Branden & Keith from Hawaii

Hi Wright Flyers,

Greeting from sunny and WINDY Hawaii! We are working on testing our redesigns.
Here is a short description of our findings up to this point.

Original design - did not fly far due to a tendency to "nose up" and stall.

Original design balanced on CG - flew on a slight incline down with a tendency to go left or right at about the mid-point of the flight.
Conclusion: balance on CG - good! We will use the CG on each subsequent design.

Original design balanced on CG and with dihedral - flew on a slight incline down and straight.
Conclusion: dihedral - good! We will use on each subsequent design.
Increased wing span (higher aspect ratio): 12 inch wing span - increase distance and "flatter" flight path (as compared to the original design)

24 inch wing span - increase distance and "flatter" flight path (as compared to the original design and 12 inch wing span) seems to want to"float".

36 inch wing span - shorter distance (24 inch wing span) and wing flutter.
Conclusion: 24 inch wing span - good! We will use on each subsequent design.

24 inch wing span with "curved" (bent to arc like an airfoil) wing and wing placed at the 1/5 point on the fuselage (ala Tom Sanders, thanks Tom!) - increased distance and rises but will steepen its angle of decent. It is also heavier because the increased length between the wing and stabilizer.
Conclusion: curved wing - good! We will use on each subsequent design.

24 inch wing span with elliptical wing planform - decreased distance, flies similar to the previous design but would turn left or right on occasion (the glider was balanced, possible difference in wing curvature? tip stall?)
Conclusion: In theory this is good, but could not get it to work consistently.

We have one more design to test. We should be done and have the design submitted by Thursday.

See ya!
Branden and Keith