[NSRCA-discussion] T-Canalizer

Sun Oct 18 20:07:48 AKDT 2009

Ihncheol,

Mine is 11" span.  I intended for it to be a bit larger, but after sanding it to an airfoil and making it pretty, that's where it ended up. The idea that incidence would effect the results wasn't my inspirtion.  It got to me from Ron Barr, who did it on his plane (might have been an Impact).  Yes, it did reduce push-to-belly (or what I called pitch mix) with rudder and was directly related. More negative incidence, less push to belly.  however, this was not the only effect so in the end it was a typical balance between getting the most out of the canalizer and minimizing the negative effects. I found that the wing, which I was flying with about 0 incidence needed to have its incidence raised so that I didn't require too much up trim.  This helped the downlines stay straight. I think it would do nothing for a F3P because the speeds are too low and the lack of airfoil will amplify the lift curve when the canalizer and wing are set at opposite incidences.

This was done on a Symphony.  This plane can be successfully setup with 0 incidence and a rearward CG or positive incidence and a forward CG (Hebert method).  The canalizer only had a positive effect when setup using the Hebert method,or in other words, my first flight with it was with the plane set up my way at 0 wing, but the canalizer was unworkable on this setup. Then I retrimmed the plane, with the canalizer using the Hebert method and had good results.  Removing the canalizer and leaving the plane in the Hebert scheme works, but I don't prefer it, but with the canalizer, I prefer the Hebert scheme.  

--Lance
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ihncheol Park 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 6:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] T-Canalizer

  Lance,

  What actually changed before and after on specifically for your plane?  Is it the Symphony?

  How large is the Canalizer on your?

  I’ve been thinking about trying one on a couple of my planes with adjustable incidence like you did.

  Does it have any effect on push-to-belly on rudder?

  Local indoor pilot tried one on a F3P plane last year for a short time, but not for long.

  Ihncheol

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lance Van Nostrand
  Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 9:55 AM
  To: General pattern discussion
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] T-Canalizer

  Vince,

  I took this myth to town last year and built an adjustable incidence canalizer, then took notes on the effects at various incidences and when placed in different locations (overthe CG, back of the wing).  Effects range from nothing to dramatic. Short version of the results: I left mine at 4.5 degrees neg and placed midway between the CG and the TE. It completely changed my wing incidence and CG, but in the end it helped it lock on horizontal lines and reduced pitch mix with this setup.  Other placements/incidences had other effects. There is no one answer and each plane has different "weaknesses" to be addressed.  It's a valuable tool, but one that is somewhat speed dependent and the worst thing about it is the down side effect when flying in a quartering wind.  I think of it as the immaculate band-aid and use it as a diagnostic tool in my airframe designing.

  --Lance

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

    To: NSRCA 

    Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 7:34 AM

    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] T-Canalizer

    Any experience and recommendations is welcome.  Any explanation how it works?  I have seen some that just install a flat piece without the small wing.  Anyone has done both and compare.

    Have a nice flying weekend,

    Vicente "Vince" Bortone

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    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 - www.avg.com 
    Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2441 - Release Date: 10/16/09 18:39:00

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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 - www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2443 - Release Date: 10/17/09 13:08:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091019/cbe35ebc/attachment.html>