Also, pitch control is not limited to the rear wing. Yes, you can decrease lift to the rear wing to pitch up, but you can also increase lift to the front to pitch up.
It is completely anyhow how you do the pitch up in this configuration. It does result in a higher lift in the front wing, so the neutral point moves forward.
We may never know the exact weight/balance numbers but my model and similar real-life examples demonstrate the landing gear concept to be workable.
Thats true. Mainly on Transport Aircrafts.
Except, it's not a simple cantilever swept-forward wing. The closed wing system should cancel out opposing forces on the two wings so as a whole, it should be as structurally sound as a very thick straight wing, without the increased drag.
As you may read in the paper: The wingtips are heavily loaded parts of the structure only after an Aerodynamic evaluation. Aeroelastic evaluation wasn´t done until that point.
Concluding: The Wingtips may get heavier than planned which means a loss in capacy (and an increase in maintenance costs).
Compared to conventional design, the wings need to compensate for the negative lift the elevators are producing.
Not on the conventional design. The Wings have to compensate the angle of attack induced by the elevators, the center of lift (nearly) stays fixed in this configuration.
Thanks but why increase the weight by adding elevators when you can use the wings for pitch control?
As seen from above.
P.S.: If you want an futuristic and stable design with elevators at this size:
Try an P.180 layout with both wings swept forward, engines between the wings (fixed on upper and lower) providing extra stiffness.
That's what people want. Speed. The talk around the water coolers at work isn't about big aircraft. It's talk of fast aircraft. That's what us punters want. Fast sonsofbitches to get us there quick.
Thats true. Just adding engines wouldn´t do that thing. Have you already read about SABRE engines?
Greetings,