@@Glydaire Great, although you actually made a bit of a hybrid of a ground effect vehicle and a hovercraft. Why do I say that? Because the engines pump air under the structure. In a classic ground effect vehicle, the air is compressed by the very shape of the air intakes. But I'm not saying this as a criticism, it probably makes more sense at a low initial speed.
It does turn mostly on differential thrust. There's effectively no airflow over the rudders when the internal flaps are up (so most air is diverted down). At higher speeds rudders are better. Though they were too small here anyway.
What barbarity, such changes are made by manipulating the COG! But the fact is that sometimes when testing aircraft they have to provide some "stone" in place of the missing radar or weapons :)
@ see.. less barbaric than you think ^^ atleast and easy way to see if it ‘will’ work better if the COG is shifted. Taping a stone to the fuselage is easy… remaking the whole thing is before knowing it will help is not.
@@nirodha7028 But I think it's better to attach a rod on one side. Even a small weight on a long rod greatly changes the COG, and a large rock closer to the COG will weigh down the vehicle. Moreover, I know at least one airplane (actually a glider) where the COG change was regulated by moving the weight on the rod.
@ hahah sure… that’ll work. I am not suggesting a bloody ‘large’ rock though ^^… more like a small pebble… and who said it needs to be close to the current COG? :-) But yeah we are on the same page. Adjustable is better.
@@nirodha7028 With this design, it seems quite understandable to me that the front is raised more. The "pipes" supplying air to the rear are simply smaller. Moreover, the further from the fan, the weaker the blowing is probably. Watch a video of such a project "Delta 2 Lippisch-type ground effect glider".There, practically, as far as I understand, there is no flat "bottom" at all, only one large "air inlet". At the front there is a small weight hidden underneath to change the COG.
При екранопланите, хоризонталната опашна плоскост има положителен ъгъл на атака, т.е. опашната плоскост също създава подемна сила. В момента при теб не е така.
Great work, you inspired me to make an RC skirtless hovercraft and it works brilliantly.
Good to hear! Post a video if you want and I'll take a look. I don't see many actual builds on YT.
@@Glydaire Great, although you actually made a bit of a hybrid of a ground effect vehicle and a hovercraft. Why do I say that? Because the engines pump air under the structure. In a classic ground effect vehicle, the air is compressed by the very shape of the air intakes. But I'm not saying this as a criticism, it probably makes more sense at a low initial speed.
Great idea for low environmental impact, it barely moved those blades of grass. Have you thought about using differential thrust rather than rudders?
It does turn mostly on differential thrust. There's effectively no airflow over the rudders when the internal flaps are up (so most air is diverted down). At higher speeds rudders are better. Though they were too small here anyway.
Hi, трябва да промениш ъгълът на електромоторите, спрямо оста на "крилата"
"крилата" не може да са плоски. Използвай s образен профил.
All I think when I see this is: duct tape a rock to the front and try again :-)
What barbarity, such changes are made by manipulating the COG! But the fact is that sometimes when testing aircraft they have to provide some "stone" in place of the missing radar or weapons :)
@ see.. less barbaric than you think ^^ atleast and easy way to see if it ‘will’ work better if the COG is shifted. Taping a stone to the fuselage is easy… remaking the whole thing is before knowing it will help is not.
@@nirodha7028 But I think it's better to attach a rod on one side. Even a small weight on a long rod greatly changes the COG, and a large rock closer to the COG will weigh down the vehicle. Moreover, I know at least one airplane (actually a glider) where the COG change was regulated by moving the weight on the rod.
@ hahah sure… that’ll work. I am not suggesting a bloody ‘large’ rock though ^^… more like a small pebble… and who said it needs to be close to the current COG? :-) But yeah we are on the same page. Adjustable is better.
@@nirodha7028 With this design, it seems quite understandable to me that the front is raised more. The "pipes" supplying air to the rear are simply smaller. Moreover, the further from the fan, the weaker the blowing is probably. Watch a video of such a project "Delta 2 Lippisch-type ground effect glider".There, practically, as far as I understand, there is no flat "bottom" at all, only one large "air inlet". At the front there is a small weight hidden underneath to change the COG.
При екранопланите, хоризонталната опашна плоскост има положителен ъгъл на атака, т.е. опашната плоскост също създава подемна сила. В момента при теб не е така.