This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The magazine for enthusiasts of Henri Mignet’s designs
Fourth Quarter, 2010
...better late than never!
Part103 BLM 1Canard 4 Axel, Raymond 5Cosandey 8 Flying Fleas 10More and Michel BLM
BLM Canard by Raymond Baudouin The future Flying Flea?
Comparison by Raymond Baudouin between the HM293 Grunberg and the Pou-Canard Baudouin BLM
From various texts written by Raymond Baudouin, collected and translated by Paul Pontois with the precious help of Alain Berland For both aircraft, the front wing pivots around its spanwise axis, which changes its incidence angle and the rear wing is fastened to the fuselage with a predetermined incidence angle. According to RB, the ratio between the area of the front wing and the area of the rear wing determines the location of the center of gravity. Experience from models and flight tests on the Pou-Canard determined the vertical and horizontal distances between the wings. In this study, RB, for ease of understanding, considers the angle formed by the 2 virtual lines extending the chords of the front and rear wings. If the 2 lines are parallel, the angle (measured under the wings) is considered as being 180°. If the V formed by the 2 lines is positive (as a normal upright “V”), the angle is more than 180°. We will call this V interincidence. (IntC on the drawings) If the V formed by the 2 lines is negative (as an inverted V), the angle is less than 180°. Because of the wing areas ratio, each model of flyingflea has a specific location of the GC.
2 m. the stick will push forward in the pilot's hand to the stop. for a front wing incidence of -2°. But if there were no stop at 0° incidence and if the pilot does not hold the stick. there must be a stop to prevent the wing reaching a negative incidence. .3) Chord for each wing: 1. due to this 181° interincidence angle. The interincidence is negative at 174° t-i: 180° -6° + 0°. the range of longitudinal stability is 4° higher than for the conventional flyingflea (181° 177°) . but still more at increased speed. Vitesse majorée = increased speed Portance nulle = Zero lift Sans butée= No stop -As an example. when the aircraft is tail heavy. t-i 180° .2 m Horizontal gap between wings: 0 The longer wing is the front wing. At cruise speed. 2/-If the pilot increases the speed and pushes the stick forward till the front wing incidence is 0° (against the stop). 1/-In normal level flight. °(areas ratio: 1.72 sqm Rear: 5. without pushing or pulling in the hand. 1/-In normal level flight.6) Chord for each wing: 1. Wings areas: Front: 6.2° (rear wing incidence) + 3° (front wing incidence).35 m. the interincidence is 178° t-i: 180° . As.94 sqm. the stick is vertical. without pushing or pulling in the pilot's hand.POU RENEW (BLM canard cont. The areas ratio determines the CG (center of gravity) location at 25% of the total chord (distance between front wing leading edge and rear wing trailing edge). the stick is vertical.6°(incidence rear wing) +3°(incidence front wing). Horizontal gap: 0. The areas ratio determines the CG location at 34% of the total chord.) 2 Fourth Quarter. The shorter wing is the front wing.2°. RB takes the HM 293 redesigned in the 80's by Rodolphe Grunberg. the lift is equal to zero. Wings areas: Front: 4. Croisière stabilisée = cruise speed 2/-If the pilot increases the speed and pushes the stick forward till the front wing incidence is 0° (against the stop). 2010 3/-If the classical flyingflea is tail heavy (b-e: 28% total chord). Croisière stabilisée = cruise speed Vitesse majorée = increased speed RB points out that. The interincidence is negative at 177° t-i: 180° . it will cross the point of zero lift for the front wing and the flyingflea will enter into an irreversible dive. The stick pushes rearward in the pilot's hand and trends towards coming back to the previous position (+3° incidence front wing). with the same incidences.09 sqm (areas ratio: 1. for the classical flyingflea.3 sqm rear: 6. as we will see. which is important. The interincidence is positive at 181°. - For RB's Pou-Canard (BLM).
) 3 Fourth Quarter. Portance nulle = Zero lift Vitesse majorée = increased speed Remark: In the next issues of Pou-Renew.for those interested in details. Congratulations Audrey and William ! Thanks for sharing Matt --Sun. France 3/-If the BLM is tail heavy (b-e: About 37% total chord). with the same incidences. If there were no stop.. the stick would not have any tendency to go forward.. Jun 20.POU RENEW (BLM canard cont. please) at: M.you might like to write to him ( in French. it will trend towards coming back by itself to the vertical (neutral point). Quartier les Charignons. Vitesse majorée = increased speed . we will see the importance given by Raymond Baudouin to the horizontal and vertical distances between the two wings and how he calculates the CG location in relation with the wings' areas and weights. 2010 Happy Fathers day ! Matt Naiva´s artist kids and future Flying Flea´ers Look what my two kids Audrey (10) and William (6) made for Fathers day! Matt .Raymond Baudouin. Peyrus 26120. the stick being pushed by the pilot against the stop. at cruise speed and even at higher speed. 2010 The stick pushes rearward in the pilot's hand and trends towards coming back to the previous position (+3° incidence front wing).
the Ev became turbulent at about 65cm. In his case. with his wide vertical and horizontal wing-gaps managed to not only get away with very aft CG´s. as we well know. . Axel sent me a proposal for the ideal Pupflea. It is literally what everyone has ignored for decades because changes in Ev have little effect while turbulent. makes for a longitudinally unstable aircraft. Michel and Raymond. and in the other direction very slow speed deep mush. however the greater the entreplan the better up to a point and more specifically it relates to the vertical to keep a smooth flow. yet lacking the laminar flow advantage due to the reduced wing-gaps. it would be nice if you tell us. (. He also submitted the RB Pou canard to study which came up with practically the same results. This was a great advantage because it allowed both greater cruise speeds and a lower stall speed. Of course below 50 or 60cm it isn't of practical use but in all cases it did perform correctly from high speed just before center of pressure bounces off into infinity. I am totally convinced that the above could be the way future fleas might be.many other combinations were possible. as well. Charlie >>>In qualifying Michel's empirical results from his 'France' days. but as a fringe benefit. Quite clearly showing that in some conditions the CG either coincides or even is behind the FG. The important fact was that this disposition made for a completely stable and laminar flow machine over a very wide range of CG locations. who is dearly missed. within most flight conditions. and started studying the range of where this phenomenon applied. stumbled across the fact that at certain gaps. On the above basis. which. I got all the way down to 50cm Eh before it went turbulent. we hope that everything is fine for him and if someone has any news. This was with equal spans. <<< *Eh = horizontal wing-gap *Ev = vertical wing-gap Axel carried on his research even testing shorter front wingspans. the airflow over the entire machine became laminar. As a matter of fact. So. With the Eh at 80cm. 2010 About Axel. he discovered that the range was quite ample. When using unequal spans or in addition unequal chords turbulence was difficult to avoid below 50cm.POU RENEW 4 Fourth Quarter. We are without letters or emails from Michel Descatha for several months. Michel.. I found that starting at 90cm/90cm with any of the most used aerofoils on Pou's that they remained in laminar flow all the way down to about 20cm/20cm.. In the final analysis. and I am sharing it as a way of honoring Axel. Axel. As Michel demonstrated 80h/70v in tuft tests as a working laminar entreplan. got enthused by Michel´s discovery. 80/80 or whatever you choose.Vertical entreplan is most important in the d'Escatha formula.. (with certain aerofoils -it makes a difference) I modeled this plan and found with various profiles that laminar low drag performance can be had at smaller Eh if the Ev was at least 80cm.. I quote part of one of his mails: To make a long story short and keeping the above in mind. therefore recommend 65/65. yet this seems to be the ideal one).80m horizontal gap and a front wingspan at 90% of the rear wingspan. where he used 80cm Eh and 70cm Ev I found that there is a solid relationship to laminar flow at equal entreplans. which seems to coincide with Raymond´s findings. using very advanced flight analysis computer programs. equal chords. Raymond and Michel on Canard Fleas While going over for the umteenth time Raymond`s graphics began to make a little more sense to me! Basically he is graphically showing the relative displacement of the CG and the FG on different configurations and flight conditions. the best disposition he found was basically an 0.80m vertical wing-gap combined with an 0. 70/70.
the shape of which changes as wanted by the pilot. interval between the two wings 10 cm. with a slot in the middle. the incidence of the rear wing is bigger than the incidence of the front wing and the resulting airfoil is hollow. edge To illustrate the above. the lever arm being practically constant. the fact that the center of Lift of this airfoil is practically invariable made the elevator control more stable.5% of the front wing chord (65 cm from the leading edge) AIRFOILS AND STABILITY The second curve refers to a HM 210 model.MIGNET AIRCRAFT”) nosed airfoil. For one position of position of the stick the stick. on front wing chord. The airfoil formed by the two wings becomes still more concave. in respect to the curve is more or less steady. airfoil of the HM 14 was more stable in a dive Sans bord de fuite relevé = with regular trailing that the NACA 23012. here under are two curves of stability showing the incidence of For the HM 14. we increase the negative interincidence between the two wings. The two wings are too close to each other to work independently.POU RENEW 5 Fourth Quarter. 23012 airfoil made the Flying Flea stable in location of the center of gravity: 48 % of the every situation of flight . This slot is very important. technicien. with no overlapping of the front Translation by Paul Pontois wing over the rear wing. This is wrong. 2010 CONTRIBUTION À L’ÉTUDE ET AU RÉGLAGE DES AÉRONEFS DE H.. we have one (and only one) attitude The first curve refers to the old HM 14 sharp ..MIGNET par Louis Cosandey. The 2 airfoils in line have to be considered as a single one. Front wing incidence with respect to the flight We have to admit that the old sharp nosed path. location of the center (continued) of gravity: 46. but. Most of the time. consequently. we notice that the slope of the the front wing in the airflow. Pilote breveté C sur planeur Pou-du-Ciel (“CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY AND TO THE AJUSTEMENT OF THE H. the other hand. To decrease the angle of attack we push on the stick and. the plane could Manche tiré = Stick backward Incidence de l'aile avant sur la trajectoire = tumble on its back. as it gives the aircraft a tremendous stability when flying at high angle of attack This stability decreases as the angle of attack decreases. if the location of the center of gravity is not proper. airfoil: NACA 23012 with the regular trailing Many amateurs are convinced that the NACA edge. We are close to the Manche poussé = stick frontward instability zone and.
The curve would certainly be different and more stable. The NACA 23012. is not really identical. a small movement of the stick gives a large variation of attitude and. which is still more worrying. of course.20 Rear wing trailing edge turned up. much more backward ? First. the results must be taken with all reserve. Under normal flight conditions. we have to take into consideration the lifted up trailing edge of the rear wing which makes the plane autostable. What should we think of the location of the center of gravity recommended by Mignet for the HM 293. (according to the pitching curves drawn up by the Lille wind tunnel. for an interincidence of -3 degrees. We are right in the instability zone. Unfortunately. We.) 6 Fourth Quarter. at low incidence. the elevator control won't be efficient enough to recover. In some cases.) In the booklet #2 page 24. corresponding to the NACA 23012 airfoil. the center of gravity location of the HM 210 (23012 airfoil) should be moved forward to be located at maybe 44% of the chord in place of 48%. The new airfoil as per the 1936 edition. I believe that it should never be more backward not to become unstable. which is unpleasant at high speed. I hope for the amateurs that they meant between 65 and 70 centimeters. For instance. especially at low flight angles. The center of lift of the 23012 is situated at 26% of the wing chord while the center of lift of the old 1934 Mignet airfoil is situated at 30% minimum. we have to remind the reader that the horizontal interwing has a stabilizing action. if not they are going to be in big trouble. the center of gravity of the HM 293 must be situated at 62 cm from the leading edge. it can be located at 68 cm from the leading edge. The old HM 1934 airfoil does not behave too badly. If the center of gravity location is at more than 60 % of the front wing chord. Diagram # 8 gives us a good idea of the characteristics of the 3 airfoils used for the flying Fleas. for a HM 293 which has the following characteristics: Front wing span: 5. we can read that the HM 293 has to be balanced between 65 and 70 %. Rear wing span: 4. As the experiments may have been done in different tunnels and for different Reynold numbers. Therefore if we want the two aircraft to have the same aerodynamic reaction. For the other curve. if we except that the center of lift is known to be vagrant.POU RENEW (Cosandey cont. we have to trust Mignet and assume that the numerous prototypes he built benefited from the experience of the various tests made in tunnel and in flight. 2010 of the plane. However. The loss of lift when the . These 3 airfoils are: The sharp edged airfoil as per the 1934 book. For an interwing = 0. Then. if the horizontal interwing is +10 cm. That's why we have to closely respect the plans. These 3 polar curves have been calculated for the front wing only.50 m. I could not get the Cx curve for the 1934 airfoil. the aircraft could take 2 different attitudes. wing aspect ratio: 5. especially if we take into consideration the distance of 10 cm between the two NACA 23012 wings. I do believe that the location of the center of gravity. the center of gravity can be located at 65 cm from the leading edge. +3 degrees (point A) or -6 degrees (point B). we notice that. but if the interwing is 20 cm from the leading edge. took this example for the purpose in hand and we now are going to see how to explain this paradox. which seems to be almost identical for both aircraft.
We only reach 100 Cz = 116.) 7 Fourth Quarter. It actually happens that. 2010 angle of attack increases seems to be progressive. The airfoil HM 1936 seems to be excellent. the polar curve improves in the sense that the maximum Cz increases and that the minimum Cx decreases. For the 23012. (This polar curve was kindly passed on to us by Henri Mignet) We should not be too surprised of the general value of the maximum Cz. because of the wing aspect ratio equal to 5 and of the number of Reynolds equal to 604 000. COSANDEY ENDS HERE . when the number of Reynolds increases. Its center of lift move very little. close to what was given by the Lille wind tunnel studies.POU RENEW (Cosandey cont.
Each with their own level of difficulty and skill requirements. foot launchable. one could attempt building one. for the time being. The wings use thermoformed plastic ribs. which basically is a tractor and fuselaged Butterfly. as well. not very convincingly. No more kits are made yet one might be able to trace one down. Alternatively. That we know of. there is also one plus a couple of fuselage frames in existence in the U. maybe possible. 2010 Flying Fleas that might be eligible for FAR Part 103 (and some might even fit under the under 70Kg required in some countries) The most obvious candidate would be the Butterfly at 63Kg empty weight and. could be the Bifly. meanwhile the Butterfly III sports a welded Alu alloy frame. . Maybe they could be replaced with Alu or Styro ribs. one just might be able to trace one down in France or Belgium. The next. with a lot of luck. There were quite a few built in France. ( a little investigating might locate who has them and if he is willing to part with them ). but not too sure if it will meet the max empty weight . which for some might mean an added difficulty.POU RENEW 8 Fourth Quarter. Sadly. This would require obtaining the plans from Guy Francois in Brussels (Tel + 32 0486 93 92 34) Butterfly II is a pop-riveted 2024 Alu frame.S. it is not available anymore in its kit form yet.
What is more. Michel d´Escatha has produced a design to meet the Part 103 requirements. About two hundreds were built. what about wood? Not only is it possible. 22 plans + brochure in English + hardware CD for laser cutting.) 9 Fourth Quarter. -HM-293 (mono-seater) redesigned by Rodolphe GRUNBERG. would be the Pouchel II Light.php?p=accueil_eng. updated by his son Pierre. we have not seen any examples in flight. -AVIONNETTE New design by Paul Fournier from the HM-8 book. so.A jewel of wood and fabric construction.ca . Quick delivery. which was specificaly designed by Daniel Dalby to meet the Part 103 requirements.com/english/index_eng. Yves Segonds. but it has been done. please feel free to do so Attention English speaking builders!! WE CAN HELP YOU GETTING FRENCH MIGNET PLANS Translated into English I see no reason why a Pouchel Light could not be morphed into a Butterfly. Http://www. Including Trigear option set of drawings and much more = 150 US$ -HM-360 (mono-seater) and HM-380 (two-seater) The last amateur built plans designed by Henri Mignet. so first. for the frame.pouchel.POU RENEW (FF Part 103 cont. 24 bilingual plans + construction photographs= 130 US$ All prices shipping & Handling included. Sadly. The plans which triggered the renewal of the Flea movement in Europe. 2010 Next in line. 22 plans in English = 160 US$ Rear end brackets for trigear version: 4 plans = 10 US$ So. managed to build a safe 94Kg HM293. for example. Paul PONTOIS 1890 rang des chutes STE-URSULE (Québec) J0K 3M0 CANADA Ph : 819 228 3159 Email : paulpontois@infoteck. and in this case readily available off the shelf. Charlie PS: Should anyone have suggestions for enlarging this list. Practically all the Mignet Pou´s are very over dimensioned. Payment: Check or money order. some adventurous test pilot would have to build one. one could use an Alu ladder as on Gary Gower´s “La Bamba”. after very careful study and re-engineering.htm On the same lines. The HM-8 was the last Mignet creation before the Pou-du-Ciel.qc.
. It is your magazine guys.qc.com> . As from now on. he switched the rear wing for the front one on his kit Bifly and the result was an incredibly stable and well behaved craft The Future Pou? Baudouin’s POU CANARD Can also be seen at: http://www. 2010 Raymond taxiing his Pou canard After careful study. it will be published as soon as we receive from you flying flea-ers enough information so as to fill at least eight pages.ar under Butterfly>Canard Flea Important Notice: Designs proposed on Pou Renew are strictly the responsibility of the designers and not of Pou Renew..flyingflea. It is your neck that you are risking! WE NEED YOUR HELP TO KEEP POU RENEW GOING! WRITE TO US! SEND US ARTICLES! Due to the lack of contributions and articles.. we are forced to suspend Pou Renew on a quarterly basis.POU RENEW 10 Fourth Quarter.ca> or Charlie Crawley <charliedcrawley@gmail. Potential builders are strongly recommended to research the design and its background before carrying on.com...so please start sending articles so we may keep on publishing! For now. please mail your contributions to: Paul Pontois <paulpontois@infoteck.