[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
REFLECTOR: winglet bottoms
Just to be sure that I understand this correctly. You made a design
modification on the version of the wings you provide because you believed it
didn't make any difference aerodynamically and looked better. Now we find
that it does make a difference and its better that the winglets do have
"bottoms"; and it is going to cost $200 to correct your _______, I mean, to
put the bottoms back on?
I know you didn't mention anything about the standard wing version, but it
would be quite surprising if the effect would completely go away because the
wing is a foot or so shorter.
From: Alan Shaw <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Friday, May 07, 1999 10:30 AM
Subject: REFLECTOR: Elevator balance, winglet bottoms
>Al Gietzen wrote:
>> If you are going to lump the counterweight; it's more effective to put a
>> bigger lump on the outboard end.
>Good advice. I prefer prevention by painting the elevators and ailerons TE
>up... hanging from heavy gauge safety wire hooked in small holes drilled in
>TE ends.Trailing edge UP painting is standard practice on certified
>controls. If they still don't balance the canard weights can be moved
>1"starting with the outboard end.
>We are finally working on a mold for the winglet bottoms. I am told the XL
>lands safer with these and I have experienced better low speed control with
>these on the 173/LW.
>Our part will be available in about two weeks first for our XL customers
>really owe it to them). They will be $200 (like our foam filled canard
>which includes shipping, for all others.
>Aerodynamically our winglet bottom is the same as Velocities. Cosmetically
>front is rounded to match the top of our winglets. Structure is the
>difference. They are FOAM FILLED pressure molded WITH the RUDDER WELLS
>co-molded in. They are designed to hold there shape and be easier to
>especially the rudder on the bottom part.
>Have a good day. :)