Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:27 AM - Re: Flight test report - N773PM (DaveG601XL)
2. 10:10 AM - Re: Re: Flight test report - N773PM (Paul Mulwitz)
3. 02:56 PM - Re: Re: Flight test report - N773PM (Bryan Martin)
4. 02:58 PM - Re: Re: Flight test report - N773PM (Bryan Martin)
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: Flight test report - N773PM |
Paul,
Just digging deeper into a comment you passed on about another 601XL pilot who
thinks this design lacks in the forward slip arena. What has been your experience?
Personally mine drops like a rock when a forward slip is properly applied
(i.e. not one of those hesitant student pilot 1" of rudder pedal slips). In
fact, I usually like to come in a bit high to ensure I can make the field and
then slip it to the numbers. It's kind of fun.
I am a midwest flat-lander and about 90% of my landings are on good sized paved
runways so I rarely use flaps on approach or landing. This means my slips are
more for my own benefit as opposed to necessity. I thought you said you were
on a short strip in mountainous terrain so I figured you would have a better
appreciation for slipping capabilities and steep approaches.
Just wondering...the list is a little slow so why not kick this one around,
--------
David Gallagher
Zodiac 601 XL-B: flying, 200+ hours now
Next project under construction: Aircamper
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374677#374677
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: Flight test report - N773PM |
Hi David,
Yes, I took a long hard look at slipping the XL.
The first thing I found (and mentioned in a recent message) is that
there is no natural tendency for the XL to fly straight. Put another
way there is no part of the fuselage that runs parallel to straight
flight. The closest thing is the 22 degree angle formed by the fuselage
sides at the aft end. This ignores any tendency for the full flying
rudder to be aligned straight ahead by the plastic v-blocks at the
bottom of the firewall.
So it seems the cross section the wind sees is just about the same when
the fuselage is aligned straight ahead or +/- 11 degrees from straight.
This suggests a slip that is less than 11 degrees to one side or the
other has no noticeable effect. My findings in flight test agree with
this theory. If you do a deep slip where the nose is more than 11
degrees off center then you will see increased drag - just as you indicated.
This is one of two flight characteristics resulting from the poor
combination (in my opinion) of having no vertical stabilizer and no
straight ahead sections of the fuselage. The other one is there is
little or no yaw stability in straight and level flight. Within the +/-
11 degrees of straight this design has no natural tendency to straighten
out when the yaw position is upset (as required by ASTM standard
F2245). This is only a problem for S-LSA or E-LSA planes that are
supposed to conform to this standard. E-AB planes can be anything the
builder wants, but the claim I heard when I chose this design was that
it conformed to the standard.
I added strakes to the fuselage bottom on my plane in an attempt to deal
with this problem. It helped a little but didn't reach the point of
making it stable in yaw. However, it did make it a little happier when
flying straight and also had the effect of making small slips effective
in making small increases in approach angle. I have found I like to use
small slips either with or without flaps deployed to make the touchdown
point a little shorter when my approach is a bit long.
I circulated pictures of my strakes a few months ago, but here are some
pictures:
The single piece is made from .050 aluminum and the sides are misaligned
(but balanced) so the air flowing over them keeps them pressed against
the air flow. That way a small change in airflow increases the drag
rather than causing the strakes to bend at first. The piece is attached
to the bottom longerons using pre-existing rivet holes.
Let me point out that I am not a qualified aviation engineer. That
means you can copy my design but you should not think it is properly
engineered. You do so at your own risk.
My home field is reasonably long but has threshold displacements at both
ends. The surrounding terrain is hilly so the winds are always
swirling. We have three wind socks - one at each end and one in the
middle of the runway - and they never point in the same direction. I
almost miss those consistent cross winds that always seem to be haunting
those mid-west runways. I spent several years flying in that area when
I was stationed at SAC HQ near Omaha, Nebraska.
Best regards,
Paul
On 6/4/2012 9:25 AM, DaveG601XL wrote:
> --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "DaveG601XL"<david.m.gallagher@ge.com>
>
> Paul,
>
> Just digging deeper into a comment you passed on about another 601XL pilot who
thinks this design lacks in the forward slip arena. What has been your experience?
Personally mine drops like a rock when a forward slip is properly applied
(i.e. not one of those hesitant student pilot 1" of rudder pedal slips). In
fact, I usually like to come in a bit high to ensure I can make the field and
then slip it to the numbers. It's kind of fun.
>
> I am a midwest flat-lander and about 90% of my landings are on good sized paved
runways so I rarely use flaps on approach or landing. This means my slips
are more for my own benefit as opposed to necessity. I thought you said you were
on a short strip in mountainous terrain so I figured you would have a better
appreciation for slipping capabilities and steep approaches.
>
> Just wondering...the list is a little slow so why not kick this one around,
>
> --------
> David Gallagher
> Zodiac 601 XL-B: flying, 200+ hours now
> Next project under construction: Aircamper
>
>
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: Flight test report - N773PM |
I found on my plane that there is a significant decrease in rudder cable tension
with weight on the nose wheel as apposed to no weight on the nose-wheel. The
attachment point for the nose-wheel steering rods moves a bit closer to the tail
as the bungee is compressed due to the geometry of the firewall. I now make
sure to set the tension with the nose jacked up just enough to take the weight
off. This is the "in-flight" condition and results in the highest cable tension.
This noticeably reduced the force needed on the rudder pedals.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus re-drive.
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: Flight test report - N773PM |
As does mine.
On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:25 AM, DaveG601XL wrote:
>
>
> Personally mine drops like a rock when a forward slip is properly applied (i.e.
not one of those hesitant student pilot 1" of rudder pedal slips).
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus re-drive.
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! --
|