U shaped wings

[Hul Tytus]

rec.aviation.homebuilt
U shaped wings

Some time ago there was a magazine cover showing a twin engine aircraft
with a U shape in each wing. The U's curved downward then up again with
engines and props within the U.
When did that occur and what magazine was that; anyone know? A vague memory
points to popular mechanics or popular science.

Hul

[Dan[_12_]]

Hul Tytus wrote:
> rec.aviation.homebuilt
> U shaped wings
>
> Some time ago there was a magazine cover showing a twin engine aircraft
> with a U shape in each wing. The U's curved downward then up again with
> engines and props within the U.
> When did that occur and what magazine was that; anyone know? A vague memory
> points to popular mechanics or popular science.
>
> Hul

Custer channel wing?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Logajan]

Dan > wrote:
> Hul Tytus wrote:
>> rec.aviation.homebuilt
>> U shaped wings
>>
>> Some time ago there was a magazine cover showing a twin engine
>> aircraft
>> with a U shape in each wing. The U's curved downward then up again
>> with engines and props within the U.
>> When did that occur and what magazine was that; anyone know? A
>> vague memory
>> points to popular mechanics or popular science.
>>
>> Hul
>
> Custer channel wing?

My thought also. Here are some links:

http://www.custerchannelwing.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sn5JL9t_C4

[bildan]

On Jan 4, 3:26*pm, Hul Tytus > wrote:
> rec.aviation.homebuilt
> U shaped wings
>
> * *Some time ago there was a magazine cover showing a twin engine aircraft
> with a U shape in each wing. The U's curved downward then up again with
> engines and props within the U.
> * *When did that occur and what magazine was that; anyone know? A vague memory
> points to popular mechanics or popular science.
>
> Hul

Custer Channel Wing.

I made an RC model of one years ago. The darn thing would fly so slow
the flight controls couldn't get a grip on the air. Losing an engine
when flying that slow was catastrophic, however.

[Æslop]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dan > wrote:
>> Hul Tytus wrote:
>>> rec.aviation.homebuilt
>>> U shaped wings
>>>
>>> Some time ago there was a magazine cover showing a twin engine
>>> aircraft
>>> with a U shape in each wing. The U's curved downward then up again
>>> with engines and props within the U.
>>> When did that occur and what magazine was that; anyone know? A
>>> vague memory
>>> points to popular mechanics or popular science.
>>>
>>> Hul
>>
>> Custer channel wing?
>
> My thought also. Here are some links:
>
> http://www.custerchannelwing.com/
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sn5JL9t_C4

I would think that an engine out on takeoff would be about 100% fatal. Such
a huge difference in lift would cause an immediate wing over and spin.

[bildan]

On Jan 5, 8:26*pm, "Æslop" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
>
>
> > Dan > wrote:
> >> Hul Tytus wrote:
> >>> rec.aviation.homebuilt
> >>> U shaped wings
>
> >>> * *Some time ago there was a magazine cover showing a twin engine
> >>> * *aircraft
> >>> with a U shape in each wing. The U's curved downward then up again
> >>> with engines and props within the U.
> >>> * *When did that occur and what magazine was that; anyone know? A
> >>> * *vague memory
> >>> points to popular mechanics or popular science.
>
> >>> Hul
>
> >> * * Custer channel wing?
>
> > My thought also. Here are some links:
>
> >http://www.custerchannelwing.com/
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sn5JL9t_C4
>
> I would think that an engine out on takeoff would be about 100% fatal. Such
> a huge difference in lift would cause an immediate wing over and spin.

It's essentially a "blown wing" or "powered lift" aircraft. The only
way it would be even remotely safe is to link the props with a cross
shaft with Sprague clutches somewhat like the V-22 Osprey. That way
if one engine failed, both props continue to be powered. Even then it
could only be justified for special missions that needed the STOL
capability badly.

However, a single engine channel wing is possible.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >, "Æslop" >
wrote:

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Dan > wrote:
> >> Hul Tytus wrote:
> >>> rec.aviation.homebuilt
> >>> U shaped wings
> >>>
> >>> Some time ago there was a magazine cover showing a twin engine
> >>> aircraft
> >>> with a U shape in each wing. The U's curved downward then up again
> >>> with engines and props within the U.
> >>> When did that occur and what magazine was that; anyone know? A
> >>> vague memory
> >>> points to popular mechanics or popular science.
> >>>
> >>> Hul
> >>
> >> Custer channel wing?
> >
> > My thought also. Here are some links:
> >
> > http://www.custerchannelwing.com/
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sn5JL9t_C4
>
> I would think that an engine out on takeoff would be about 100% fatal. Such
> a huge difference in lift would cause an immediate wing over and spin.

That is what effectively killed the Custer Channelwing.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Jim Logajan]

bildan > wrote:
> However, a single engine channel wing is possible.

According to one of the pages on the custerchannelwing.com site, a German
company by the name of Rhein Flugseubau experimented with a single channel
wing variant called the RFV-1 in the 1960s:

http://www.custerchannelwing.com/05_dreams.html

[[email protected]]

Thanks Dan - Custer channel wing it was.

Hul

Dan > wrote:
> Hul Tytus wrote:
> > rec.aviation.homebuilt
> > U shaped wings
> >
> > Some time ago there was a magazine cover showing a twin engine aircraft
> > with a U shape in each wing. The U's curved downward then up again with
> > engines and props within the U.
> > When did that occur and what magazine was that; anyone know? A vague memory
> > points to popular mechanics or popular science.
> >
> > Hul

> Custer channel wing?

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 5, 10:49*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 8:26*pm, "Æslop" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
> > > Dan > wrote:
> > >> Hul Tytus wrote:
> > >>> rec.aviation.homebuilt
> > >>> U shaped wings
>
> > >>> * *Some time ago there was a magazine cover showing a twin engine
> > >>> * *aircraft
> > >>> with a U shape in each wing. The U's curved downward then up again
> > >>> with engines and props within the U.
> > >>> * *When did that occur and what magazine was that; anyone know? A
> > >>> * *vague memory
> > >>> points to popular mechanics or popular science.
>
> > >>> Hul
>
> > >> * * Custer channel wing?
>
> > > My thought also. Here are some links:
>
> > >http://www.custerchannelwing.com/
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sn5JL9t_C4
>
> > I would think that an engine out on takeoff would be about 100% fatal. Such
> > a huge difference in lift would cause an immediate wing over and spin.
>
> It's essentially a "blown wing" or "powered lift" aircraft. *The only
> way it would be even remotely safe is to link the props with a cross
> shaft with Sprague clutches somewhat like the V-22 Osprey. *That way
> if one engine failed, both props continue to be powered. *Even then it
> could only be justified for special missions that needed the STOL
> capability badly.
>
> However, a single engine channel wing is possible.

Not exactly a Channel Wing, but this plane is a fully ducted wing
single: http://www.optica.co.uk/

Dave

[Tony W]

Dave wrote:
> Not exactly a Channel Wing, but this plane is a fully ducted wing
> single: http://www.optica.co.uk/
>
> Dave

That has to be the weirdest airplane ever...

Tony

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Dave > wrote:

> On Jan 5, 10:49*pm, bildan > wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 8:26*pm, "Æslop" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> >
> > .. .
> >
> > > > Dan > wrote:
> > > >> Hul Tytus wrote:
> > > >>> rec.aviation.homebuilt
> > > >>> U shaped wings
> >
> > > >>> * *Some time ago there was a magazine cover showing a twin engine
> > > >>> * *aircraft
> > > >>> with a U shape in each wing. The U's curved downward then up again
> > > >>> with engines and props within the U.
> > > >>> * *When did that occur and what magazine was that; anyone know? A
> > > >>> * *vague memory
> > > >>> points to popular mechanics or popular science.
> >
> > > >>> Hul
> >
> > > >> * * Custer channel wing?
> >
> > > > My thought also. Here are some links:
> >
> > > >http://www.custerchannelwing.com/
> >
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sn5JL9t_C4
> >
> > > I would think that an engine out on takeoff would be about 100% fatal.
> > > Such
> > > a huge difference in lift would cause an immediate wing over and spin.
> >
> > It's essentially a "blown wing" or "powered lift" aircraft. *The only
> > way it would be even remotely safe is to link the props with a cross
> > shaft with Sprague clutches somewhat like the V-22 Osprey. *That way
> > if one engine failed, both props continue to be powered. *Even then it
> > could only be justified for special missions that needed the STOL
> > capability badly.
> >
> > However, a single engine channel wing is possible.
>
> Not exactly a Channel Wing, but this plane is a fully ducted wing
> single: http://www.optica.co.uk/
>
> Dave

I don't think that it got the blown lift effect that the Custer did. The
problems with the Custer arose with low speed controllability and
asymmetric lift at very low speeds if an engine failed on the twin.

Even the single would have similar problems if the engine fails at very
low speed, as the plane would now be well below stall speed.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Beryl[_3_]]

Dave wrote:
>
> Not exactly a Channel Wing, but this plane is a fully ducted wing
> single: http://www.optica.co.uk/

And another one.
<http://www.things-with-wings.com/ThingsWings/StipaCaproni.htm>

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Beryl > wrote:

> Dave wrote:
> >
> > Not exactly a Channel Wing, but this plane is a fully ducted wing
> > single: http://www.optica.co.uk/
>
> And another one.
> <http://www.things-with-wings.com/ThingsWings/StipaCaproni.htm>

Like the Optica, it is a ducted fan -- not a blown wing.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Beryl[_3_]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Beryl > wrote:
>
>> Dave wrote:
>>> Not exactly a Channel Wing, but this plane is a fully ducted wing
>>> single: http://www.optica.co.uk/
>> And another one.
>> <http://www.things-with-wings.com/ThingsWings/StipaCaproni.htm>
>
> Like the Optica, it is a ducted fan -- not a blown wing.

I know. It's in a coffee table book I have, which says the duct/fuselage
contributes about 1/3 of the total lift.
There was once a frisbee-ish flying toy duct, anybody remember it?

[Tony W]

Beryl wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>>
>> Not exactly a Channel Wing, but this plane is a fully ducted wing
>> single: http://www.optica.co.uk/
>
> And another one.
> <http://www.things-with-wings.com/ThingsWings/StipaCaproni.htm>

And I thought the other plane was strange...

Tony