Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Actually rule of thumb is a figure of speech which means generalized rules.There is, and it is a man with 10 hand thumbs and another 10 foot thumbs knows all the rules.
Mostly my interests was size to weight for the same g-loadFrom what I read here on a post (no idea where it is) you can scale down an aircraft dimensions but not its performance, a 7/8ths scale model of a Spitfire even if a 7/8th scale Merlin was available is a completely different beast, you must also scale aerofoils and stuff which means they are not the same.
What does that mean? A slightly scaled down spitfire will have the span of a clipped wing spitfire, if you scale down to model size you can have a rate of roll that would kill any pilot. Things don't scale, an ant maybe able to lift a comparative equivalent of a grand piano in its jaws, but a human size ant wouldn't even be able to breathe let alone lift pianos.Mostly my interests was size to weight for the same g-load
For example, if I was to take a basic shape, say an XB-42 and scale it down, or scale up a P-47N by 50% what would the weight increase by?What does that mean?
You cant do that. Scale up a P-47 by 50% the piston bore and stroke too? The cockpit so that the pilot cannot reach the controls. You have 50% bigger spaces between strengthening structures, so it is weaker when it needs to be stronger. When you talk about G loads and weights I honestly don't know what you are asking.For example, if I was to take a basic shape, say an XB-42 and scale it down, or scale up a P-47N by 50% what would the weight increase by?
Likewise if I was to take an existent plane and increase it's g-load from 4.5 ultimate to 6, how much weight as a rule would go up?
No, I was talking about the basic fuselage shapeYou cant do that. Scale up a P-47 by 50% the piston bore and stroke too? The cockpit so that the pilot cannot reach the controls.
It would look like a hell cat with a wildcat engine on it, what engine would you put in it?No, I was talking about the basic fuselage shape
No.This might be a bit more productive...
To anybody here: If I presented an image of a design, real or fictitious, made either by me or somebody else (with credit afforded them) asked you to give me a weight estimate if I gave you a g-loading figure...
Could you reliably guess how much it'd weigh +/- either 2000, 1000, 500 pounds
I didn't need to. My uncle was the custodian of a Norman castle. to make a span you can use a stone beam, to make a longer span you can use a semi-circular arch, a bigger span needs a vaulted arch. All the beautiful structures you see in European Cathedrals were about as good as it got at the time, you cannot double any of them in size, the people that tried going a bit bigger without changing the science had a collapse and there were many of them.View attachment 506333
Amazon 65 bucks.
There are reasons that people got to school for 4 years just to get started in the field of aircraft structures.
Thou art a cad. As you well know if you double the size of something what does that mean? Rivets twice the distance apart? A propeller twice the diameter, don't they go supersonic at the tips or something? From a young age we know these things in our real lives , I don't know how it is considered seriously on an adult forum.I have never seen a plane with stone beams. And 0.40 granite might hard to rivet.
Scaling really isn't silly though. In radio control aircraft, I used to fly airplanes with about a 60 - 65 inch wingspan. When I went up to a 108-inch wingspan version of one of them, it flew MUCH better than the 60-inch one did. And it built up with about the same type construction, just more of it, with almost the same parts count. So, at least up to a certain size, you can do it with models. The 60-inch planes were about 5 - 7 lbs and the 108-inch unit was about 9.5 lbs. No cube rule there for weight.
Once you get to manned aircraft, it's tough to do a simple scale-up. You'd THINK the easiest might be the Cessna line.
But ... and here's one not many people realize, a C-172, C-182, and C-210 all have a wingspan of within 1 inch of one another and a length of within 1 inch of one another. But a C-172 had a max weight of around 2550 lbs, a C-182 around 3100 lbs, and a C-210 around 4000 lbs, give or take a few lbs for different model years. These planes LOOK very close to one another and are all about the same size and have max weights almost 60% apart.
So, I don't buy into any cube rules for weight with scale when aircraft of the SAME size vary almost 60% from the same manufacturer and same passenger capacity.
I still think .040 granite would be hard to rivet and maybe somewhat brittle. Cheers from the CAD.