Gig, I'd be very hesitant to put it on the cable because no matter how
tight the cable was strung (in itself a possible danger) there would be
(for lack of a better name) the "boing" effect, strumming on the cable.
That might be even worse than flutter. I think it would be better to
translate the up-and-down reciprocal motion to a captured,
back-and-forth motion.
Al, the pushrod is only about 8 or 9 inches long between the ball ends,
and I doubt there'd be enough moment arm, particularly at the end of the
pushrod, to bend a 5/16" threaded steel rod. The weight ought not to
have to be that heavy for its inertia to act upon the (potential)
flutter.
Thanks, guys for your input. I believe all new ideas should be
vigorously attacked. If they can be killed, they didn't deserve to live.
If they survive peer attacks, they deserve to live. After over 25
yearsin the profession, I also came to believe in the Darwinian approach
to industrial safety. (But that's another story......)
Paul Rodriguez
----- Original Message -----
From: Al Hays<mailto:alhays@hickoryhillfarmsheep.com>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Control Surface Flutter
<alhays@hickoryhillfarmsheep.com<mailto:alhays@hickoryhillfarmsheep.com>>
Without conjecturing on whether it would work regarding flutter, I
would be very concerned about that much added weight causing metal
fatigue in the pushrod tube, especially the threaded portion and rod
ends. Any added weight on the pushrod tubes would be bouncing up
and down putting bending forces on the tubes. JMHO. Thanks for
sharing the idea.
Al Hays
601XL/Corvair N5892H reserved
On Aug 27, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Gig Giacona wrote:
<wrgiacona@gmail.com<mailto:wrgiacona@gmail.com>>
>
> I'm not saying that would or wouldn't work. Mainly because it has
> been a LONG time since I took physics. But if it would work
> wouldn't weights attached to the cables do the same thing? And
> since the cable run inside the fuselage you wouldn't have to put
> the weight way out in the wing you could attach it to cable inside
> the fuselage.
>
>
>
>
> [quote="paulrod36(at)msn.com"] Here's one for our aeronautical
> engineers to ponder: While staring at my ailerons,
> wondering if they were going to flutter if ever I get this bird
> finished, a thought struck me.
> Ailerons flutter because they are moving back and forth very fast.
> They move back and forth very fast because they are light, and
> because they have no mass balancing them on the other side of the
> hinge.
> It then struck me that, to add inertial mass doesn't necessarily
> mean putting a weight on an arm out front, or adding a flange so
> you can put weight in front of the hinge.
> AHA! EUREKA! ZOUNDS! How about placing a mass, not necessarily
> equal to the weight of the aileron, on the pushrod itself? Mass is
> used to create inertia, and inertia doesn't care which way it's
> being made to reluctantly move. The aileron can't move very fast
> up and down if the pushrod doesn't want to move very fast backward
> and forward. There's no additional force needed to move the
> aileron, and if the weight is on the pushrod, it's inside, out of
> the airstream, where the wind (and supercritical observers)can't
> find it. I see a tubular lead weight on the pushrod, threaded, to
> snug up against the locknut at the bellcrank end of the pushrod.
>
> Whaddayathink?
>
> Paul Rodriguez
> 601XL/Corvair
>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
avigator?Zenith-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
