[NSRCA-discussion] Another trimming question
Nat Penton
natpenton at centurytel.net
Wed Oct 25 21:34:21 AKDT 2006
Matt
I will explain why they are a disavantage next time we are together. Nat
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. LIPRIE" <RLIPRIE at centurytel.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another trimming question
> Mr. Nat,
>
> I could of swore that swept wing helps fight and smooth out the
> turbulence.
>
> Oh well
> guess I was wrong: Matt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nat Penton" <natpenton at centurytel.net>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another trimming question
>
>
>> Ed
>> The way you describe the problem with turbulence, CG change will not be
>> of
>> any benefit. The parameter that counts most is taper. Going from a .6 tip
>> to
>> a .38 tip moves the panel center of lift in only 10%, but where it counts
>> bigtime is in reducing area near the extremities. You will also like the
>> lower moments of inertia - the feel.
>>
>> Sweep will cause problems in turbulence, but I don't recall any of
>> Hansen's
>> designs having much sweep. I prefer to limit the sweep to 3degrees. Sweep
>> is
>> measured by the line thru the ACs of the airfoils, the 25% chordline.
>> Nat
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ed Miller" <edbon85 at charter.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another trimming question
>>
>>
>>>I fly my EMC2 with a fairly forward CG and it too becomes a bit of a
>>>handful
>>> in heavy wind. Turbulence seems to be constantly rocking the wings.
>>> Being
>>> under the 1lb per 100square rule ( 1100 squares at 10lbs 7 ounces ) I
>>> believe has something to do with it also. I'm going to push the CG a
>>> bit
>>> more forward to see if there is any improvement.
>>> Ed M.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dean Pappas" <d.pappas at kodeos.com>
>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:49 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another trimming question
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello Peter,
>>>> Fred and Anthony are onto the basic issue. You will almost certainly
>>>> have
>>>> to trade off the "rolling workload" versus damping in turbulence, using
>>>> CG
>>>> position. Many flyers trim themselves into borderline tail-heaviness in
>>>> order to lessen the workload in rolls, but the piper will be paid. I
>>>> always liked them nose-heavy, myself. I figure predictability is more
>>>> important.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the Impact, personally ... does it generally handle
>>>> turbulence well? Some designs don't.
>>>>
>>>> good luck,
>>>> Dean Pappas
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org on behalf of Fred Huber
>>>> Sent: Wed 10/25/2006 2:24 PM
>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another trimming question
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Moving CG forward and adding + wing incidence should help upright wind
>>>> penetration... but inverted would then need more elevator correction to
>>>> prevent the nose from dropping, and the plane might have pitch with
>>>> rudder
>>>> and other effects.
>>>>
>>>> Typicly I approach trimming from a nose-heavy start. and I do notice
>>>> the
>>>> plane being affected more by turbulence as the plane becomes better
>>>> trimmed
>>>> and the CG approaches the point where little or no elevator is needed
>>>> for
>>>> inverted flight.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest more expo for softer stick centers, allowing correcting for
>>>> the
>>>> wind effects with less "jumping" of the model. If the plane flys the
>>>> way
>>>> you want when there's no wind... Leave the CG, incidences and the rest
>>>> of
>>>> the setup alone.
>>>>
>>>> If just adding expo and a little airspeed does the trick.... its the
>>>> best
>>>> solution, as it has the least chance of negative side effects.
>>>>
>>>> FHH
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
>>>> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:30 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another trimming question
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Interesting thinking a little more positive would allow a further
>>>> > forward
>>>> > CG
>>>> > which may give you a little more stability. Document it so you can
>>>> > move
>>>> > back and give it a try. As I have heard said "trimming is a verb."
>>>> >
>>>> > Anthony
>>>> >
>>>> >>From: "Peter Pennisi" <pentagon.systems at bigpond.com>
>>>> >>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> >>To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> >>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Another trimming question
>>>> >>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:37:54 +1000
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Hi Guys,
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I am looking for opinions.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I am currently flying the COMP-ARF IMPACT with DZ160 which I am very
>>>> >>pleased
>>>> >>with.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Model is flying with no trim and negligible mix. There is no rudder
>>>> >>to
>>>> >>elevator mix for knife edge flight and 5% mix at large rudder throws
>>>> >>for
>>>> >>rollers etc.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Model climbs as straight as an arrow so I am happy with my thrust
>>>> >>settings
>>>> >>and the model pulls ever so slightly to canopy on long down lines
>>>> >>which
>>>> >>is
>>>> >>mixed with throttle.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>The incidence settings are 0 degrees on tail-plane and approximately
>>>> >>1/6th
>>>> >>of a degree positive on the wing. The CG is about right and I don't
>>>> >>want
>>>> >>to
>>>> >>go any further forward as it creates too much work when rolling in 45
>>>> >>degree
>>>> >>up lines.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I know most of you will say that the model is fairly well trimmed.
>>>> >>The
>>>> >>model
>>>> >>is pure pleasure to fly in the calm and really locks on well however
>>>> >>when
>>>> >>the wind comes up it is a different animal to fly. The model gets
>>>> >>knocked
>>>> >>around and I find it very difficult to lock in a line. I am only
>>>> >>talking
>>>> >>about moderate wind here. My other model (Alliance) seems to handle
>>>> >>the
>>>> >>windy conditions better. I don't want to go any heavier in the nose
>>>> >>otherwise rolls become too much work. I would actually like to bring
>>>> >>my
>>>> >>CG
>>>> >>further back but it will make the model even more difficult to fly in
>>>> >>the
>>>> >>wind. CG is currently 5 mm behind rear of wing tube. Model weight is
>>>> >>4.72
>>>> >>KG
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Question: Will changing wing incidence have any effect on model
>>>> >>behavior
>>>> >>in
>>>> >>windy weather without affecting the rest of my settings / trimming. I
>>>> >>only
>>>> >>have 1/6th of degree positive and I know a lot of people run anywhere
>>>> >>between 0.25 to 0.5 degree on their models.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Thanks
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Peter
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >><< winmail.dat >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>_______________________________________________
>>>> >>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> >>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> >>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>> >
>>>> > _________________________________________________________________
>>>> > Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live
>>>> > Spaces
>>>> > http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> > Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/497 - Release Date:
>>>> > 10/25/2006
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date:
>>> 10/7/2006
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/7/2006
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/7/2006
>
>
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/7/2006
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list