Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:53 AM - Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil (Mark Kettering)
2. 06:59 AM - Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil (Propellerjan)
3. 08:02 AM - Re: Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil (Mark Kettering)
4. 08:11 AM - Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil (Propellerjan)
5. 08:19 AM - Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil (Propellerjan)
6. 08:59 AM - Re: Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil (Scott Stearns)
7. 09:10 AM - Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil (Propellerjan)
8. 09:52 AM - Re: Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil (Scott Stearns)
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: | Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil |
I am talking about the TR-4. The control parts on the TR-1 all have a positive
margin of safety. Also due to the smaller horizontal and different geometry
there is much less (if at all) of an elevator deflection problem on the TR-1.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Flyinisfun@aol.com
Sent: Jan 14, 2013 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: KIS-List: KIS TR-1 Airfoil
This is Jesse,
I built and used the materials that came with the kit. I achieved the
degrees of up elevator called for in the prints. How close the down
arm from the elevator comes to hitting something I don't know now. "I'm
surprised these problems didn't surface before now. Maybe they did and I
missed them, which is it? I'm assuming we're still talking about the
TR-1.
In a message dated 1/14/2013 6:49:26 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
mantafs@earthlink.net writes:
-->
KIS-List message posted by: Mark Kettering
<mantafs@earthlink.net>
The current aft elevator tube is 6061 T6,
120" long, 1.25" dia, 0.065" wall with a margin of safety of -0.39. FYI,
the forward steel tube is 4130, 51.25" long, 0.74" dia, 0.035" wall with a
margin of safety of -0.35. The margin of safety must be positive to be
safe.
Steel or aluminum is a wash for weight to stiffness ratio.
But for the long elevator tube to be 1" dia steel it would need to be 0.075
wall or thicker. This would make it over 6 times more heavy than the
aluminum tube (about 10 lbs more) and only give you 0.125" more clearance on
the horizontal. Diameter really helps for tube compression buckling
resistance.
Using two tubes really reduces the load. If 2 tubes
were used and they were each 60" long they could be 6061 T6, 1" dia, 0.058"
wall and still have a 0.11 margin of safety.
As Scott said, double
tapered would really help.
I think the most simple solution is to
increase the length of the rudder control horn (from 4' to 5") and slightly
change the idler ratio (change the long side to 5"). Not only does this
increase the clearance but it also reduces the load on the push tube.
Still not a positive margin but only about half as
negative.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott
Stearns
Sent: Jan 14, 2013 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: KIS-List: KIS TR-1 Airfoil
Another option
would be to make a reducer fitting and transition to a smaller tube for the
portion that goes under the horizontal. An ideal push tube is tapered
and you only need the full diameter at the center. The fantasy push tube
is tapered unidirectional boron fiber. Can someone post the tube length and
diameter/wall thickness and the distance from the LE of the horizontal tail to
the point where the tube bolts to the elevator? Another option is to switch
the whole tube to a smaller diameter steel tube. It would be the easiest
solution, but it would add some wieght. 3-4 pounds probably.
My
forward pitch control tube is 3/4" diameter steel on my much modified
TR-1 to minimize the width of the center console. Scott
From: Mark Kettering <mantafs@earthlink.net>
kis-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 12:43 PM
Subject:
Re: KIS-List:
KIS TR-1 Airfoil
--> KIS-List
message posted by: Mark Kettering
<mantafs@earthlink.net>
>From my calculations when I worked
for Tri-R, the elevator push pull tube was undersized for it's length.
Then talking with Vance it came up that the up throw was well less than
calculated due to contact between the push tube and horizontal. The
solution talked about was to put an additional idler well aft in the fuselage
and as low as possible and then the most aft tube would no longer contact the
horizontal. This would solve two issues at the same time.
I also
like the idea of increasing the length of the control arm on the elevator and
changing the ratio on the current idler. This would reduce the load on
the push tube and increase the clearance from the tube to the
horizontal.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Galin
Hernandez
Sent: Jan 13, 2013 10:34 PM
kis-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: KIS-List: KIS TR-1
Airfoil
As far as I can tell it is stock as per the plans.
Maybe that is why the VG's made a significant difference. Galin
On Sun,
Jan 13, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Mark Kettering <mantafs@earthlink.net>
wrote:
<mantafs@earthlink.net>
Hello
Galin,
Is your elevator linkage stock as per the plans or
modified to allow for more up elevator? I think this modification is
very important and may prevent the need for VG's. The stock method had
the control tube hit the bottom of
the horizontal inside the tail before a
reasonable up elevator deflection limit could be
reached.
Mark
-----Original
Message-----
From: Galin Hernandez
Sent: Jan 13,
2013 10:20 AM
kis-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: KIS-List: KIS TR-1
Airfoil
Jan; What do you mean when you say
"Tape them with Tesa fabric tape on the bottom side of the Hinge line, inside
the elevator, inside the rudder, inside the aileron, and bottom of the flap
hinge line." Can you provide a photo of what you mean? This sounds like a
viable option for those of us that have flying airplanes and can't re-work the
wing/tail.
I used the VG's from Stolspeed.com
on the elevator and they
made a significant improvement while landing my
TR-4.
GalinN819PR
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:36 PM,
Propellerjan <propellerdesign@tele2.se>
wrote:
"Propellerjan"
<propellerdesign@tele2.se>
KIS
TR-1 Airfoil
In the search for information to
calculate an optimum propeller for the KIS I0-240 I found a lot of information
and thoughts about its handling especially during
landing.
When picking an airfoil for a airplane
project that is about the last thing to do before the design is set in stone.
The wing area is determined in respect of stall speed with flap
arrangement.
When
having MTOW, wing aspect ratio and wing
area, we can calculate speed and lift coefficient,
CL
The speed we use for this will be where we
spend most of the time, not stall speed and not top speed, but climb and
normal cruise speed. So in this range the airfoil should have the lowest drag,
if it was an airliner that spend most of its time climbing and cruising at
high altitude at low indicated speed it will be at similar CL most of the time
(but Mach Nr will play its
roll)
All aircrafts
that see any production see an increase in installed power and weight. If this
was in the design of the KIS from start I dont know, but the prototype had a
Limbach from start if understand it correctly, and several hundred lbs less
weight.
Most seem to
have the I0-240B engine installed now and a MTOW of 1450 lb or so. And it
is
cruising at around 140 kts. This give an lift coefficient, of around CL
0.3 at cruise, it mean that an airfoil with higher camber would have been
better then the current N-63A215, where the 3:d last digit tell the designed
CL So it have an airfoil designed for higher speeds, but no meaning to have
that, no one cruise at WOT at SL, but most cruise at 65-75% power from 2000
to 8000 or 12000
The
NACA 6x- series isnt the best with today standard, rumour says that the NACA
screwed up when publishing these new airfoils with a faulty design that they
could not take back.
An Harry Riblett GA-37A315
would be a better choice, it have gentler stall, and will show less drag at
both cruise and climb, The difference between Riblett and NACA is that the
nose radii is placed correctly on the Riblett. The Riblett will have about
7-8% higher
CLmax.
I
draw up both airfoils for evaluation and when aligning the portion where main
and after spar will be, it is a different of 1 degree at the chord line. (From
nose radii to trailing
edge)
The NACA is in
Green
>From the main spar
and back there is very little difference in shape, meaning the lift at same
angle will be about the same with this difference in
angle
The chord line is just a reference line
that is convenient to draw and measure, but aerodynamically it is almost a
fictive line, the important line or angle of an airfoil is the zero lift
angle, from this line the lift is generated if it is given an angle to the
relative wind, think of an symmetric airfoil where the zero lift line and
chord line is the same, and at alpha zero it will not produce
any
lift.
An airfoil
with camber will produce lift even if the chord line is at alpha zero, or
slightly negative, because the zero lift line will have a positive alpha to
the wind.
To make a cambered airfoil to produce zero lift, the
nose have to be lowered until the zero lift line is parallel to the wind, so
an cambered airfoil is said to have a zero lift angle of minus some degree
depending of the camber, it can be -1 to -6 degree on common airfoils and
camber.
The
NACA 63A-215 have a zero lift angle of -1.64 degree, and the Riblett GA-37A315
-2.14 degree.
A difference of 0.50
degree.
The lift slope Cl alpha is depending
on the wing aspect ratio, for a AR of 6, the slope of the lift curve is CL =
2Phi / 1+2/A2 = 2Phi / 1 + 2 / 6 = 4.71239 per
radian
Or
4.71239 / 57.3 = 0.08224 per
degree
The original wing is 3 degree up from
chord line to fuselage reference line, so if we fly it with the reference line
horizontal the wing CL is 3 - -1.64 = 4.64 degree a 0,08224 =
0,38 CL.
The GA-37A315 will be 1 degree less
measured at the chord line, so 2 - -2.14 = 4.14. so CL with fuselage level
will be 0.34
It means that at higher speeds the nose down angle
will be 0.5 degree less.
Lets say we cruse at
165 MPH TAS @ 8000 and 1450 Lb the CL will be 0.30 plus the fact that the
wing have to carry the down force from tail plane. Both airfoils have a
negative pitch moment of 0.05, the Riblett just a little more then the NACA
due to more camber.
The load at the
tail is its moment times the wing chord and area, times dynamic
pressure.
Divided with
tail length.
It will
be about 84-85 lb down force at cruise if CG is at 25% chord
So
the wing then will carry 1535 lb or CL
0.32
A CG further back will reduce negative
lift and then reduce induced drag. (And reversed.)
1450 lb at
after limit will reduce down force at the tail with 10 lb
at
forward limit it will ad 35 lb to a total lift the wing have to do of 1570 lb
or CL 0.33
A CG to forward and the elevator
will not be able to hold the nose up with flaps, to far back and it will be
sensitive on the stick. Then we come into:
Nose
drop at landing, sounds like ground effect, when closer to ground the down
wash from wing is flattened out, meaning the tail will have less down
force.
With a horizontal stab area of just a bit over 17% of
the wing area, seems small, even if the tail arm
is
long.
One reason for the elevator not be up to the job can also
be the tail incidence, 0.5 - 0.75 degree down might help. (but hard to
fix that now)
Seems like, longer elevators chords is a good
thing, 1,75 longer chord move the hinge line to 60% chord/40% elevator.
(about normal)
And VG's, seems to help, it means something is
wrong from start, to small elevator or wrong incidence. Or to small H.- tail
area or all three.
The Wing Fuselage fairing
should be expanding and 10% of the chord at the trailing edge, according to
Raymer, It mean in my eyes it should be 10% of the local chord, so mid chord
it is 5% of the total chord
length.
I dont see
anyone on Matronics talks about if they sealed the control surface hinge gaps
with tape. That will make a big difference. Tape them with Tesa fabric
tape
on the bottom side of the Hinge line, inside the elevator, inside the
rudder, inside the aileron, and bottom of the flap hinge
line.
Having them unsealed is
like driving with the parking brake on.
On a Kitfox it is the
difference of being able to make a 3-point or not with or without sealing the
elevator gap.
Jan Carlsson
JC
Propeller Design
Ps. Sorry to say, I have never
been onboard a
KIS.
--------
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
Read
this topic online
here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392088#392088
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/63a215_37a315_le_rad_133.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/63a215_37a315_184.jpg
==========
rget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?KIS-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com/
==========
le,
List
Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
==========
rget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?KIS-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com/
==========
le,
List
Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
=""
http://www.=====================
ies
ay
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
- List Contribution Web Site
p;
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 TR-1 Airfoil |
I made this spread on push rod strenght couple of years ago, had a engineer looking
it over, but I used 167 lb at stick instead of 100, over kill i say. just
put your data in, force, stick length, gear ratio, idler arm lengths .. tube
diameter and wall thickness, the strenght data is for 6061 tube. it will automatic
pick the right formula if it is short or long, buckling or not.
Jan
--------
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392342#392342
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/jans_push_tube_463.xls
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 TR-1 Airfoil |
Was there an attached file? If so, I did not receive it.
I use the FAR 23 loads of:
Aileron: 67 lbs
Elevator: 167 lbs
Rudder: 200 lbs
I also calculate the aerodynamic loads using FAR 23 methods. Again the TR-1 met
these requirements when I worked for Rich. The aluminum control horn at the
center of the flap torque tube on the TR-4 did not meet requirements in a few
ways.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
>From: Propellerjan <propellerdesign@tele2.se>
>Sent: Jan 15, 2013 9:58 AM
>To: kis-list@matronics.com
>Subject: KIS-List: Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil
>
>
>I made this spread on push rod strenght couple of years ago, had a engineer looking
it over, but I used 167 lb at stick instead of 100, over kill i say. just
put your data in, force, stick length, gear ratio, idler arm lengths .. tube
diameter and wall thickness, the strenght data is for 6061 tube. it will automatic
pick the right formula if it is short or long, buckling or not.
>
>Jan
>
>--------
>www.jcpropellerdesign.com
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392342#392342
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/jans_push_tube_463.xls
>
>
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 TR-1 Airfoil |
It is here, on the forum. do you read this in e-mail on the forum
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t-809
it is on the right hand side, say down load.
Jan
--------
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392352#392352
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 TR-1 Airfoil |
I tried to understand the FAR 23.
there is A a and b, max and min.
as I understand it use max if the aerodynamic load is giving larger loads.
then you can not pull any harder then 167 in elevator.
and use min if the aerodynamic load is lower, with smaller loads on the control
surface use b, others it will not take ground handling and transport loads,
then there is also the gust load from the rear on ground.
Jan
--------
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392354#392354
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 TR-1 Airfoil |
Is it not a range of loads?=0A-=0AIt looks to me like=0A-=0AElevator-
100-167 lbs=0AAileron 40-67 lbs=0ARudder 200-150 lbs=0A-=0AI don't think
either airplane would take 200 or even 150 lbs on each rudder pedal.- Eve
n with the extra structure I added I am sure the bellcrank would tear off t
he rear bulkhead with 150 lbs on each pedal.=0A-=0AScott=0A =0A=0A_______
_________________________=0A From: Mark Kettering <mantafs@earthlink.net>
=0ATo: kis-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:01 AM=0A
Subject: Re: KIS-List: Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil=0A =0A--> KIS-List message pos
ted by: Mark Kettering <mantafs@earthlink.net>=0A=0A=0AWas there an attache
d file?- If so, I did not receive it.=0A=0AI use the FAR 23 loads of:=0AA
ileron: 67 lbs=0AElevator: 167 lbs=0ARudder: 200 lbs=0A=0AI also calculate
the aerodynamic loads using FAR 23 methods. Again the TR-1 met these requir
ements when I worked for Rich.- The aluminum control horn at the center o
f the flap torque tube on the TR-4 did not meet requirements in a few ways.
=0A=0AMark=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0A>From: Propellerjan <propeller
design@tele2.se>=0A>Sent: Jan 15, 2013 9:58 AM=0A>To: kis-list@matronics.co
m=0A>Subject: KIS-List: Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil=0A>=0A>--> KIS-List message po
sted by: "Propellerjan" <propellerdesign@tele2.se>=0A>=0A>I made this sprea
d on push rod strenght- couple of years ago, had a engineer looking it ov
er, but I used 167 lb at stick instead of 100, over kill i say. just put yo
ur data in, force, stick length, gear ratio, idler arm lengths .. tube diam
eter and wall thickness, the strenght data is for 6061 tube. it will automa
tic pick the right formula if it is short or long, buckling or not.=0A>=0A>
Jan=0A>=0A>--------=0A>http://www.jcpropellerdesign.com/=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A
>Read this topic online here:=0A>=0A>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.
php?p=392342#392342=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Attachments: =0A>=0A>http://forums
.matronics.com//files/jans_push_tube_463.xls=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A
==============
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 TR-1 Airfoil |
Yes a range of aloud ables.
as I understand it, if the in case of elevator the air load will give a stick
load of 200 use 167, if it is 120, use 120, if it is 90 use 100.?
Jan
--------
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392357#392357
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 TR-1 Airfoil |
That is how I read it too.- Even fighting a fully nose down trim I don't
think you could get to a stick force of over 100 pounds in either airplane.
- =0A-=0AScott=0A =0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Prope
llerjan <propellerdesign@tele2.se>=0ATo: kis-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Tu
esday, January 15, 2013 9:10 AM=0ASubject: KIS-List: Re: KIS TR-1 Airfoil
e2.se>=0A=0AYes a range of aloud ables.=0Aas I understand it, if the in cas
e of elevator the air load will give a stick load of 200 use 167, if it is
120, use 120, if it is 90 use 100.?=0A=0AJan=0A=0A--------=0Ahttp://www.jcp
ropellerdesign.com/=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://
forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392357#392357=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=============
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! --
|