Topic: Schwing - James Hammond's New Glider

Well it’s here. The one you’ve all been waiting for. The Typhoon has just grown up and matured. It looks like James Hammond has been busy on his PC as this one looks a real beauty. It’s unmistakably one of his designs and yet again he has produced a nice fin shape which is something I’m always rather fussy about. Also new is a tailplane with elevator instead of the Typhoon’s all moving tail.
You’ll be pleased to know that the model has an all new section and unlike the Typhoon the Schwing now features a reduced thickness towards the tip instead of the constant 8% with the Typhoon. The thought behind this is to reduce the fishtailing that the Typhoon sometimes exhibited. Worried about a weedy joiner? Fear not as this 2.2m model has a joiner that is even bigger than on James’s 3m Strega. You can be pretty sure that if the worse ever happens that you won’t be needing a new joiner!

You’re going to have to wait a little while before you can have a Schwing but as you can see it is now at prototype stage and once the graphics have been produced production is just a few months away. I understand that this model will be available through sloperacer.co.uk who will handle worldwide distribution. The price will be between £400 - £450 and the first ones should be around early Spring. Get saving up guys as this looks like it will a great sport glider.

Looks nice, and a good size for fun on the slope.  It looks in the photos as though it's nose radius is smaller than FAI rules, which if so, would preclude it being used for F3F - That would be a shame as it looks an excellent entry model.

Simon

Looks really good and with a decent joiner too. Sure likes his skinny installs still, although probably still easier than the Typhoon.

Will it be another graphics competition for it do you know?

 Well done James, looks like another winner, good luck.

John.

Looks really good and with a decent joiner too. Sure likes his skinny installs still, although probably still easier than the Typhoon.

If that's a Typhoon sized plane, it's going to take some really skinny radio gear to fit inside...

...or are these concept drawings rather than scale?

The wings should be OK, and maybe the tail servos could be tail mounted? That would only leave rx and batteries at the front, which is not so hard to imagine.

I gather the bottom 3 are photos of a prototype which look good.
 The trouble I found with the Typhoon, was the sheath design nose reduced the install size quite a lot. If the 'Schwing' with a hatch is a similar size it should be an easier install, depending perhaps on ballast install.
The x-tail looks like a similar arrangement to my old Air one mini Acacia which was a neat and sturdy design.
As Simon says though the nose is rather pointy.

ohn.

Looks great. I hope there is enough room for a battery, servos AND receiver this time

Looks quick. Love the idea of a conventional elevator.

Yes please looks great. Does it have a tow hook ?

Nice.

If that's a Typhoon sized plane, it's going to take some really skinny radio gear to fit inside...

...or are these concept drawings rather than scale?

The wings should be OK, and maybe the tail servos could be tail mounted? That would only leave rx and batteries at the front, which is not so hard to imagine.

Its a 2.5M plane Yo.

If it continues to grow by 0.3 metres per day, it should be a walk-in install by the time the first batch is ready

100'' confused me- apologies! Anyway, a bit more info here on the Schwing http://www.sloperacer.blogspot.com/

 

Looks great. I hope there is enough room for a battery, servos AND receiver this time

Looks quick. Love the idea of a conventional elevator.

It will all go in Tom, plus this one has the GOOD aerofoils - not the half developed ones stolen by RCRCM - oh by the way, I forgot they were developed by RCRCM

Yeah right...

Cheers,

James

Damn- and I haven't long ordered a Valenta 2.65m Cappuccino!

Can someone advise how I can edit my original post to show the correct 2.5m span instead of 2.2m?

................ Love the idea of a conventional elevator.

What advantage(s) does a conventional elevator afford over an all-moving unit?

Ro.

Me want one of these, I'll add it to the list. :(

Can someone advise how I can edit my original post to show the correct 2.5m span instead of 2.2m?

RCMF only give you a short time to edit your post, then it's cast in stone!

What advantage(s) does a conventional elevator afford over an all-moving unit?

Ro.

Its somewhat complex Ro but the elevator works essentially by changing the aerofoil camber by bending up or down so it works well.

An AMT spends much of its time stalled and is therefore not so effective.

I hope that sheds some light.

Cheers,

James

So what else does Mr Hammond have on the tucked away in a sub-directory on his HardDrive ?

Really like the look of this one

She looks beautiful in the photos James. This model will be a winner, I have no doubt! Like the name too 

Z

Congrats Jim, great to see you back in the game with a stylish new design!

Cheers
Greg

Nice work james...good to see you back..I still love my v3...good luck for the future..chris.Traynor

Its somewhat complex Ro but the elevator works essentially by changing the aerofoil camber by bending up or down so it works well.
An AMT spends much of its time stalled and is therefore not so effective.
I hope that sheds some light.
Cheers,
James

Ok.  So presumably the time that an AMT is stalled, it's also creating unnecessary drag - particularly in a position where it can have most detrimental effect, at the end of a long moment arm.

(Just guessin' 'cos I've just starting the learnin'.)

Ro.

AMT response is also never as sharp as an elevator, and you will also feel that during a manoeuvre with an AMT, you'll feel an initial bite, but then it seems to become a little less sharp through the manoeuvre - a little soggy compared to the feel you get from an elevator. The elevator response is much more "FUN" feeling than the response you get from an AMT!

Z

Yep I think so.

Yep I think so.

I reconstructed one of my earlier Wasabi's, and fitted it with an elevator.
And has been said, it seemed more positive/resposive than the original AMT.

I reconstructed one of my earlier Wasabi's, and fitted it with an elevator.
And has been said, it seemed more positive/resposive than the original AMT.

So.. is it worth me hacking the Sunbird I'm about to start building to have a conventional elevator instead?

Or is it not that much better?

Jeez no!!

I'm talking about a "near end of life" model- The Sunbird flies great just the way it is.

Indeed it does

What advantage(s) does a conventional elevator afford over an all-moving unit?

Ro.

A good explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailplane
the AMT changes the 'Angle of Attack'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack

Jeez no!!

Just checking   

An AMT spends much of its time stalled and is therefore not so effective.

What makes you think that ?

So what else does Mr Hammond have on the tucked away in a sub-directory on his HardDrive ?

Really like the look of this one

Three more after this already done in CAD Spooney.

Watch this space!

J

Ok.  So presumably the time that an AMT is stalled, it's also creating unnecessary drag - particularly in a position where it can have most detrimental effect, at the end of a long moment arm.

(Just guessin' 'cos I've just starting the learnin'.)

Ro.

To be honest Ro, the AMT really only works as a "fix"  - rather like the rails on the front of an F18 that direct a vortex or increased jet of pressure back on top the tailplane at high angles of attack for example. For supersonic planes - which ours are definately not - the spread of shock waves from the leading edge effectively blanks out the elevator, thus rendering it ineffective.

Hope that helps to explain

J

To be honest Ro, the AMT really only works as a "fix"  - rather like the rails on the front of an F18 that direct a vortex or increased jet of pressure back on top the tailplane at high angles of attack for example. For supersonic planes - which ours are definately not - the spread of shock waves from the leading edge effectively blanks out the elevator, thus rendering it ineffective.

Hope that helps to explain

J

Nope, it doesn't explain anything.

In my experience AMT is just as effective as a control as having elevators but both have different practical advantages/disadvantages in construction, assembly & transport etc.

Nope, it doesn't explain anything.

In my experience AMT is just as effective as a control as having elevators but both have different practical advantages/disadvantages in construction, assembly & transport etc.

Hey Mac...well lets see...

So far I see all of the Dedicated Aerobatics planes like Extras, Sukhois, Pitts etc, etc, use elevators - nary a single one uses an AMT...but then they are power planes so lets look at the Sailplanes...Crikey...every one of them uses elevator control too...

I wonder why...

J

Nope, it doesn't explain anything.

In my experience AMT is just as effective as a control as having elevators but both have different practical advantages/disadvantages in construction, assembly & transport etc.

Pat - in a way, of course, you're completely right. AMT is used on many models which are very pleasant to fly. But when you get into the details, there's no doubt in my mind that elevators offer an improvement in grip and feel in pitch. It's not a good/ bad thing - it's an improvement thing. The Aresti incorporates the same thinking. It's an overall good thing. btw the solution on the Schwing does not compromise on the convenience of the pack-down of a traditional AMT.

Z

....... btw the solution on the Schwing does not compromise on the convenience of the pack-down of a traditional AMT.
Z

For many I guess that convenience of transport isn't always a primary issue - but if what you say is correct Zim, it'll be interesting to see the solution used by James with Schwing.

Ro.

One joy of an AMT is that you get your relative incidence right!

I have two models with AMTs and both are sluggish on up elevator. Both were designed by a Mr Foss BTW.

His P5 with AMT moved to a P6 with elevators and elevator was much crisper.

Hey Mac...well lets see...

So far I see all of the Dedicated Aerobatics planes like Extras, Sukhois, Pitts etc, etc, use elevators - nary a single one uses an AMT...but then they are power planes

James, If you think it through you’ll find many reasons that are unrelated to control response. 

…so lets look at the Sailplanes...Crikey...every one of them uses elevator control too...

 

Except the ones that have AMTs. 

… I wonder why...

So putting the red herrings aside you still don’t have any explanation to justify the statement I queried :

An AMT spends much of its time stalled and is therefore not so effective.

 Any explanation ? 

So far – “I thought I’d try elevators for a change” – is looking good.   

Pat - in a way, of course, you're completely right. AMT is used on many models which are very pleasant to fly. But when you get into the details, there's no doubt in my mind that elevators offer an improvement in grip and feel in pitch. It's not a good/ bad thing - it's an improvement thing. The Aresti incorporates the same thinking. It's an overall good thing. btw the solution on the Schwing does not compromise on the convenience of the pack-down of a traditional AMT.

Z

One joy of an AMT is that you get your relative incidence right!

I have two models with AMTs and both are sluggish on up elevator. Both were designed by a Mr Foss BTW.

His P5 with AMT moved to a P6 with elevators and elevator was much crisper.

Z&M,
IMO, the difference in control response is probably personal perception. My perception is that AMT can be a little more linear & precise but not significantly. Getting the trim set to suit your style is more rewarding.

Many years ago I built a Seychelle then later a Phase6 both with removable tailplanes for transport convenience. Because of the prevailing advice that elevators were more responsive etc I went to the trouble of making them with elevators that automatically connected when plugged in instead of the easier AMT option.
This is the P6 :


As it happens I was flying the Seychelle at the Primrose Valley holiday week one year when I got talking to Sean Bannister. He saw my mod & asked why I didn’t go for the easier AMT option, then demonstrated how agile his AMT equipped Algebra 2M was by flying a routine including a series of square loop & bunt combos.

Since then I’ve flown someone elses P6 with AMT that isn’t noticeably different from mine & I have a Voltij with AMT that lacks nothing in elevator response.

Now when I’m building a new model I choose whichever is convenient.