Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:44 AM - KIS TR-1 Aerodynamics ()
2. 10:04 AM - SV: SV: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics (Hans Christian Erstad)
3. 10:14 AM - Re: SV: SV: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics (Mark Kettering)
4. 10:26 AM - Re: SV: SV: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics (Conners, Jerry L)
5. 10:42 AM - Re: SV: SV: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics (Richard Trickel)
6. 10:44 AM - SV: SV: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics - Julians mod (Hans Christian Erstad)
7. 10:52 AM - Re: [QUAR] Re: SV: SV: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics (Conners, Jerry L)
8. 12:32 PM - Re: [QUAR] Re: SV: SV: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics (Mark Kettering)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | KIS TR-1 Aerodynamics |
7/6/2010
Hello Fellow KIS TR-1 Builders and Flyers, I am impressed with the number of
postings on this subject -- not all under the same subject line. Obviously
the interest is fairly high, at least among a few of us.
For those interested in learning more about the effects of wing to fuselage
interface effects on airflow going back to the horizontal tail surfaces you
might investigate the RV-8 situation. I won't try to bias what you might
learn in that arena, but let me say a few words about strakes versus vortex
generators.
The two terms are used indiscriminately by many writers so there apparently
is no commonly accepted distinguishing definition between the two terms or
devices. An opinion that I hold is that the primary function of a strake is
to change the direction of airflow while the primary function of a vortex
generator is change the nature of the airflow energy from streamlines to
turbulence by generating a vortex, but this opinion is not universally held.
Strakes tend to be fewer in number and large while vortex generators tend
to be smaller in number and many used. It is possible that one kind of
device, regardless of how named, could perform both functions.
Just google some terms like strakes, vortex generators, RV-8 airflow, and
the like and you will be off to the races -- have fun.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
PS: You might also encounter the fact that automobiles are into airflow
modification devices aside from spoilers.
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics |
Tim
My Numbers:
Main gear axle: STA 73.6 (my construction manual says 73.5, so meybe I did
not follow it 100% after all :)
Nose gear axle: STA 21.2
Firewall rear face (ref point): STA 32
(73.6-32=41.6)
See also http://home.c2i.net/h-erstad/ Weight&Balance report
Hans Christian
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: owner-kis-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kis-list-server@matronics.com] P vegne av F. Tim Yoder
Sendt: 6. juli 2010 00:52
Til: kis-list@matronics.com
Emne: Re: SV: KIS-List: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics
Mark, 'OC' and all,
My gear dimensions are as follows;
Main gear axle center line to firewall is 42 1/8"
" " " " " " nose gear axle center line 53"
I would be interested to see your numbers.
In retrospect, I do have to watch and may have to increase stick pressure in
order to keep the nose gear off the runway. But I do have plenty of elevator
authority to do that.
Julian's plane was a tail dragger (conventional) I think. He was trying to
give it STOL qualities, an oxymoron I think. I forget what he built to
replace the KIS, I think it is a high wing with better STOL qualities.
Mark, I am in annual now, but I will try and report on your take off
procedure. That is if I don't stall, crash, and burn!
Also, maybe it would be helpful to confirm final approach and touch down
speeds from the GPS, if available, to confirm the accuracy of our different
pitot systems at slow speeds. I you are flying alone, it might be safest to
do this at altitude in a practice area.
'OC', maybe Mark and Rich are just better pilots than you and I because I
use your technique for more consistent landings.
Oh, Mark and 'OC' what was the thickness of your main gear shims? Are they
fiberglass or aluminum or???
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kettering" <mantafs@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: SV: KIS-List: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics
>
> Hello Hans,
>
>>I have flown my KIS 1 for 10 years now, and I agree with 'OC' comments
>>about
>>the handling with respect to difficulties making consistent landings and
>>keeping the nose wheel up.
>
> I have flown a TR1 with the main gear in the stock position and with that
> aircraft I also had the same problems. So I made some calculations and
> found out that the stock main gear location was too far aft. On my TR1 I
> then moved it forward and fully eliminated not only this problem on my
> aircraft but also the takeoff tendency to over rotate. When flying with
> Rich and watching the stick I noted that he had to pull way back to rotate
> then quickly release this back force and movement to prevent over rotation
> on lift off.
>
>>About the wing/fuselage fairing. I have meet Julian several times at
>>fly-in. He told that the fairing modification made the landings with a
>>low
>>approach speed a lot easier. Why not believe his experience? I think he is
>>the only one to make the modification, and having experiencd what
>>difference
>>it makes. I have fairing modification on my to-do list. But I may never
>>come to that item on my list, as I feel the landings are still OK, and I
>>do
>>not operate from runways shorter than 800 meters. I usually keep a little
>>power on in the flare.
>
> Well, I am not a believer! But that has little to do with Julian's
> experiences. More to do with science and engineering methods. At some
> point with more data I may agree that the elevator loses authority due to
> wing fuselage junction separation. At this point I am waiting on seeing
> the video for myself. The one still picture I have seen does not seem to
> support the conclusion that the wing fuselage junction is causing
> separation of flow over the tail. I also never have a sudden loss or any
> loss of elevator authority with my aircraft at any time and I have the
> stock wing root fairings so this data also does not seem to support that
> conclusion.
>
> But this is not to say that Julian did not have this problem. Maybe his
> plane is slightly different than mine. Maybe my more poor (or maybe
> better) fit of my parts in this area prevented a problem that his plane
> had. Who knows?
>
> But I do do know the stock main gear location is too far aft relative to
> the CG (range) location. I also know that angling the gear forward
> (moving the gear contact point forward) reduces the hard nose let down at
> all CG locations and cures the tendency to over rotate.
>
> Next time you fly please try this for me but be very careful and let me
> know what happens! As you pull back to rotate just hold the stick in the
> same location and fly off the runway. This is how a good handling
> aircraft should takeoff. It should not need pilot input beyond a steady
> back pressure. You should not need to release or push forward. The plane
> should literally "fly itself" off the runway. But if you do this in the
> TR1 with the main gear in the stock location you will over rotate and need
> to move the stick forward. Or you will stall and maybe worse.
>
> Also please keep in mind that the gear location is very easy to change.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
>
>
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics |
Hello Tim,
At gross weight and with 20 degrees of flaps the theoretical calculated stall with
the airfoil on the TR1 would be 60.5 mph. This number is using the standard
definition for the wing area, length X cord. Since some of the "area" is inside
the fuselage the actual usable area (area generating lift) is slightly less
so making a ball park adjustment I would guess actual stall speed would be
about 63 mph. This does also not take into account the added "weight" from the
tail down force that of course the wing also needs to support. Of course when
we build the planes they are not perfect or the same so maybe your stall is
slightly different and generally higher. So, 65 mph is not at all far off from
stall. And as someone recently implied, the pitot airspeed may not be accurate
especially at low speeds.
At gross the TR1 is not at all a STOL type aircraft. The wing is just too small
and short. But it is a good all around performer with a fair cruise speed and
a fair landing speed.
Thanks,
Mark
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics |
My experiences flying N94K (KIS TR-1 with Lycoming O-235 L2C) at slow speeds at
high altitudes (8000-14500 MSL) and full fuel with pilot only...the aircraft
does not stall at 35 knots but the resulting extreme low tail attitude prevents
landing at such speeds.
What are the recorded slow flight speeds being experienced by other TR-1 pilots?
Jer
Jerry Conners, PE
Civil Engineer
Nevada Department of Transportation
310 Galletti Way
Sparks, Nevada 89431
775-834-8363 (voice mail)
jconners@dot.state.nv.us
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kis-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kis-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Kettering
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: SV: SV: KIS-List: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics
Hello Tim,
At gross weight and with 20 degrees of flaps the theoretical calculated stall with
the airfoil on the TR1 would be 60.5 mph. This number is using the standard
definition for the wing area, length X cord. Since some of the "area" is inside
the fuselage the actual usable area (area generating lift) is slightly less
so making a ball park adjustment I would guess actual stall speed would be
about 63 mph. This does also not take into account the added "weight" from the
tail down force that of course the wing also needs to support. Of course when
we build the planes they are not perfect or the same so maybe your stall is
slightly different and generally higher. So, 65 mph is not at all far off from
stall. And as someone recently implied, the pitot airspeed may not be accurate
especially at low speeds.
At gross the TR1 is not at all a STOL type aircraft. The wing is just too small
and short. But it is a good all around performer with a fair cruise speed and
a fair landing speed.
Thanks,
Mark
This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential information
and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.
Any review, dissemination or copying of this communication by anyone other than
the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of
the original message.
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics |
Hi Jerry
Thanks for logging in.- You say the plane stalls 35 Knots so I=B4m guessi
ng that is indicated.- Have you tried to compare with a gps in different
directions to compensate for the wind.. Your number is very low.
Rich
--- On Tue, 7/6/10, Conners, Jerry L <jconners@dot.state.nv.us> wrote:
From: Conners, Jerry L <jconners@dot.state.nv.us>
Subject: RE: SV: SV: KIS-List: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics
s>
My experiences flying N94K (KIS TR-1 with Lycoming O-235 L2C) at slow speed
s at high altitudes (8000-14500 MSL) and full fuel with pilot only...the ai
rcraft does not stall at 35 knots but the resulting extreme low tail attitu
de prevents landing at such speeds.
What are the recorded slow flight speeds being experienced by other TR-1 pi
lots?
Jer
Jerry Conners, PE
Civil Engineer
Nevada Department of Transportation
310 Galletti Way
Sparks, Nevada 89431
775-834-8363 (voice mail)
jconners@dot.state.nv.us
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kis-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kis-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Kettering
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: SV: SV: KIS-List: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics
Hello Tim,
At gross weight and with 20 degrees of flaps the theoretical calculated sta
ll with the airfoil on the TR1 would be 60.5 mph.- This number is using t
he standard definition for the wing area, length X cord.- Since some of t
he "area" is inside the fuselage the actual usable area (area generating li
ft) is slightly less so making a ball park adjustment I would guess actual
stall speed would be about 63 mph.- This does also not take into account
the added "weight" from the tail down force that of course the wing also ne
eds to support.- Of course when we build the planes they are not perfect
or the same so maybe your stall is slightly different and generally higher.
- So, 65 mph is not at all far off from stall.- And as someone recently
implied, the pitot airspeed may not be accurate especially at low speeds.
At gross the TR1 is not at all a STOL type aircraft.- The wing is just to
o small and short.- But it is a good all around performer with a fair cru
ise speed and a fair landing speed.
Thanks,
Mark
This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential inf
ormation and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is ad
dressed. Any review, dissemination or copying of this communication by anyo
ne other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and dele
te all copies of the original message.
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics - Julians mod |
Tim
Yes, Julians was a tail dragger, and he was operating from what I would
call
"STOL fields". He is now building a GlaStar, and he is not on this
forum
anymore?
I have encosed a picture I took of Julians plane in 2004 at Stauning,
Denmark.
I should have taken the photo from the rear, to show the fairing from
that
angle.
In my understaning, the fairing can start with a small radius at the
leading
endge, and should increase the radius toward the rear. Julian had what
looked like a constant radius.
But as Mark comment - and I also agree on - is that we want some warning
of
"close to stall condition". Apparently Lancair have a bad stall-crach
record, and Lancair owners I know have installed AOA system with audible
warning. ("ear-shaker" instead of stick-shaker?)
Again, regards, Hans Christian
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: owner-kis-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kis-list-server@matronics.com] P=E5 vegne av F. Tim Yoder
Sendt: 6. juli 2010 00:52
Til: kis-list@matronics.com
Emne: Re: SV: KIS-List: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics
Mark, 'OC' and all,
My gear dimensions are as follows;
Main gear axle center line to firewall is 42 1/8"
" " " " " " nose gear axle center line 53"
I would be interested to see your numbers.
In retrospect, I do have to watch and may have to increase stick
pressure in
order to keep the nose gear off the runway. But I do have plenty of
elevator
authority to do that.
Julian's plane was a tail dragger (conventional) I think. He was trying
to
give it STOL qualities, an oxymoron I think. I forget what he built to
replace the KIS, I think it is a high wing with better STOL qualities.
Mark, I am in annual now, but I will try and report on your take off
procedure. That is if I don't stall, crash, and burn!
Also, maybe it would be helpful to confirm final approach and touch down
speeds from the GPS, if available, to confirm the accuracy of our
different
pitot systems at slow speeds. I you are flying alone, it might be safest
to
do this at altitude in a practice area.
'OC', maybe Mark and Rich are just better pilots than you and I because
I
use your technique for more consistent landings.
Oh, Mark and 'OC' what was the thickness of your main gear shims? Are
they
fiberglass or aluminum or???
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kettering" <mantafs@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: SV: KIS-List: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics
>
> Hello Hans,
>
>>I have flown my KIS 1 for 10 years now, and I agree with 'OC' comments
>>about
>>the handling with respect to difficulties making consistent landings
and
>>keeping the nose wheel up.
>
> I have flown a TR1 with the main gear in the stock position and with
that
> aircraft I also had the same problems. So I made some calculations
and
> found out that the stock main gear location was too far aft. On my
TR1 I
> then moved it forward and fully eliminated not only this problem on my
> aircraft but also the takeoff tendency to over rotate. When flying
with
> Rich and watching the stick I noted that he had to pull way back to
rotate
> then quickly release this back force and movement to prevent over
rotation
> on lift off.
>
>>About the wing/fuselage fairing. I have meet Julian several times at
>>fly-in. He told that the fairing modification made the landings with
a
>>low
>>approach speed a lot easier. Why not believe his experience? I think
he is
>>the only one to make the modification, and having experiencd what
>>difference
>>it makes. I have fairing modification on my to-do list. But I may
never
>>come to that item on my list, as I feel the landings are still OK, and
I
>>do
>>not operate from runways shorter than 800 meters. I usually keep a
little
>>power on in the flare.
>
> Well, I am not a believer! But that has little to do with Julian's
> experiences. More to do with science and engineering methods. At
some
> point with more data I may agree that the elevator loses authority due
to
> wing fuselage junction separation. At this point I am waiting on
seeing
> the video for myself. The one still picture I have seen does not seem
to
> support the conclusion that the wing fuselage junction is causing
> separation of flow over the tail. I also never have a sudden loss or
any
> loss of elevator authority with my aircraft at any time and I have the
> stock wing root fairings so this data also does not seem to support
that
> conclusion.
>
> But this is not to say that Julian did not have this problem. Maybe
his
> plane is slightly different than mine. Maybe my more poor (or maybe
> better) fit of my parts in this area prevented a problem that his
plane
> had. Who knows?
>
> But I do do know the stock main gear location is too far aft relative
to
> the CG (range) location. I also know that angling the gear forward
> (moving the gear contact point forward) reduces the hard nose let down
at
> all CG locations and cures the tendency to over rotate.
>
> Next time you fly please try this for me but be very careful and let
me
> know what happens! As you pull back to rotate just hold the stick in
the
> same location and fly off the runway. This is how a good handling
> aircraft should takeoff. It should not need pilot input beyond a
steady
> back pressure. You should not need to release or push forward. The
plane
> should literally "fly itself" off the runway. But if you do this in
the
> TR1 with the main gear in the stock location you will over rotate and
need
> to move the stick forward. Or you will stall and maybe worse.
>
> Also please keep in mind that the gear location is very easy to
change.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
>
>
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics |
Yes, 35 knots indicated but I did not say stalls at 35 knots but slow fligh
t at 35 knots...I usually do the maneuver above 6000 AGL with winds at alti
tude less than 10 knots...my GPS readouts are usually set for groundspeed
and I have not been interested enough to confirm 35knot slow speed (Note...
N94K did not stall under those slow flight speeds...I was reluctant to redu
ce airspeed...) I have not done such maneuvers since 2004...went on to oth
er N94K 'studies'.
From: owner-kis-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kis-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Trickel
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:41 AM
Subject: [QUAR] RE: SV: SV: KIS-List: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics
Importance: Low
Hi Jerry
Thanks for logging in. You say the plane stalls 35 Knots so I=B4m guessing
that is indicated. Have you tried to compare with a gps in different dire
ctions to compensate for the wind.. Your number is very low.
Rich
--- On Tue, 7/6/10, Conners, Jerry L <jconners@dot.state.nv.us> wrote:
From: Conners, Jerry L <jconners@dot.state.nv.us>
Subject: RE: SV: SV: KIS-List: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics
To: kis-list@matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 5:21 PM
us <http://us.mc1107.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jconners@dot.state.nv.u
s> >
My experiences flying N94K (KIS TR-1 with Lycoming O-235 L2C) at slow spee
ds at high altitudes (8000-14500 MSL) and full fuel with pilot only...the a
ircraft does not stall at 35 knots but the resulting extreme low tail attit
ude prevents landing at such speeds.
What are the recorded slow flight speeds being experienced by other TR-1 p
ilots?
Jer
Jerry Conners, PE
Civil Engineer
Nevada Department of Transportation
310 Galletti Way
Sparks, Nevada 89431
775-834-8363 (voice mail)
jconners@dot.state.nv.us <http://us.mc1107.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=
jconners@dot.state.nv.us>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kis-list-server@matronics.com <http://us.mc1107.mail.yahoo.com
/mc/compose?to=owner-kis-list-server@matronics.com> [mailto:owner-kis-li
st-server@matronics.com <http://us.mc1107.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ow
ner-kis-list-server@matronics.com> ] On Behalf Of Mark Kettering
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:54 AM
To: kis-list@matronics.com <http://us.mc1107.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to
=kis-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: SV: SV: KIS-List: Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics
p://us.mc1107.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mantafs@earthlink.net> >
Hello Tim,
At gross weight and with 20 degrees of flaps the theoretical calculated st
all with the airfoil on the TR1 would be 60.5 mph. This number is using th
e standard definition for the wing area, length X cord. Since some of the
"area" is inside the fuselage the actual usable area (area generating lift)
is slightly less so making a ball park adjustment I would guess actual sta
ll speed would be about 63 mph. This does also not take into account the a
dded "weight" from the tail down force that of course the wing also needs t
o support. Of course when we build the planes they are not perfect or the
same so maybe your stall is slightly different and generally higher. So, 6
5 mph is not at all far off from stall. And as someone recently implied, t
he pitot airspeed may not be accurate especially at low speeds.
At gross the TR1 is not at all a STOL type aircraft. The wing is just too
small and short. But it is a good all around performer with a fair cruise
speed and a fair landing speed.
Thanks,
Mark
This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential in
formation and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is a
ddressed. Any review, dissemination or copying of this communication by any
one other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are no
t the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and del
ete all copies of the tor?KIS-List" sp;--> http://f= - List C
ontributionsp; &bsp;--> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
==========
==========
==========
==========
This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential inf
ormation and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is ad
dressed. Any review, dissemination or copying of this communication by anyo
ne other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and dele
te all copies of the original message.
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: KIS IT-1 Aerodynamics |
Please keep in mind that there could be a very large difference between actual
and indicated airspeed at 35 knots (~40 mph) indicated. Pitots tend to have large
errors when not aligned with the airflow. The calculated stall airspeed
I did is power off. The power on stall airspeed is highly dependent on the thrust.
For example if the trust was very high, say 1450 lbs static, the power
on stall speed would be zero at a gross of 1450 lbs. Rich's TR1 had 125 hp and
depending on the prop it maybe could produce about 600 lbs of thrust at about
35 knots. This thrust would greatly lower the stall speed. The plane may also
not truly stall with so much trust but could just mush along.
And of course weight also has a big effect on stall speed. For example the calculated
power off stall speed at 1200 lbs is 55 mph (48 knots).
Mark
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|