[NSRCA-discussion] Canalisers etc.

[Koenig, Tom]

Hi Guys, appreciate the feedback!
Sounds like I either need an aero degree or access to the Ferrari wind tunnel, neither of which is gonna happen. Good old trial and error and common sense may prevail yet....and lots of balsa, foam and glass.
I think I will begin by making the fuse a wing, or as close and as attractive I can. If it's butt ugly.. I won't want to fly it - and if I don't fly, I won't improve no matter how much I think I should.

And my apologies for my opinion...but if I wanted to fly electric....I'll start by throwing my Dyson around my loungeroom😜
Have a nice weekend in sunny USA.

Tom



On 11 Jun 2016, at 7:18 AM, Matt Kebabjian via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

In fact, most planes that have the silli thing don't need it. The real question is does it reduce pilot workload and the answer is mayhaps......Rudder and Yaw become more effective but not for reasons many think. The real reason is simple and fundamental.
If the pilot handles rudder poorly, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference how effective it has become by adding this appendage.

Maybe it looks kool and maybe it doesn't. But it doesn't weigh zero.


Matt Kebabjian


On Jun 10, 2016, at 10:57 AM, ronlock--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

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

________________________________
From: "Jeff via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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:
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<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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. ******************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20160611/9abbd41b/attachment.html>