POU RENEW

du Ciel

The magazine for enthusiasts of Henri Mignets designs

Fourth Quarter, 2010

...better late than never!

Issue No.40

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.

-->

POU RENEW
(BLM canard cont.)

Fourth Quarter, 2010 3/-If the classical flyingflea is tail heavy (b-e: 28% total chord), with the same incidences, At cruise speed, but still more at increased speed, the stick will push forward in the pilot's hand to the stop. But if there were no stop at 0 incidence and if the pilot does not hold the stick, it will cross the point of zero lift for the front wing and the flyingflea will enter into an irreversible dive.
Vitesse majore = increased speed Portance nulle = Zero lift Sans bute= No stop

-As an example, for the classical flyingflea, RB takes the HM 293 redesigned in the 80's by Rodolphe Grunberg. Wings areas: Front: 6.72 sqm Rear: 5.09 sqm (areas ratio: 1.3) Chord for each wing: 1.2 m Horizontal gap between wings: 0 The longer wing is the front wing. 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 interincidence is negative at 177 t-i: 180 - 6(incidence rear wing) +3(incidence front wing). As, for a front wing incidence of -2, the lift is equal to zero, there must be a stop to prevent the wing reaching a negative incidence. 1/-In normal level flight, the stick is vertical, without pushing or pulling in the hand.

For RB's Pou-Canard (BLM).

Croisire stabilise = cruise speed

2/-If the pilot increases the speed and pushes the stick forward till the front wing incidence is 0 (against the stop), The interincidence is negative at 174 t-i: 180 -6 + 0. The stick pushes rearward in the pilot's hand and trends towards coming back to the previous position (+3 incidence front wing).

Wings areas: Front: 4.3 sqm rear: 6.94 sqm. (areas ratio: 1.6) Chord for each wing: 1.2 m. Horizontal gap: 0.35 m. The shorter wing is the front wing. The areas ratio determines the CG location at 34% of the total chord. The interincidence is positive at 181, t-i 180 - 2 (rear wing incidence) + 3 (front wing incidence). 1/-In normal level flight, the stick is vertical, without pushing or pulling in the pilot's hand.

Croisire stabilise = cruise speed Vitesse majore = increased speed

RB points out that, due to this 181 interincidence angle, the range of longitudinal stability is 4 higher than for the conventional flyingflea (181 177) , which is important, as we will see, when the aircraft is tail heavy. 2/-If the pilot increases the speed and pushes the stick forward till the front wing incidence is 0 (against the stop), the interincidence is 178 t-i: 180 - 2.

POU RENEW
(BLM canard cont.)

Fourth Quarter, 2010

The stick pushes rearward in the pilot's hand and trends towards coming back to the previous position (+3 incidence front wing).

Vitesse majore = increased speed

...for those interested in details,you might like to write to him ( in French, please) at: M.Raymond Baudouin, Quartier les Charignons, Peyrus 26120, France

3/-If the BLM is tail heavy (b-e: About 37% total chord), with the same incidences, at cruise speed and even at higher speed, the stick being pushed by the pilot against the stop, it will trend towards coming back by itself to the vertical (neutral point). If there were no stop, the stick would not have any tendency to go forward.

Portance nulle = Zero lift

Vitesse majore = increased speed

Remark: In the next issues of Pou-Renew,

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.

Congratulations Audrey and William !

Thanks for sharing Matt --Sun, Jun 20, 2010 Happy Fathers day !
Matt Naivas artist kids and future Flying Fleaers

Look what my two kids Audrey (10) and William (6) made for Fathers day! Matt

POU RENEW

Fourth Quarter, 2010

About Axel, 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. Quite clearly showing that in some conditions the CG either coincides or even is behind the FG, which, as we well know, makes for a longitudinally unstable aircraft. Michel, with his wide vertical and horizontal wing-gaps managed to not only get away with very aft CGs, but as a fringe benefit, stumbled across the fact that at certain gaps, the airflow over the entire machine became laminar, within most flight conditions. This was a great advantage because it allowed both greater cruise speeds and a lower stall speed. Axel, who is dearly missed, got enthused by Michels discovery, and started studying the range of where this phenomenon applied, using very advanced flight analysis computer programs. In his case, he discovered that the range was quite ample. I quote part of one of his mails: To make a long story short and keeping the above in mind, the best disposition he found was basically an 0,80m vertical wing-gap combined with an 0,80m horizontal gap and a front wingspan at 90% of the rear wingspan. (...many other combinations were possible, yet this seems to be the ideal one). The important fact was that this disposition made for a completely stable and laminar flow machine over a very wide range of CG locations, which seems to coincide with Raymonds findings. He also submitted the RB Pou canard to study which came up with practically the same results, yet lacking the laminar flow advantage due to the reduced wing-gaps. On the above basis, Axel sent me a proposal for the ideal Pupflea. I am totally convinced that the above could be the way future fleas might be, and I am sharing it as a way of honoring Axel... Michel and Raymond, as well. Charlie

>>>In qualifying Michel's empirical results from his 'France' days, where he used 80cm Eh and 70cm Ev I found that there is a solid relationship to laminar flow at equal entreplans. So, therefore recommend 65/65, 70/70, 80/80 or whatever you choose, however the greater the entreplan the better up to a point and more specifically it relates to the vertical to keep a smooth flow. As Michel demonstrated 80h/70v in tuft tests as a working laminar entreplan, (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. As a matter of fact, I got all the way down to 50cm Eh before it went turbulent. With the Eh at 80cm, the Ev became turbulent at about 65cm.Vertical entreplan is most important in the d'Escatha formula. It is literally what everyone has ignored for decades because changes in Ev have little effect while turbulent. In the final analysis, 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. 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, and in the other direction very slow speed deep mush. This was with equal spans, equal chords. When using unequal spans or in addition unequal chords turbulence was difficult to avoid below 50cm. <<< *Eh = horizontal wing-gap *Ev = vertical wing-gap
Axel carried on his research even testing shorter front wingspans.

We are without letters or emails from Michel Descatha for several months, we hope that everything is fine for him and if someone has any news, it would be nice if you tell us.

POU RENEW 5 Fourth Quarter, 2010 CONTRIBUTION LTUDE ET AU RGLAGE DES ARONEFS DE H.MIGNET par Louis Cosandey, technicien. Pilote brevet C sur planeur Pou-du-Ciel (CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY AND TO THE AJUSTEMENT OF THE H.MIGNET AIRCRAFT) nosed airfoil, with no overlapping of the front Translation by Paul Pontois wing over the rear wing., location of the center (continued) of gravity: 46.5% of the front wing chord (65 cm from the leading edge) AIRFOILS AND STABILITY The second curve refers to a HM 210 model, airfoil: NACA 23012 with the regular trailing Many amateurs are convinced that the NACA edge. interval between the two wings 10 cm., 23012 airfoil made the Flying Flea stable in location of the center of gravity: 48 % of the every situation of flight . This is wrong, but, on front wing chord. the other hand, the fact that the center of Lift of this airfoil is practically invariable made the elevator control more stable, the lever arm being practically constant. The two wings are too close to each other to work independently. The 2 airfoils in line have to be considered as a single one, the shape of which changes as wanted by the pilot. Most of the time, the incidence of the rear wing is bigger than the incidence of the front wing and the resulting airfoil is hollow, with a slot in the middle. This slot is very important, as it gives the aircraft a tremendous stability when flying at high angle of attack This stability decreases as the angle of attack decreases. To decrease the angle of attack we push on the stick and, consequently, we increase the negative interincidence between the two wings. The airfoil formed by the two wings becomes still more concave. We are close to the Manche pouss = stick frontward instability zone and, if the location of the center of gravity is not proper, the plane could Manche tir = Stick backward Incidence de l'aile avant sur la trajectoire = tumble on its back. Front wing incidence with respect to the flight We have to admit that the old sharp nosed path. airfoil of the HM 14 was more stable in a dive Sans bord de fuite relev = with regular trailing that the NACA 23012. edge To illustrate the above, here under are two curves of stability showing the incidence of For the HM 14, we notice that the slope of the the front wing in the airflow, in respect to the curve is more or less steady. For one position of position of the stick the stick, we have one (and only one) attitude The first curve refers to the old HM 14 sharp

POU RENEW
(Cosandey cont.)

Fourth Quarter, 2010

of the plane. For the other curve, corresponding to the NACA 23012 airfoil, we notice that, at low incidence, a small movement of the stick gives a large variation of attitude and, which is still more worrying, for an interincidence of -3 degrees, the aircraft could take 2 different attitudes, +3 degrees (point A) or -6 degrees (point B). We are right in the instability zone. We, of course, took this example for the purpose in hand and we now are going to see how to explain this paradox. I do believe that the location of the center of gravity, which seems to be almost identical for both aircraft, especially if we take into consideration the distance of 10 cm between the two NACA 23012 wings, is not really identical. 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. Therefore if we want the two aircraft to have the same aerodynamic reaction, 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 curve would certainly be different and more stable. What should we think of the location of the center of gravity recommended by Mignet for the HM 293, much more backward ? First, we have to take into consideration the lifted up trailing edge of the rear wing which makes the plane autostable, especially at low flight angles. Then, 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. That's why we have to closely respect the plans. For an interwing = 0, the center of gravity of the HM 293 must be situated at 62 cm from the leading edge. Under normal flight

conditions, I believe that it should never be more backward not to become unstable, which is unpleasant at high speed. If the center of gravity location is at more than 60 % of the front wing chord. In some cases, the elevator control won't be efficient enough to recover. (according to the pitching curves drawn up by the Lille wind tunnel.) In the booklet #2 page 24, we can read that the HM 293 has to be balanced between 65 and 70 %. I hope for the amateurs that they meant between 65 and 70 centimeters, if not they are going to be in big trouble. However, we have to remind the reader that the horizontal interwing has a stabilizing action. For instance, for a HM 293 which has the following characteristics: Front wing span: 5.50 m. Rear wing span: 4.20 Rear wing trailing edge turned up, if the horizontal interwing is +10 cm, the center of gravity can be located at 65 cm from the leading edge, but if the interwing is 20 cm from the leading edge, it can be located at 68 cm from the leading edge. Diagram # 8 gives us a good idea of the characteristics of the 3 airfoils used for the flying Fleas. These 3 airfoils are: The sharp edged airfoil as per the 1934 book. The new airfoil as per the 1936 edition. The NACA 23012. Unfortunately, I could not get the Cx curve for the 1934 airfoil. These 3 polar curves have been calculated for the front wing only, wing aspect ratio: 5. As the experiments may have been done in different tunnels and for different Reynold numbers, the results must be taken with all reserve. The old HM 1934 airfoil does not behave too badly, if we except that the center of lift is known to be vagrant. The loss of lift when the

POU RENEW
(Cosandey cont.)

Fourth Quarter, 2010

angle of attack increases seems to be progressive. The airfoil HM 1936 seems to be excellent. Its center of lift move very little. (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. For the 23012. We only reach 100 Cz = 116,

because of the wing aspect ratio equal to 5 and of the number of Reynolds equal to 604 000, close to what was given by the Lille wind tunnel studies. It actually happens that, when the number of Reynolds increases, the polar curve improves in the sense that the maximum Cz increases and that the minimum Cx decreases.
COSANDEY ENDS HERE

POU RENEW

Fourth Quarter, 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, not very convincingly, foot launchable, as well. Sadly, for the time being, it is not available anymore in its kit form yet, with a lot of luck, one just might be able to trace one down in France or Belgium. That we know of, there is also one plus a couple of fuselage frames in existence in the U.S. ( a little investigating might locate who has them and if he is willing to part with them ). The next, maybe possible, but not too sure if it will meet the max empty weight , could be the Bifly, which basically is a tractor and fuselaged Butterfly. No more kits are made yet one might be able to trace one down. There were quite a few built in France.

Alternatively, one could attempt building one. 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, meanwhile the Butterfly III sports a welded Alu alloy frame. Each with their own level of difficulty and skill requirements. The wings use thermoformed plastic ribs, which for some might mean an added difficulty. Maybe they could be replaced with Alu or Styro ribs.

POU RENEW
(FF Part 103 cont.)

Fourth Quarter, 2010

Next in line, and in this case readily available off the shelf, would be the Pouchel II Light, which was specificaly designed by Daniel Dalby to meet the Part 103 requirements.
Http://www.pouchel.com/english/index_eng.php?p=accueil_eng.htm

On the same lines, Michel dEscatha has produced a design to meet the Part 103 requirements. Sadly, we have not seen any examples in flight, so first, some adventurous test pilot would have to build one. Charlie PS: Should anyone have suggestions for enlarging this list, 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. What is more, one could use an Alu ladder as on Gary Gowers La Bamba, for the frame.
-HM-293 (mono-seater) redesigned by Rodolphe GRUNBERG. The plans which triggered the renewal of the Flea movement in Europe. 22 plans + brochure in English + hardware CD for laser cutting. 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, updated by his son Pierre.A jewel of wood and fabric construction. 22 plans in English = 160 US$ Rear end brackets for trigear version: 4 plans = 10 US$

So, what about wood? Not only is it possible, but it has been done. Practically all the Mignet Pous are very over dimensioned, so, for example, Yves Segonds, after very careful study and re-engineering, managed to build a safe 94Kg HM293.

-AVIONNETTE New design by Paul Fournier from the HM-8 book. The HM-8 was the last Mignet creation before the Pou-du-Ciel. About two hundreds were built. 24 bilingual plans + construction photographs= 130 US$ All prices shipping & Handling included. Quick delivery. Payment: Check or money order. Paul PONTOIS 1890 rang des chutes STE-URSULE (Qubec) J0K 3M0 CANADA Ph : 819 228 3159 Email : paulpontois@infoteck.qc.ca

POU RENEW

10

Fourth Quarter, 2010

Raymond taxiing his Pou canard

After careful study, 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? Baudouins POU CANARD Can also be seen at: http://www.flyingflea.com.ar under Butterfly>Canard Flea Important Notice: Designs proposed on Pou Renew are strictly the
responsibility of the designers and not of Pou Renew. Potential builders are strongly recommended to research the design and its background before carrying on.... 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. As from now on, it will be published as soon as we receive from you flying flea-ers enough information so as to fill at least eight pages. It is your magazine guys...so please start sending articles so we may keep on publishing!
For now, please mail your contributions to: Paul Pontois <paulpontois@infoteck.qc.ca> or Charlie Crawley <charliedcrawley@gmail.com>