Dihedral Poll

[PsyberPhlier]

In this thread here --> viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3280 , I am building the Fairchild 24.

I am contemplating removing the dihedral for a more scale like appearance and flight characteristic...

So, what does everyone think? I just don't know.

[Billy Mc]

The less dihedral you have the harder it will be to fly it.

[David Lewis]

The smaller the airplane, the harder it is to control because, even if the Reynold's number and dihedral (lateral stability) are the same, the roll rate speeds up by the square root of the scale factor. Pilot reflexes stay the same.

[PsyberPhlier]

Yeah guys, I agree. I must of been having a fit of scale madness. I got over it and built the wing per plan.

[Bill Gaylord]

High wingers with ailerons fly well without dihedral, as long as the flyer is not depending on the type of stability that a high-dihedral 3-channel trainer provides. I've built a few high wingers with little to no dihedral that were as easy, if not easier to fly than any low wing warbirds with dihedral. These two come to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTAuLG37PKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOW45upnDXM

[PsyberPhlier]

LOVE THAT AEROVAN, BILL!

[dirk gently]

The tall, square fuselage will provide some "dihedral effect" (i.e. roll-yaw coupling) even without actual dihedral. If you're using ailerons you will be fine without any dihedral.

[Brenda]

You can scale down wings and airfoils but you can't scale down the air you fly in.

[davidchoate]

I read an interesting fact. At least it said it was a fact.That on a low wing plane; You should braid the diheadral, ans high as to lone up with the thrust line.