I was there. Near Doyalson in NSW Dean Winton (builder/fibre-glassier of the Sapphire) made a foam throw model with exceptional glide ratio, flew well on a light push, flew better on a hard throw. Two weeks later Scott Winton had turned it into a scale model with a flapperon setup by mounting the aileron servo on a platform with another servo for elevator + acting as flaps to fine-tune and get a feel for it. If I remember right it flew better upside-down. Next time I saw the project it was built and nearly ready to fly, hangered at Ballina NSW grass strip (before the airport existed). Worth saying that Dean was the expert in fibre-glass and composite materials. 4 of the 5 world records are still standing.
To say he designed the plane by "SIMPLY throwing away everything that wasn't needed for flight" is such an asinine statement and devalues the engineering that went into such a design. To make a constant-chord flying wing perform so well is quite an accomplishment. Cool little plane!
well, the only "engineering" needed in the first world war to make airplanes was a couple of meters of canvas, some sticks of good wood, an ultra-heavy prehistoric diesel engine, a wicker chair with a wool cushion seat and a machine gun, that's the "engineering and design" you're talking about? "engineers" and "designers" are overrated, I would prefer a self-taught inventor a thousand times over an "engineer" like those from Airbus or Boeing who only shit on the same old shit, not contributing any innovation and nothing that serves to make flying easier and safer
That is important context. This footage reveals a tailless design demonstrating pretty decent pitch control although at times there appears to be some PIO or pitch instability. It seems that that may have indeed been an issue.
As a retired pilot and a lifelong Experimental Aircraft enthusiast I watched it wobble all over during this video and it obviously has problems. I'd bet today that those problems are better understood and resolved but bick then they were a pilot killer (which is what happened)
Scott was a good friend of my dads garry morgan dad actually helped eith the moulds of the opal and scott did the structual analisis on my dads first design dad went on to be one of australias bigest aircraft manufacturers and dad used to say it would be very interesting to see what scott would have done with todays technology and materials
I admire the design less is always better, but I can see it doing a cartwheel down the runway on a rough Landing probably need to put some of those spring loaded wing spars on it like the bush planes have, and I'm not sure if I would want a front Landing wheel between my legs either but opinions are like assholes and that's just mine, I have nothing but respect for the man that actually gets out there and built this
I was inspired several years ago by Scott Winton's "Facet Opal" (not the other way 'round) to make a GA design of the Lifting Fuselage Configuration (LFC) that I've been working on since 2006. Without this simple base, I'm sure I couldn't have come up with ANY GA design that would look and fly as well as this, especially as small as a 3-to-5-person plane. It's much easier to make the LFC into a larger frame. I'm workin' on it. Thank you, Scott.
@@bobbyduke777 That thing is anything but amazing. Look how unstable it is I bet that pilot had to keep his hands on the controls just to make it go in the direction he wanted to go. Even birds have a horizontal stabilizer, and that's a fact!
yes i think the same, why nobody are working in this design that make so many records?, the problem that this plane have can be solved with the new technologies
@@carloko08 give me a break my friend That thing is unstable as hell. Nobody's working on the design because it's a piece of crap, even birds have a horizontal stabilizer, and that's a fact!
I believe this design is worthy of a revisit. Modern RC aircraft Have stabilization systems readily available that would cure any in-flight oscillations. Perhaps RCtestflight channel could help, he writes the code.
I am pleased to introduce you to the MiniHawk-VTOL, my design, that I'm absolutely amazed happens to converge with the Opal. I couldn't believe it, discovering this video a few minutes ago, that Scott Winton and I happened to design essentially the same plane, 30 years apart. Stabilization helps, but it is possible to fly it fully manually with no stabilization. Pitch oscillations do occur if the CG is too far back, and the margin for getting the CG right is very narrow.
I wish someone would resolve the oscillation problem and produce it. It looked amazing in flight, and seems worthy, considering how many world records it holds.
Remarkably this Opal Facet is the very same configuration as my favourite FPV RC aircraft called the Nanogoblin, which is also extremely efficient plank and has been flown 3 hours and 25 miles out and back by ambitious pilots - weighs 250 grams, and can hit 160kph.
I read somewhere that early post war attempts at flying wing bombers etc were ultimately unsuccessful due to yaw and pitch instability, in practice the promised aerodynamic gains were cancelled by the drag of control inputs required to stabilise flight. Once computer driven fly by wire came along things changed hence the B2 Spirit etc. But then I guess the Germans managed with the ME 163 Komet, although the DH 108 Swallow killed all its pilots due to destructive pitch oscillations at approx 600 Knots, only Eric Winkle Brown survived becasue he was quite short and avoided being thrown against the canopy and knocked unconscious.
Being the test pilot of a unique airplane you designed and built yourself must be very interesting and rewarding, but anyone intelligent enough to do so should also be aware of how incredibly dangerous it would be.
@@tomthompson7400 That doesn't look right at all, look how unstable it is. I'm sure the pilot is doing everything he can just to keep that thing headed in the right direction. Even birds have a horizontal stabilizer, and that's a fact.
Without an elevator, pitch stability is going to be an issue, the entire pitch control is based on the chord of the wing, only 3 feet or so.. thus it is going to be very sensitive.. yes it is efficient.. but downside is it is pitch sensitive
Radio control hobby has many flying wing designs. They are known for their speed and their more difficult to fly. Even though they also can slow fly most are used for speed, delta wings and straight wings. Search rc wing
Scott was amazing with his design and what he achieved. We still mourn his loss, as well as the many extremely talented pilots who pushed the boundaries of the hamstrung regulations, namely 95.10 enforced by the Australian Civil Aviation Authority at the time. It is also a pity that the design did not continue however promising as a tribute to him.
Actually, the then new regulations, and specifically 95.10, allowed Scott to create the Opal without a lot of external oversight, and by default created a new class to build in. Sometimes, 'limitations' give you something to work towards, 'Unlimited' just shows how much money you have...
The landing gear was ridiculous and that alone was accident prone ,as shown on another TV promo where it shed wheels and cartwheeled to a stop in a cloud of dust. It was not 95:10 legal either . The visibility was poor due to the wing position. As kids we all made control line "flying wings" of exactly this shape, I understand that a student thesis was the origin of the design (UNSW ) in any case breaking records or breaking necks is often a dead end , extreme measures without any long term value contribute little or nothing of practical use (Paul MacCready noted that the Spirit of StLouis added nothing to aircraft advancement - a layout that forced the pilot to fly blind sitting behind the fuel tank etc yet it was record breaking, the GeeBee racers also were death traps. Finally, Scott stole the names of his two ultralights from my original use on my Opal (1975) and Sapphire (1980) RAAF trainer design, both published long before and verifiable.
Ross you may not remember me, but I knew you well. Irregardless of the “failings” in design that you highlighted, he had an aircraft that performed beyond what was available at the time. I pay Kudos for that. The names you mentioned were never stated to me and I assume that you are correct, however that has nothing to do with my opinion complementing past pilots and developers.
I agree with you, however the limitations on minimum and maximum altitude at the time caused many fatalities until the limits were raised so ballistic parachutes etc had a chance to work. Sure we had the freedom to build what we wanted and even I successfully built three aircraft myself. It was an era that we will never see again.
While some may think this is a good design, it does not perform in some part of the flight dynamics curve. If you play the PC game Trailmakers you will know that this is one of the most unstable configurations to use. While you may get it to work perfectly 99% of the time, there is that 1% which may prove fatal. This is why the traditional design approaches are used because they are much more forgiving. When a flight surface fails, the other surfaces are there to temper or account for the failure. Canards are a good example of this - marginalising stalls.
@@helipilotuh1 That aircraft isn't stable at all, look at the video I'm sure the pilot is doing everything he can to keep that thing headed in the right direction. Even birds have a horizontal stabilizer and that's a fact
Just thinking about propeller at the very back of the plane, looks to me too close to the ground. From the point of safe landing and especially safe take-off on a grass flat field, when the plane should hold some angle against ground, how much rigid was the single rear chassis leg ?
Maybe some of those things he "threw away" as not needed were needed. Besides the lack of pitch stabilization, the really narrow landing gear seems problematic.
In case anyone is confused by this aircraft being described as a "flying wing"... it is not a flying wing, because it has a distinct fuselage. It just has no horizontal stabilizer, and no extended tail.
Interesting design, shame about the fatal crash though. Safety is slightly important. Design the spar for 10g, consider flutter and bring a chute. Don't fly low. First test flights could be remote control.
... It looks like it would make an incredible commuter, the only thing that got me a little nervous was that narrow undercarriage. I'm not understanding what happened exactly, the wings started fluttering, or there was a pitch oscelation?
At first sight I thought to myself : it should have some dihedral in the wing layout for better straight-line stability . It also looks not long enough for the size of the wings , a vertical stability issue ? Sad to read below the designer-pilot crashed and died .
Certificated: To have been issued an official certificate. In the U.S., a CFI is correctly called a certificated flight instructor. A “certified” flight instructor is not the correct terminology. Production aircraft are issued airworthiness certificates. Therefore, it is correct to say that an airplane is certificated. Home built aircraft are not issued airworthiness certificates. In the U.S., these aircraft must have the word, “EXPERIMENTAL” stenciled on the fuselage.
Would it actually do a conventional spin? The centre of pressure of the aerofoil will move forward with increasing angle of attack, either positive or negative, making the aircraft want to roll over and over, nose over tail, just like a plank of balsa wood or foam. This might well happen before a stall. Either way, it seems quite deadly to me!
@@alanparkinson549 Spin recovery is critical. In addition to your plank of wood tendencies if the centre of lift oscillates between the centre of gravity; the other in a "conventional mode spin", only a seriously nose heavy plane with a spin centre of pressure well aft of its centre of mass will come out of a spin quickly before gyroscopic forces begins to flatten a spin which is unrecoverable (as in I believe as happens with the F15 the Tomcat with wings swept back) As you say, a design choice of the devil and the deep blue sea. A additional third vertical tall fin would also help with anti conventional spin characteristics, but that would bring in excessive drag . Built for record breaking purposes only. Fly high carry both a pikot's parachute and a spin recovery parachute is the best survival mode.
One problem I notice right away after take off is that there is no reflex in the elevator. That means it's tail heavy and prone to easy stall conditions at lower air speeds. On a single wing like that, there should be at least 3degrees of reflex built in or simulated by up ailerons. This isn't the case in this one as you can see in level flight. NOT GOOD AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!
It is nearly impossible to discern an airfoil chord line shape, or a wing twist distribution, from visual inspection of an aircraft. This is a flying wing. There is no way it can fly without proper design features, such as a reflexed airfoil. Positive pitching moment coefficient is a prerequisite for a flying wing, this has been clearly and obviously achieved by the fact this aircraft can fly at all. There is no debate here. Stability does not require reflexed ailerons, if the proper airfoil is chosen. This is not an RC flying model designed by someone ignorant in aircraft design, who would erroneously choose an airfoil having a negative moment coefficient, as many model aircraft seem to employ... Reflexed ailerons are an incredibly inefficient and foolish means to achieve aerodynamic stability, and no full size aircraft by any competent designers employ such a feature. Also, reflex ailerons or any other aerodynamic feature has little to do with weight and balance. Which is related to mass distribution. There is no way to tell an aircraft is tail heavy just by looking at it. Unless you have the blueprints and a couple days to perform a weight buildup of the materials and moments. Or a set of calibrated scales, plumb bobs, tape measure, perfectly flat floor. Access to the aircraft in question, and an afternoon.
As @TheJustin says, it is not conclusive that there is not enough washout/ reflex by just looking at an 80s video. As far as straight wing tailless aircraft are concerned (plank flying wings), the washout for stall control is usually not needed (for sure it is not needed for pitch stability either). Therefore, the Facet Opal would rely on its airfoil reflex for pitch stability/trimming. Reflex is there, you can see it in the wingtips. It is not large however: a successful plank has a low static margin (5% is quite normal), so no need for highly reflexed airfoils (or large elevon deflections). The low static margin is permissible in a low aspect ratio plank becausw: it has a low aspect ratio and the wing is straight (so no danger for wingtip stall due to the high local Cl).
The initial comment about absent reflex/aft CG was not well-received, but the 3-views drawing (in the link posted with the video) shows what looks like a "standard" symmetrical airfoil, and the plane appears to have killed its pilot with what has been described as a pitch oscillation. Neither of these things is any more than speculation but together, IMO they lend some credibility to the original comment. The fact that it flew successfully prior to the accident suggests that just a little fine tuning of the design was all that was needed to make the plane safe. It's a real shame.
@@echassin I agree: Opal had a handling problem with pitch oscillation at low speeds. This was indicative (and the late Scott admitted it) that the airfoil chosen was not the right one. It was in fact a NACA airfoil without reflex, that was modified to have a little reflex for the purpose. However, the pitching moment curve of this airfoil was not constant with regards to the angle of attack, meaning that a gust, for example, during landing would lead to oscillations (the plank flying wing stabilizes through the positive pitching moment created by the airfoil and/or the elevons). Moreover, the hinge moment had also non linear characteristics, leading to more pilot induced oscillations. All these problems with the airfoil were acknowledged and I think that Scott wanted to rebuilt the wing with a better airfoil (a task that was undertaken a few years ago by his successors,but I do not know the outcomes). Lastly, the accident as far as I know, didn' t have anything to do with the inadequate airfoil, but it was more of a structural problem.
> up ailerons The scale model used to produce the design demonstrated this. It had flapperon (or what might be called elevons). Elevons with the ability to set them like flaps. I believe it was discovered it flew upside-down, which would have been with slight up ailerons (or down flaps, inverted).
Flying wings require airfoils with low pitching moments. By that I mean an airfoil where the center of pressure (coincident with center of lift in the case of a flying wing) have very little chordwise movement, fore and aft, from airflow angles of attack starting at zero up through and well past the stall -- say, 40 degrees AoA. If the airplane might achieve an AoA in flight test, you need to have predicted the flight characteristics likely to be exhibited. (Which is, crazy enough, not usually the province of some self-anointed gifted amateur but a trained, staid, and oh-so-boring Boeing or Airbus "engineer.") This limits your airfoil choices to very few which then don't provide much in the way of an ability to improve airplane handling in all other respects from aircraft rotation on takeoff, through a series of stalls at altitude, and finally, in the landing flare maneuver. -- The point of a fuselage with a horizontal stabilizer and elevator is that more airfoils with desired characteristics are available and not disqualified if you have a long stick behind the wing with an horizontal stab to provide the lever for pitch control. I didn't see any pictures of the guy stalling the airplane: do we simply placard the panel "DON'T STALL OR YOU'LL DIE"? God help him if he decided to try a spin, a very simple aerodynamic maneuver easily controlled and popular with conventional J3 Cub-like designs. The Spirit B-2 bomber is an exception (which I haven't see discussed specific to airfoil pitching moments) but then again, it has a highly engineered fly-by-wire (FBW) stability and flight control system -- designed by engineers. Boeing and Airbus type engineers. It's a cool design but with liabilities and risks, as all designs have. I'm not sure this one is worth repeating. Also, I'm not an aeronautical or any other type of engineer but I'm at least not so bold as to suggest engineers of any stripe are less than geniuses. No much here left to see, move along ...
@@robertcringely7348 In loving memory of James (Jim) John Marske, of Chandler, Arizona, who gracefully soared into the heavens on June 26, 2024. Born on October 31, 1935, in Michigan City, Indiana, he shared 61 beautiful years of marriage with his beloved wife Maureen (Mooney) Marske and was a cherished father to his children Sean Marske, Kimberly (Marske) Hauskins, Laura Marske-Blinn, and Kathleen (Kat) Marske. Jim was not only a devoted family man but also a dedicated mentor, sharing his wisdom and knowledge generously with others. An avid pilot, pioneer, and innovator in sailplane design, Jim's groundbreaking achievements earned recognition and respect worldwide. A man of unwavering integrity, kindness, and generosity, Jim touched the hearts and minds of all who crossed his path. His life was a beautiful tapestry woven with threads of faith, family, and the boundless skies. Even in retirement, Jim continued to inspire with his innovative spirit, dedicating his time to refining his creations and sharing his knowledge. He authored several successful books including "The Wing and I" and various technical manuals. Jim's presence in the soaring community was not only deeply respected but also warmly cherished. His legacy will live on to inspire future generations. In 1992 he relocated from Indiana to Marion, Ohio and in 2018 he moved to Chandler, Arizona near most of his family. Jim was also the Grandfather of ten and Great Grandfather of six, leaving a lasting impact on each generation. Though Jim may have bid farewell to this earthly realm, his spirit of adventure and his legacy of innovation will continue to inspire and uplift all those who were fortunate enough to have known him.
Jim Marske was a far better designer, I visited him in 1974 whilst working on the HP18 sailplane and accompanied Dick Schreder as an EAA designer to look over his new Pioneer Mk 4 . In the 1950s Fred Hoinville in Australia championed the "mknimidget' plank wing glider which also failed to win support.
@@rossnolan7283Because the L/D is always lower and true tailless can't land in a crosswind (Horton) Monarch? What a delightful design !! FWIW I talked to Jim a day or two before he passed and didn't realize how sick he was.. Prayers to his son.. Blessings BA..
To suggest that he did not use engineering skills and techniques is disingenuous to say tge least. No one can design an aeroplane, especially one designed to break altitude and climb recirds, without great attention to detail.
From the ATSB - "No evidence was found of any fault in manufacture or of pre-existing deterioration to the spar structure." The pilot was doing a level 20-30 degree bank when the failure occurred.
You could buy an old camera and old clothes from a thrift shop, record a thing happening, and then tell everyone it happened in 1986 and they'd believe you.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I was there.
Near Doyalson in NSW Dean Winton (builder/fibre-glassier of the Sapphire) made a foam throw model with exceptional glide ratio, flew well on a light push, flew better on a hard throw.
Two weeks later Scott Winton had turned it into a scale model with a flapperon setup by mounting the aileron servo on a platform with another servo for elevator + acting as flaps to fine-tune and get a feel for it. If I remember right it flew better upside-down.
Next time I saw the project it was built and nearly ready to fly, hangered at Ballina NSW grass strip (before the airport existed).
Worth saying that Dean was the expert in fibre-glass and composite materials.
4 of the 5 world records are still standing.
To say he designed the plane by "SIMPLY throwing away everything that wasn't needed for flight" is such an asinine statement and devalues the engineering that went into such a design. To make a constant-chord flying wing perform so well is quite an accomplishment. Cool little plane!
40 hp and 250+ kph of cruise speed.
It's literally the Sapphire wing with modified wingtips.
Exactly! As if all one needed to make a few cases of Château Margaux was the list of ingredients.
well, the only "engineering" needed in the first world war to make airplanes was a couple of meters of canvas, some sticks of good wood, an ultra-heavy prehistoric diesel engine, a wicker chair with a wool cushion seat and a machine gun, that's the "engineering and design" you're talking about? "engineers" and "designers" are overrated, I would prefer a self-taught inventor a thousand times over an "engineer" like those from Airbus or Boeing who only shit on the same old shit, not contributing any innovation and nothing that serves to make flying easier and safer
@@carloko08 Go back to the YMCA.
To add context. The plane crashed, killing the pilot, due to an uncontrolled wing oscillation, breaking the main wing spar.
I’m saddened to learn that; he made an amazing airplane.
That is important context. This footage reveals a tailless design demonstrating pretty decent pitch control although at times there appears to be some PIO or pitch instability. It seems that that may have indeed been an issue.
But www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/24976/ASOR199502098.pdf states he was killed flying a modified Sapphire??
There wasn't enough progress in CAD and fluid dynamics simulations at the time to predict something like this.
Ihad thought the aircraft had hit a tree on landing
I was lucky enough to see this fly when I was in Byron Bay. Awesome to watch. I still own a Sapphire.
As a retired pilot and a lifelong Experimental Aircraft enthusiast I watched it wobble all over during this video and it obviously has problems. I'd bet today that those problems are better understood and resolved but bick then they were a pilot killer (which is what happened)
That toupee is an amazing feat of engineering! GLORIOUS!
That’s not a toupee, that’s a baby wombat sleeping on his head.
Scott was a good friend of my dads garry morgan dad actually helped eith the moulds of the opal and scott did the structual analisis on my dads first design dad went on to be one of australias bigest aircraft manufacturers and dad used to say it would be very interesting to see what scott would have done with todays technology and materials
I admire the design less is always better, but I can see it doing a cartwheel down the runway on a rough Landing probably need to put some of those spring loaded wing spars on it like the bush planes have, and I'm not sure if I would want a front Landing wheel between my legs either but opinions are like assholes and that's just mine, I have nothing but respect for the man that actually gets out there and built this
I was inspired several years ago by Scott Winton's "Facet Opal" (not the other way 'round) to make a GA design of the Lifting Fuselage Configuration (LFC) that I've been working on since 2006. Without this simple base, I'm sure I couldn't have come up with ANY GA design that would look and fly as well as this, especially as small as a 3-to-5-person plane. It's much easier to make the LFC into a larger frame. I'm workin' on it. Thank you, Scott.
Years ago I was with an aviation friend and we visited Scott's brother's house, and saw the wreckage of the Opal was in his back yard.
Just tragic. :(
Why would they leave the wreckage and not clean it up?
@@DesertVox I imagine because it's the legacy of his brother.
Look how fast that little ultralight is. Amazing ingenuity!
@@bobbyduke777 That thing is anything but amazing. Look how unstable it is I bet that pilot had to keep his hands on the controls just to make it go in the direction he wanted to go. Even birds have a horizontal stabilizer, and that's a fact!
I currently own one of Scotts rare birds, a Sapphire 95.10 tri gear built from a kit in 1983. Nice to fly but very pitch sensitive!
It kind of looks like he scaled up one of those rc planks with the glo engines, so many designs from back in the 70's. Good stuff.
This fantastic design shoul be revisited, with computer modeling the PIO problem could be solved.
yes i think the same, why nobody are working in this design that make so many records?, the problem that this plane have can be solved with the new technologies
@@carloko08 Plans and airfoil details have not been made public possibly to protect Scott's records or to prevent others from producing clones.
@@olsonspeed thank God nobody is producing any clones, that thing is unstable as hell even birds have a horizontal stabilizer, and that's a fact
@@carloko08 give me a break my friend That thing is unstable as hell. Nobody's working on the design because it's a piece of crap, even birds have a horizontal stabilizer, and that's a fact!
I believe this design is worthy of a revisit. Modern RC aircraft Have stabilization systems readily available that would cure any in-flight oscillations. Perhaps RCtestflight channel could help, he writes the code.
I am pleased to introduce you to the MiniHawk-VTOL, my design, that I'm absolutely amazed happens to converge with the Opal. I couldn't believe it, discovering this video a few minutes ago, that Scott Winton and I happened to design essentially the same plane, 30 years apart. Stabilization helps, but it is possible to fly it fully manually with no stabilization. Pitch oscillations do occur if the CG is too far back, and the margin for getting the CG right is very narrow.
@@skipwalker3269 absolutely not, even birds have a horizontal stabilizer and that's a fact
This is exactly what I was imagining just with front elevators
Great plane
I remember that poor man died with that plane doing what he loved, like Rod Hay at Katoomba airfield, he was my instructor years ago. R.I.P.
Amazing guy and just so well done.. too bad about the short period oscillation which I think could have been analysed properly even back then..
I wish someone would resolve the oscillation problem and produce it. It looked amazing in flight, and seems worthy, considering how many world records it holds.
Remarkably this Opal Facet is the very same configuration as my favourite FPV RC aircraft called the Nanogoblin, which is also extremely efficient plank and has been flown 3 hours and 25 miles out and back by ambitious pilots - weighs 250 grams, and can hit 160kph.
I read somewhere that early post war attempts at flying wing bombers etc were ultimately unsuccessful due to yaw and pitch instability, in practice the promised aerodynamic gains were cancelled by the drag of control inputs required to stabilise flight. Once computer driven fly by wire came along things changed hence the B2 Spirit etc. But then I guess the Germans managed with the ME 163 Komet, although the DH 108 Swallow killed all its pilots due to destructive pitch oscillations at approx 600 Knots, only Eric Winkle Brown survived becasue he was quite short and avoided being thrown against the canopy and knocked unconscious.
This was heroic act.
very cool plane
Being the test pilot of a unique airplane you designed and built yourself must be very interesting and rewarding, but anyone intelligent enough to do so should also be aware of how incredibly dangerous it would be.
I once saw Scott sit with a strange odd designed paper aircraft we had made for 3 hours with a calculator and ruler muttering "It shouldn't fly!".
No doubt he was well aware
amazing - looks like the RC nano goblin got its inspiration right here
That just looks so right ,, therefore it must be right.
@@tomthompson7400 That doesn't look right at all, look how unstable it is. I'm sure the pilot is doing everything he can just to keep that thing headed in the right direction. Even birds have a horizontal stabilizer, and that's a fact.
inspiring stuff, thanks
On a wing and a prayer.
Suuuper 👍 Plane 👍 and Video
Very unique design
No such thing as "Very unique". Things are unique or not unique. Picky, picky, picky!
@@demiurgiac ESL
This looks as if it was the inspirational template for the nano goblin
That thing has to be a yaw nightmare.
Without an elevator, pitch stability is going to be an issue, the entire pitch control is based on the chord of the wing, only 3 feet or so.. thus it is going to be very sensitive.. yes it is efficient.. but downside is it is pitch sensitive
I see some likeness of a Burt Rutan philosophy. Maybe a canard would have been good.
Looks like model by Robbe called Geier. Very good one.
Radio control hobby has many flying wing designs. They are known for their speed and their more difficult to fly. Even though they also can slow fly most are used for speed, delta wings and straight wings. Search rc wing
Look up a glider called the Moth from North County flying machines. It'd a plank epp slope glider. Single fin but the plan form is similar.
The nano goblin is this plane almost exactly
And displays the banking flutter with too much control throw dunno if this would translate to the actual plane
@@andrewerickson6690 probably correct. I know the model wings are prone to flutter and require strong linkages, hinges and servos
Scott was amazing with his design and what he achieved. We still mourn his loss, as well as the many extremely talented pilots who pushed the boundaries of the hamstrung regulations, namely 95.10 enforced by the Australian Civil Aviation Authority at the time. It is also a pity that the design did not continue however promising as a tribute to him.
Actually, the then new regulations, and specifically 95.10, allowed Scott to create the Opal without a lot of external oversight, and by default created a new class to build in. Sometimes, 'limitations' give you something to work towards, 'Unlimited' just shows how much money you have...
I hope they are using remote pilots to test aircraft nowadays.
The landing gear was ridiculous and that alone was accident prone ,as shown on another TV promo where it shed wheels and cartwheeled to a stop in a cloud of dust. It was not 95:10 legal either .
The visibility was poor due to the wing position. As kids we all made control line "flying wings" of exactly this shape, I understand that a student thesis was the origin of the design (UNSW ) in any case breaking records or breaking necks is often a dead end , extreme measures without any long term value contribute little or nothing of practical use (Paul MacCready noted that the Spirit of StLouis added nothing to aircraft advancement - a layout that forced the pilot to fly blind sitting behind the fuel tank etc yet it was record breaking, the GeeBee racers also were death traps.
Finally, Scott stole the names of his two ultralights from my original use on my Opal (1975) and Sapphire (1980) RAAF trainer design, both published long before and verifiable.
Ross you may not remember me, but I knew you well. Irregardless of the “failings” in design that you highlighted, he had an aircraft that performed beyond what was available at the time. I pay Kudos for that. The names you mentioned were never stated to me and I assume that you are correct, however that has nothing to do with my opinion complementing past pilots and developers.
I agree with you, however the limitations on minimum and maximum altitude at the time caused many fatalities until the limits were raised so ballistic parachutes etc had a chance to work. Sure we had the freedom to build what we wanted and even I successfully built three aircraft myself. It was an era that we will never see again.
Nice plane, but, I wonder at the Yaw-Pitch recovery and Spin-Stall issues of this wingshape?
It's a full size nano goblin!!!!!!!!!!!
C/G and Thrust Angle need to be Spot On. Curious to know if he ever built and flew RC Airplanes.
Tell your neighbor to turn down the music. Otherwise, I WANT that Plane.!
While some may think this is a good design, it does not perform in some part of the flight dynamics curve. If you play the PC game Trailmakers you will know that this is one of the most unstable configurations to use. While you may get it to work perfectly 99% of the time, there is that 1% which may prove fatal. This is why the traditional design approaches are used because they are much more forgiving. When a flight surface fails, the other surfaces are there to temper or account for the failure. Canards are a good example of this - marginalising stalls.
Crazy it’s stable with those tiny rudders.
@@helipilotuh1 That aircraft isn't stable at all, look at the video I'm sure the pilot is doing everything he can to keep that thing headed in the right direction. Even birds have a horizontal stabilizer and that's a fact
Just thinking about propeller at the very back of the plane, looks to me too close to the ground. From the point of safe landing and especially safe take-off on a grass flat field, when the plane should hold some angle against ground, how much rigid was the single rear chassis leg ?
The plane crashed and the pilot designer was killed. Apparently his design had a couple minor kinks.
Maybe some of those things he "threw away" as not needed were needed. Besides the lack of pitch stabilization, the really narrow landing gear seems problematic.
MPV Aviation Illustrations might be able to help with a 3D model.
Also Australian.
In case anyone is confused by this aircraft being described as a "flying wing"... it is not a flying wing, because it has a distinct fuselage. It just has no horizontal stabilizer, and no extended tail.
Two vertical stabilizers. Look buddy.
@Jhossack I didn't say anything about *vertical* stabilizers, which it obviously has. _Read_ , "buddy".
Close enough pedant.
Interesting design, shame about the fatal crash though. Safety is slightly important. Design the spar for 10g, consider flutter and bring a chute. Don't fly low. First test flights could be remote control.
Read about Scott some time ago.
Sad and gone much too soon.
All plank types use a reflexed airfoil
So what did he use? Looks thinner
Than a Clarks.
It's the Sapphire wing with shorter wingtips. The idea came from a foam throw model.
So what happens to Bernoulli's principle in wing design?
Tailess aircraft have a short loading envelope and are very dangerous in my opinion. I would prefer a canard like the Velocity which is hard to stall.
Brilliant man with the worst skull mirkin ever!
bet that slopes well
I had a slope model that looked just like that call Obelix, not my design but sloped well enough for me to learn RC flying
... It looks like it would make an incredible commuter, the only thing that got me a little nervous was that narrow undercarriage.
I'm not understanding what happened exactly, the wings started fluttering, or there was a pitch oscelation?
Looks a good idea. What would be the stall speed of this craft?
😮😮😮Дякую , крутяк , вдалого Жиьтя ❤❤❤🙏🙏🙏👏👏👏💪💪💪🤗🤗🤗🇺🇦
At first sight I thought to myself : it should have some dihedral in the wing layout for better straight-line stability . It also looks not long enough for the size of the wings , a vertical stability issue ? Sad to read below the designer-pilot crashed and died .
Why haven't this design taken off? It appears to be a great idea.
100 bucks that he never tested stall characteristics
He had to have built R/C prototypes of it first?
Oh no, not you too Australia! Certificated?? No mate, Certified!
Certificated: To have been issued an official certificate. In the U.S., a CFI is correctly called a certificated flight instructor. A “certified” flight instructor is not the correct terminology. Production aircraft are issued airworthiness certificates. Therefore, it is correct to say that an airplane is certificated. Home built aircraft are not issued airworthiness certificates. In the U.S., these aircraft must have the word, “EXPERIMENTAL” stenciled on the fuselage.
Looks like a fun airplane, but the ground handling leaves a lot to be desired.
Why ?
@@tonywright8294
Narrow undercarriage...side wind effects?
15 feet outside the hanger. You can tell that thing can't handle any crosswind whatsoever. It's a Hershey bar with a glider cockpit.
It still holds 4 of it's 5 world records.
Hangar
Spin recovery characteristics?
Would it actually do a conventional spin? The centre of pressure of the aerofoil will move forward with increasing angle of attack, either positive or negative, making the aircraft want to roll over and over, nose over tail, just like a plank of balsa wood or foam. This might well happen before a stall. Either way, it seems quite deadly to me!
@@alanparkinson549 Spin recovery is critical. In addition to your plank of wood tendencies if the centre of lift oscillates between the centre of gravity; the other in a "conventional mode spin", only a seriously nose heavy plane with a spin centre of pressure well aft of its centre of mass will come out of a spin quickly before gyroscopic forces begins to flatten a spin which is unrecoverable (as in I believe as happens with the F15 the Tomcat with wings swept back) As you say, a design choice of the devil and the deep blue sea. A additional third vertical tall fin would also help with anti conventional spin characteristics, but that would bring in excessive drag . Built for record breaking purposes only. Fly high carry both a pikot's parachute and a spin recovery parachute is the best survival mode.
Aircraft is good but his turns are dangerous.
We are only allowed 45°of bank angle with max power.
Thanks for the video
Nowadays you could actually V-tol the aircraft using off the shelf parts.
One problem I notice right away after take off is that there is no reflex in the elevator. That means it's tail heavy and prone to easy stall conditions at lower air speeds. On a single wing like that, there should be at least 3degrees of reflex built in or simulated by up ailerons. This isn't the case in this one as you can see in level flight. NOT GOOD AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!
It is nearly impossible to discern an airfoil chord line shape, or a wing twist distribution, from visual inspection of an aircraft.
This is a flying wing. There is no way it can fly without proper design features, such as a reflexed airfoil.
Positive pitching moment coefficient is a prerequisite for a flying wing, this has been clearly and obviously achieved by the fact this aircraft can fly at all. There is no debate here.
Stability does not require reflexed ailerons, if the proper airfoil is chosen. This is not an RC flying model designed by someone ignorant in aircraft design, who would erroneously choose an airfoil having a negative moment coefficient, as many model aircraft seem to employ... Reflexed ailerons are an incredibly inefficient and foolish means to achieve aerodynamic stability, and no full size aircraft by any competent designers employ such a feature.
Also, reflex ailerons or any other aerodynamic feature has little to do with weight and balance. Which is related to mass distribution. There is no way to tell an aircraft is tail heavy just by looking at it. Unless you have the blueprints and a couple days to perform a weight buildup of the materials and moments. Or a set of calibrated scales, plumb bobs, tape measure, perfectly flat floor. Access to the aircraft in question, and an afternoon.
As @TheJustin says, it is not conclusive that there is not enough washout/ reflex by just looking at an 80s video. As far as straight wing tailless aircraft are concerned (plank flying wings), the washout for stall control is usually not needed (for sure it is not needed for pitch stability either). Therefore, the Facet Opal would rely on its airfoil reflex for pitch stability/trimming. Reflex is there, you can see it in the wingtips. It is not large however: a successful plank has a low static margin (5% is quite normal), so no need for highly reflexed airfoils (or large elevon deflections). The low static margin is permissible in a low aspect ratio plank becausw: it has a low aspect ratio and the wing is straight (so no danger for wingtip stall due to the high local Cl).
The initial comment about absent reflex/aft CG was not well-received, but the 3-views drawing (in the link posted with the video) shows what looks like a "standard" symmetrical airfoil, and the plane appears to have killed its pilot with what has been described as a pitch oscillation. Neither of these things is any more than speculation but together, IMO they lend some credibility to the original comment. The fact that it flew successfully prior to the accident suggests that just a little fine tuning of the design was all that was needed to make the plane safe. It's a real shame.
@@echassin I agree: Opal had a handling problem with pitch oscillation at low speeds. This was indicative (and the late Scott admitted it) that the airfoil chosen was not the right one. It was in fact a NACA airfoil without reflex, that was modified to have a little reflex for the purpose. However, the pitching moment curve of this airfoil was not constant with regards to the angle of attack, meaning that a gust, for example, during landing would lead to oscillations (the plank flying wing stabilizes through the positive pitching moment created by the airfoil and/or the elevons). Moreover, the hinge moment had also non linear characteristics, leading to more pilot induced oscillations. All these problems with the airfoil were acknowledged and I think that Scott wanted to rebuilt the wing with a better airfoil (a task that was undertaken a few years ago by his successors,but I do not know the outcomes). Lastly, the accident as far as I know, didn' t have anything to do with the inadequate airfoil, but it was more of a structural problem.
> up ailerons
The scale model used to produce the design demonstrated this.
It had flapperon (or what might be called elevons). Elevons with the ability to set them like flaps.
I believe it was discovered it flew upside-down, which would have been with slight up ailerons (or down flaps, inverted).
Fuselage looks like a chopped down glider.
what is that thing on your head , ???????
Flying wings require airfoils with low pitching moments. By that I mean an airfoil where the center of pressure (coincident with center of lift in the case of a flying wing) have very little chordwise movement, fore and aft, from airflow angles of attack starting at zero up through and well past the stall -- say, 40 degrees AoA. If the airplane might achieve an AoA in flight test, you need to have predicted the flight characteristics likely to be exhibited. (Which is, crazy enough, not usually the province of some self-anointed gifted amateur but a trained, staid, and oh-so-boring Boeing or Airbus "engineer.") This limits your airfoil choices to very few which then don't provide much in the way of an ability to improve airplane handling in all other respects from aircraft rotation on takeoff, through a series of stalls at altitude, and finally, in the landing flare maneuver. -- The point of a fuselage with a horizontal stabilizer and elevator is that more airfoils with desired characteristics are available and not disqualified if you have a long stick behind the wing with an horizontal stab to provide the lever for pitch control.
I didn't see any pictures of the guy stalling the airplane: do we simply placard the panel "DON'T STALL OR YOU'LL DIE"? God help him if he decided to try a spin, a very simple aerodynamic maneuver easily controlled and popular with conventional J3 Cub-like designs.
The Spirit B-2 bomber is an exception (which I haven't see discussed specific to airfoil pitching moments) but then again, it has a highly engineered fly-by-wire (FBW) stability and flight control system -- designed by engineers. Boeing and Airbus type engineers.
It's a cool design but with liabilities and risks, as all designs have. I'm not sure this one is worth repeating. Also, I'm not an aeronautical or any other type of engineer but I'm at least not so bold as to suggest engineers of any stripe are less than geniuses. No much here left to see, move along ...
How is it different? Backstrom, Fauvel, and Marske are all similar (and earlier) and Marske is still at it in Ohio.
Jim Marske just passed away a few weeks ago.
I didn’t know that. We were penpals of sorts over the years. I always thought his designs should have been more successful than they were…
@@robertcringely7348
In loving memory of James (Jim) John Marske, of Chandler, Arizona, who gracefully soared into the heavens on June 26, 2024.
Born on October 31, 1935, in Michigan City, Indiana, he shared 61 beautiful years of marriage with his beloved wife Maureen (Mooney) Marske and was a cherished father to his children Sean Marske, Kimberly (Marske) Hauskins, Laura Marske-Blinn, and Kathleen (Kat) Marske.
Jim was not only a devoted family man but also a dedicated mentor, sharing his wisdom and knowledge generously with others.
An avid pilot, pioneer, and innovator in sailplane design, Jim's groundbreaking achievements earned recognition and respect worldwide.
A man of unwavering integrity, kindness, and generosity, Jim touched the hearts and minds of all who crossed his path.
His life was a beautiful tapestry woven with threads of faith, family, and the boundless skies.
Even in retirement, Jim continued to inspire with his innovative spirit, dedicating his time to refining his creations and sharing his knowledge.
He authored several successful books including "The Wing and I" and various technical manuals.
Jim's presence in the soaring community was not only deeply respected but also warmly cherished. His legacy will live on to inspire future generations.
In 1992 he relocated from Indiana to Marion, Ohio and in 2018 he moved to Chandler, Arizona near most of his family.
Jim was also the Grandfather of ten and Great Grandfather of six, leaving a lasting impact on each generation.
Though Jim may have bid farewell to this earthly realm, his spirit of adventure and his legacy of innovation will continue to inspire and uplift all those who were fortunate enough to have known him.
Jim Marske was a far better designer, I visited him in 1974 whilst working on the HP18 sailplane and accompanied Dick Schreder as an EAA designer to look over his new Pioneer Mk 4 . In the 1950s Fred Hoinville in Australia championed the "mknimidget' plank wing glider which also failed to win support.
@@rossnolan7283Because the L/D is always lower and true tailless can't land in a crosswind (Horton) Monarch? What a delightful design !! FWIW I talked to Jim a day or two before he passed and didn't realize how sick he was.. Prayers to his son.. Blessings BA..
To suggest that he did not use engineering skills and techniques is disingenuous to say tge least.
No one can design an aeroplane, especially one designed to break altitude and climb recirds, without great attention to detail.
Man just tried to call and reserve my billboard space, and wouldn’t you know… no answer.
Baruch dayan ha emet
🌤️👍🛫🏆🛬👍🌤️
Hint, don’t drill holes in your wing spar, then do a max G pull up …
From the ATSB - "No evidence was found of any fault in manufacture or of pre-existing deterioration to the spar structure."
The pilot was doing a level 20-30 degree bank when the failure occurred.
My dad knew scott well and after scott drilled a hole on the spar web turned to my dad and said if that breaks I'm dead 😢
It's a Backstrom Plank. Look it up.
'Backstrom Plank'; actually a different layout and completely different aerodynamics. the Opal was more akin to a symmetrical plank R/C slope soarer.
You could buy an old camera and old clothes from a thrift shop, record a thing happening, and then tell everyone it happened in 1986 and they'd believe you.
Except some of us remember reading about this, and seeing photos of it, 35
years ago.
@@sablatnic8030 touché
An accident waiting to happen
Przedłuż stateczniki pionowe w dół i zamocuj pod nimi stałe koła podwozia, albo płozy jak w szybowcach lub pierwszych samolotach.