[NSRCA-discussion] FAT Rudder

[Bob Richards]

Some issues are real, others may be imagined, still others are incorrectly diagnosed.
 
Back in the day of ballistic pattern, retracts were a good solution to a real problem. (Not really a "problem", but a limitation - DRAG).  The moment turnaround pattern started, drag was no longer a problem but was actually a good thing. Took some people a really long time to figure that out, and then to properly apply it.
 
Regarding the variable thrust angle, it is possible to design a plane that needs no right thrust. (Does anyone remember the EU-1A? It actually needed a slight amount of left thrust!)  For many years, the common explanation for right thrust was torque, and many people still believe that. This is a case of misdiagnosis. If it is properly diagnosed, a real fix is much more likely to happen, but doing so with variable thrust is not, IMHO, the best way to fix it. It can be fixed aerodynamically, but then you run into the "but it doesn't look cool" syndrome.
 
I sometimes wonder if some of the gadgets we see on some planes are really just a form of psychological warfare. :-)
 
Bob R.


--- On Mon, 8/24/09, Ken Thompson <KTHOMPSON56 at satx.rr.com> wrote:






The only issue as I see it, and all that know me are 100% sure I'm certainly no expert, is that "gadgets" fix certain issues...no doubt about that...the big thing is that the gadgets don't cause an issue with the rest of the flight envelope... 
Ken
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090824/1441577c/attachment.html>