[NSRCA-discussion] Canalisers etc.

[ronlock at comcast.net]

This seems like a good time to thank Bryan for designing a plane that doesn't need a canaliser. 
Perhaps I speak for lots of us that pick up and carry pattern birds. 
Ron Lockhart 

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

From: "Jeff via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 12:04:48 AM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Canalisers etc. 

Tom - 

You can’t beat a canalizer for making your plane look cool. Your scores will go up about .5 pt per maneuver. Totally worth the effort even if it does nothing, maybe even worth it if it is detrimental.  

Jeff 
jeff at hillanalysis.com 

Success isn’t owned. It’s leased, and rent is due every day.   J. J. Watt 




On Jun 9, 2016, at 9:42 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > wrote: 



Tom, 

Here is an RCU thread that goes through some of the various methods of rudder power enhancement. Bryan Hebert will tell you and show you that all those appendages are unnecessary with proper design. His website at   ckaero.com   also has info on this subject. 


http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-pattern-flying-101/11585841-airflow-visualisation-4.html 

I would like to get back to your part of the world for another visit. So far, retirement keeps getting in the way. 
Cheers, 
John 

On 6/9/2016 7:49 PM, Koenig, Tom via NSRCA-discussion wrote: 

<blockquote>

Hi all, 
  
I hope you are all keeping well in pattern world? Yes-I am still around (lurking) though rarely posting these days. 
  
I would appreciate some feedback on the whole topic of all these appendages that seem to be hanging off the current generation of pattern planes these days. Quite frankly, the purpose of which has me scratching my head. 
I am currently in the midst of designing a new model, with which I wish to return to flying and competing. One of my parameters is that anyone should be able to build it from plans, should they chose to do so-and it must reflect current lines and complex shapes-but must meet aerodynamic parameters/requirements first. It will be a challenge-but it can be done. 
  
So just why do we have all this garbage hanging off planes? Are they fixing simple design deficiencies or are we purposely re directing airflows to achieve what? 
  
Thanks for any ideas, thoughts-actual knowledge and opinions! 
  
Tom 
  




_______________________________________________ 
NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 

</blockquote>



_______________________________________________ 
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/20160610/2f1c0e9c/attachment.html>