[NSRCA-discussion] aero question

[Mike Hester]

It depends. On a crapload of things.

Wing incidence, CG, dihedral, stab incidence, planform of wing (sweep etc), 
amount of throw required for KE vs full deflection, flying speed and thrust 
to some degree, could be a number of things.

A raked hinge line is more for pitch coupling than roll, and it is only 
pretty small...unless the overall outline of the fin/rudder stays the same, 
in which case the rudder area distribution changes (less area at the top if 
raked rearward). . That's a little more of a dramatic effect.

I sort of agree with Nat, sounds like the incidence or possibly CG and 
incidence is off. All other things being equal that is. I could be totally 
wrong though. but I had one do that before and after changing the wing AND 
stab incidence after re-trimming, it went away.

If it doesn't take much rudder deflection for KE (ie very modern super tall 
fuse) then it could be simply masking the coupling somewhat. As in it's 
there, but at the deflection used for KE it's not noticable at all. In which 
case it usually brings us back to dihedral, or simply wing incidence and/or 
CG.

I could be totally wrong, but it really just depends on so many things.

-Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JShulman" <jshulman at cfl.rr.com>
To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 8:42 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] aero question


> Just back from flying with Ryan and we were talking about some 
> possibilities that would cause a plane to roll on KE with more
> rudder, but not less. Would a more raked tailpost fix this heavy rudder 
> roll? Ex- Hard Left rudder produces a noticeable Right roll,
> but "regular rudder" for normal KE needs no correction. What do you guys 
> think...
>
> Regards,
> Jason
> www.jasonshulman.com
> www.shulmanaviation.com
> www.composite-arf.com
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: 1/5/2008 
> 11:46 AM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion