[NSRCA-discussion] Aero design question
Wayne Galligan
wgalligan at texasairnet.com
Sun Sep 10 20:05:29 AKDT 2006
Nat,
The Funtana does not snap worth a flip. The whole wing was designed for real slow flight. It will fly real slow on the prop and does not have any bad stall characteristics . It does flat spins well, blenders and flippy flop maneuvers well.
Wayne G.
----- Original Message -----
From: Nat Penton
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Aero design question
Tom
When you mentioned the Compensator did you mean constant thickness root to tip ? My concept on this would be a quick tip stall, however, the Funtana has this type of wing and appears to fly ok ?? I was wondering if anyone who is familiar with the Hangar Nine Funtana would comment.
Helical pitch was for conversational purposes and definitely not a design goal. None of the publications I have, including Hoerner, discuss aileron design. All, though, have a one track mind on high lift devices.
For ailerons, IMO, the Cl along the span should be about constant to lower the probability of tip stall This would be constant % chord ( Bob Richards ?).
Nat
----- Original Message -----
From: Koenig, Tom
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Aero design question
Ok-now my head is spinning! Maybe I should reword the 'linear feel' to: 'it just felt better'!
Please guys keep it coming-I'm learning here!
From memory, on the ailerons I ran about 17 or 18% at the tip and 22-23% inboard.
Then ofcourse there is the wing taper to consider, root to tip ratio etc etc.
Here is something from the past I actually used to do-don't see these days however. I remember Rhett Millers Compensator ( had one) and he ran a constant width L.E from root to tip. I think Jim Kimbro borrowed that for his Deception as well ( had one of those too)-then I borrowed it when I hacked out my first designs-seemed to work well. They felt 'locked in'-might have been something completely else though!! :)
Anyone know why we thought this worked? What about those glorious Diamond stabs! :)
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Fred Huber
Sent: Monday, 4 September 2006 2:05 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Aero design question
You got the progression backward...
Helical pitch is "steeper" at the root than the tip of the prop. Since you want the whole prop to go forward 1 inch.. and the root essentially has little movement it has to be steep to keep up with the tip's large movement.
If you want to simulate the same thing with an aileron.. you would have more aileron chord near the root than the tip. This would inhibit tip-stalls if the wing is constant chord (See the way the Four Star series does it)
For a tapered wing, as is common in Pattern, to get the "helical" effect you'd need the ailerons to make up 50% or more of the difference in chord from root to tip.
Depending on aileron deflection angle... a different % chord ratio from root to tip would be required to achieve the "helical" incidence(tapered or straight chord wing) For any given tapered aileron, there will be one deflection angle that comes closest to producing helical incidence.
If Helical incidence is the goal.. you'll have to choose at what percentage of full aileron throw you want to hit helical incidence... cunch some numbers and then cut the ailerons.
Constant chord ailerons in effect gives more AOA change at the tip than the root with a tapered wing. (encouraging tip-stalls... this is why its inadvisable to use flaperon function with a Pattern design when landing... but spoilerons will help prevent dropping a wing.)
But.... it may be a good thing to get the higher AOA change near the tip...
As pointed out... the Sig Four Star uses the tapered ailerons in a manner which can approach a helical incidence, so its been tried at least in one design series. Its probably been tried in a Pattern design at some time... (if not... someone should try it)
----- Original Message -----
From: Nat Penton
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Aero design question
Hey Tom
I'm not providing solutions - just putt'in more wood on the fire. In steady state roll the least drag position of the ailerons would be constant AOA root to tip. This would call for the percentage of chord to progress linearly so that it would be double at the tip vs the mid span position - no different than helical pitch. A ( severe ?) negative would occur, though, when the ailerons are initiated, potentially causing a tip stall.
Martin Simmons provides a curve showing Cl vs % of chord for the aileron. Going over 20% doesen't get you much for the dollar - just much more servo wear and tear ( especially with the 160 <G> ).
IMO it is not worth the extra work to stop the ailerons short of the tip. Nat
----- Original Message -----
From: Koenig, Tom
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Aero design question
Hi lads,
This is what I have found to work well on my Merlin designs. Now,I am ready to be corrected by those much more knowledgeable than myself-I just do things empirically!
I ended up using a percentage of the span of the panel (60% in my case). I have tried various sizes, but somewhere in the 55-65 percentage area worked well. I also came in from the tip by 30 mm, to get the aileron out of the tip vortex. Now that I am flying a Synergy with the ailerons running all the way out, I'm not so sure how much of a difference it makes. Maybe servo life is a bit shorter, but that is hard to quantify with the YS shaking things to bits anyway. As far as aileron chord dimension goes, well, I have tried various sizes there too, and I do use different percentages at the tip vs inboard aileron. I actually like to run a slightly smaller percentage at the tip. I felt it to give me a more 'linear' feel to the aileron.
I also applied this to 'elevator' design. I wanted the tips of the elevator to be less effective. I felt it helped pull corners better afterwards, as in this case the inboard section is doing more of the work. But now I am running a straight elevator hinge line on the Synergy...............L.O.L
It all gets very confusing, and in the end, what does it all mean in 30 knot cross wind, sun in your eyes and thermals to boot???
Trim as good as possible, burn heaps of fuel ( or charge them packs) and learn to fly the PIGS!!
Ofcourse good design helps.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dean Pappas
Sent: Sunday, 3 September 2006 4:58 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Aero design question
Hi Gang,
The excellent axial rolling charecteristic of some designs is due to a lot more than where the inboard end of the ailerons end. Nonetheless, all of my designs used ailerons that ended far from the fuse! The only downside is that having a bit of aileron in front of the stab offers a useful trimming tool: trailing the ailerons up or down will change the effective stab incidence, and this was a powerful adjustment tool back when we didn't have plug-in adjustable "everything".
You note Akiba's well trimmed airplanes. There is some smart design going on there!
later,
Dean
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org on behalf of John Ferrell
Sent: Sat 9/2/2006 7:48 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Cc:
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Aero design question
I have spent a fair amount of time considering this situation. I have concluded there is no reason to take the risk of adding unnecessary turbulence to the empennage.
In gentle maneuvering it probably has little effect. In aggressive maneuvering (think snaps) it likely leads to inconsistent behavior. Inboard ailerons may contribute additional available force in 3D maneuvers (hanging on prop?).
Other related considerations are aileron shape and the hinging geometry. I also suspect fat fuselages reduce these effects by dispersing the turbulence over a greater volume of air.
Just my two cents worth!
John Ferrell W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Pennisi
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:35 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Aero design question
My current model has ailerons which extend a fair way towards the fuselage (Comp-ARF IMPACT) What effect does the turbulence coming off the aileron have on the tail plane. I am currently building another IMPACT (IMHO flies extremely well) which I am considering to reduce their size by cutting and fixing the inboard part to the wing in an attempt to clean up the airflow over the tail plane during rolling maneuvers . The model does roll well but it could be better.
Am I barking up the wrong tree – any thoughts!
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
************************************************************************
*PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
dissemination of this email or its attachments is
prohibited without the consent of the sender.
WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
Before opening or using attachments, please check for
viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
affected attachments.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of the
organisation.
************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4/424 - Release Date: 8/21/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 9/1/2006
************************************************************************
*PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
dissemination of this email or its attachments is
prohibited without the consent of the sender.
WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
Before opening or using attachments, please check for
viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
affected attachments.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of the
organisation.
************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4/424 - Release Date: 8/21/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/437 - Release Date: 9/4/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060911/e668cf94/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list