config, 45kn stall all originally to run on a Rotax 912uls. wing has 1.8 degrees angle of incidence, 4 degrees on the dihedral, seating is at 35 degrees, washout is 2 degrees, around 290-310kg empty with a 912ULS, wingspan is 8.77mtr I'm in no way an expert and am very much learning as I go and have altered the design many times to correct issues as I've developed more knowledge around it. Obviously a safe and stable aircraft is priority, but I also wanted a nice looking aircraft. I started with some reference points and designed around that. Really, I wanted something that was a little quicker than a Sporty but still stable and easy to fly, something fitting for RAAUS 600mtow End of the day, I'll keep changing the design until its where it needs to be structurally and aerodynamically so it's a safe and stable aircraft, but I feel it's pretty close, I think I need to actually build an airframe and refine from there, I have a few design ideas I want to try and experiment with and for me I can only really do that with a physical part/airframe. It's pretty overwhelming sometimes but it's been educational that's for sure....and frustrating at times Cheers Rob

I Yeah I agree 100% While I find the cfd and stress simulation handy as a guide, there is no substitute for actual testing, I plan on having a couple of sacrificial airframes and parts for load and crash testing, fire etc etc. Gotta build the buck for the molds and then onto that