Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:44 AM - Re: Horizontal Tail Span (mark_trickel)
2. 07:23 AM - Re: Re: Horizontal Tail Span (Mark Kettering)
3. 07:44 AM - Re: Re: Horizontal Tail Span (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: | Re: Horizontal Tail Span |
I think I can solve the airfoil thing once and for all. I fond this post in the
achieve from Vance:
From: Vance Jaqua
Subject: Re: e: Aileron/flap/wingtip alignment
Both the 2plc and the cruiser use the NACA 63 sub 2 215 airfoils, with some of
the cusp removed on the aft lower surface, by using flat surfaces on the flap
and aileron. The 63 sets the location of the max thickness the sub 2 I think relates
to the width of the drag bucket and the 2 in 2i5 establishes the design
point lift coefficient and it is 15 percent thick. Use the upper surface for
alignment with a template for setting incidence and normal flap and aileron positions,
do not use the wing tip as a guide - split the trailing edge if you have
to make it align with the settings, In general, set the ailerons at normal
in the relaxed condition, and they will fly up a bit in flight for a little Wash
out effect.
I really miss Vance, it was really cool hearing him spar with other engineers.
I remember observing him grilling a certain young Cal Polly Tech engineer.
I can also confirm this is the airfoil for the TR-1, I plotted it earlier this
year and made cradles to support the cantilever wing when I moved my TR-1C to
my house. It has straight lines between 75% and 100% from the leading edge. The
wing fit the cradles like a kid glove (not OJs).
The cusp was removed to make it easier to assemble the flaps and ailerons, although
some builders still had trouble building this keep it simple airplane - I
have two different size ailerons with two different contours and my flaps are
1/2 and inch longer in cord with a weird looking trailing edge! I guess the only
way to make assembly fail safe would have been to prove builders with control
surface spars and ribs!
On the subject of TR-4 elevator movement - That seems to be a development problem
that never was really resolved. The metal control horn piece may have been
the same one used in the TR-1. You might think that simply extending the length
of the control horn would solve the underside of the horizontal stabilizer clearance
issue but that might cause other clearance issues with the rudder control
or bulkheads.
I forget exactly what Bob Anderson told me but he either changed the position of
the idler bell crank aft of the rear seat or he may have added a second idler
bell crank to change the angle of the elevator push tube. Either case at full
up elevator the push tube still rubs on the bottom surface of the horizontal
stabilizer, it is noticeable when you look into the fuselage opening where the
elevator passes through. Attached are pictures of Bob beautiful ship.
Fabricio - I believe the airfoil for the horizontal tail is NACA 0010.
Mark T.
PS - There is no such airfoil, 65 415, in my Abbott and Van Doenhoff book!!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409254#409254
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/randersontr_4taildetail_990.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/randersontr_4tail_776.jpg
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: Horizontal Tail Span |
Rich being the owner and business person and not an engineer may have made changes
based more on business reasons than engineering. As Mark T. said the TR-4
used the same elevator control horn as the TR-1 for parts commonality. This
did limit the elevator up travel so instead of changing the part as required for
engineering reasons maybe he changed the specification for business reasons.
On Bill's plane, that was the second factory TR-4 demonstrator, Vance made a custom
longer elevator horn to allow the full +25. Vance thought that this was
important. So did I both at the time and today. But keep in mind that a longer
elevator horn reduce the stick force per G and it is already too low. It also
increased the stick throw and this was an issue in Bill's TR-4.
Keep in mind that no product is perfect from an engineering perspective. All products
including aircraft must be a compromise and this compromise includes many
aspects including time, cost, looks, marketing, engineering, etc. Like any
aircraft the TR-1 and TR-4 are not perfect. They are acceptable to many people
as designed. As an engineer that worked on these aircraft I think there are
some things that are easy to change that make them much better. These changes
reduce pilot workload, make them safer and improve overall performance.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Galin Hernandez
Sent: Sep 25, 2013 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: KIS-List: Re: Horizontal Tail Span
Mark; I haven't been able to measure up elevator degrees (I am traveling) but I
do remember that this was another section of my manual that Rich changed from
what was in the brochure (+25 / -16) to +22 / -17. So this is more than likely
what I have.
Rich made a LOT of corrections to my manual as I was developing it.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Mark Kettering <mantafs@earthlink.net> wrote:
Hello Galin,
How many degrees of up elevator do you have? The way it is in the builder's manual
you can not achieve the design up elevator (+25) before the push tube contacts
the bottom of the horizontal internal in the tail.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Galin Hernandez
Sent: Sep 24, 2013 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: KIS-List: Re: Horizontal Tail Span
Fabricio: I did not change the elevator in any way except add the VG's. The landing
gear was moved in 2009 by Rich Trickel while we were in El Salvador so I
know it was done right. This did not change the authority issue so that is when
I added the VGs. Rich helped me install them and flew the airplane with me to
see how they changed the handling. Even he said they did make a difference in
the landing flare.
I take off often at max gross weight and try to keep the CG more towards the rear
when possible. At landing I am normally close to the center of the CG envelope
or maybe slightly forward, but not by much.
I hope this helps. Galin
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:22 PM, fasilpereira <fasilpereira@hotmail.com> wrote:
Galin,
So probably there was a combination of both loss of elevator authority and the
gear being to far aft.
What was your typical w&cg?
You said that the vortex generator improved your elevator authority. Did you increased
your elevator chord too?
Fabricio
--------
Fabricio Pereira
Engineer / Pilot
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409153#409153
==========
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
==========
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: Horizontal Tail Span |
Hi Mark T.,
I also miss Vance and talking engineering with him. He was even right some of the
time;)
There is a NACA 65 415 airfoil even if it is not in Abbott and Van Doenhoff. It is used on the Piper Cherokee and others. http://airfoiltools.com is a great resource.
Mark K.
-----Original Message-----
>From: mark_trickel <marktrickel@gmail.com>
>Sent: Sep 26, 2013 4:43 AM
>To: kis-list@matronics.com
>Subject: KIS-List: Re: Horizontal Tail Span
>
>
>I think I can solve the airfoil thing once and for all. I fond this post in the
achieve from Vance:
>
>Date: Sep 18, 2002
>From: Vance Jaqua
>Subject: Re: e: Aileron/flap/wingtip alignment
>
>
>Both the 2plc and the cruiser use the NACA 63 sub 2 215 airfoils, with some of
the cusp removed on the aft lower surface, by using flat surfaces on the flap
and aileron. The 63 sets the location of the max thickness the sub 2 I think
relates to the width of the drag bucket and the 2 in 2i5 establishes the design
point lift coefficient and it is 15 percent thick. Use the upper surface for
alignment with a template for setting incidence and normal flap and aileron positions,
do not use the wing tip as a guide - split the trailing edge if you
have to make it align with the settings, In general, set the ailerons at normal
in the relaxed condition, and they will fly up a bit in flight for a little
Wash out effect.
>
>I really miss Vance, it was really cool hearing him spar with other engineers.
I remember observing him grilling a certain young Cal Polly Tech engineer.
>
>I can also confirm this is the airfoil for the TR-1, I plotted it earlier this
year and made cradles to support the cantilever wing when I moved my TR-1C to
my house. It has straight lines between 75% and 100% from the leading edge. The
wing fit the cradles like a kid glove (not OJs).
>
>The cusp was removed to make it easier to assemble the flaps and ailerons, although
some builders still had trouble building this keep it simple airplane -
I have two different size ailerons with two different contours and my flaps are
1/2 and inch longer in cord with a weird looking trailing edge! I guess the
only way to make assembly fail safe would have been to prove builders with control
surface spars and ribs!
>
>On the subject of TR-4 elevator movement - That seems to be a development problem
that never was really resolved. The metal control horn piece may have been
the same one used in the TR-1. You might think that simply extending the length
of the control horn would solve the underside of the horizontal stabilizer
clearance issue but that might cause other clearance issues with the rudder control
or bulkheads.
>
>I forget exactly what Bob Anderson told me but he either changed the position
of the idler bell crank aft of the rear seat or he may have added a second idler
bell crank to change the angle of the elevator push tube. Either case at full
up elevator the push tube still rubs on the bottom surface of the horizontal
stabilizer, it is noticeable when you look into the fuselage opening where the
elevator passes through. Attached are pictures of Bob beautiful ship.
>
>Fabricio - I believe the airfoil for the horizontal tail is NACA 0010.
>
>Mark T.
>
>PS - There is no such airfoil, 65 415, in my Abbott and Van Doenhoff book!!!
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409254#409254
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/randersontr_4taildetail_990.jpg
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/randersontr_4tail_776.jpg
>
>
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! --
|