REFLECTOR:Re: Aileron Rigging Frustration
Ronnie Brown
reflector@tvbf.org
Sun, 4 Apr 2004 19:29:21 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00E1_01C41A7B.2169D4E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are two things (at least!) that you are contending with in rigging =
the ailerons.
First, the "approach angle" at the keel causes the ailerons to go down =
more than up. (i.e., the cable attaches at less than 90 degrees). 2nd, =
as someone else noted, just a bit of slop in the system and the ailerons =
will NOT go up and down a total of 5 inches UNLESS a new hole is drilled =
in the aileron bell cranks (shorter radius). =20
To recover the approach angle problem at the keel, the approach angle at =
the aileron bell cranks will need to be at least 105 degrees (forward of =
90 degrees) when the ailerons are in the neutral position. I too did =
the math and that is the ONLY way it will work. (I too drilled many =
holes in the aileron cable brackets and in the aileron torque tube with =
great frustration before I finally got my Turbo Cad program out and =
simulated the system in the computer). =20
It agrees with Al Gietzen's math. =20
I rigged my ailerons with more than 105 degrees approach angle at the =
aileron bellcranks. Mine are more like 120 degrees which results in =
differential ailerons (more up than down). And I drilled the new holes =
in the aileron bellcranks to get the 5" total travel. This stiffens the =
ailerons a bit, but it flies GREAT!!!! I also have the VG's and except =
for the higher landing speeds, short final handling and landing is =
nearly as good as my old 172.
Ronnie Brown
173 Elite RG (140 hours and LOVING IT!!!!!!!)=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: NMFlyer1@aol.com=20
To: reflector@tvbf.org=20
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: REFLECTOR:Re: Aileron Rigging Frustration
After looking at my notes, there is one more number that needs to be =
mentioned on my aileron system. The distance from the inboard hinge line =
(point of rotation) to the edge of the aileron (point of measure) is =
6.375"=20
Best, Kurt
------=_NextPart_000_00E1_01C41A7B.2169D4E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
#ffffff"=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>There are two things (at least!) that you are contending with in =
rigging=20
the ailerons.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>First, the "approach angle" at the keel causes the ailerons to =
go down=20
more than up. (i.e., the cable attaches at less than 90 =
degrees). =20
2nd, as someone else noted, just a bit of slop in the system and the =
ailerons=20
will NOT go up and down a total of 5 inches UNLESS a new hole is drilled =
in the=20
aileron bell cranks (shorter radius). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To recover the approach angle problem at the keel, the approach =
angle at=20
the aileron bell cranks will need to be at least 105 degrees (forward of =
90=20
degrees) when the ailerons are in the neutral position. I too did =
the math=20
and that is the ONLY way it will work. (I too =
drilled many holes=20
in the aileron cable brackets and in the aileron torque tube with great=20
frustration before I finally got my Turbo Cad program out=20
and simulated the system in the computer). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It agrees with Al Gietzen's math. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I rigged my ailerons with more than 105 degrees approach angle at=20
the aileron bellcranks. Mine are more like 120 degrees =
which=20
results in differential ailerons (more up than down). And I =
drilled=20
the new holes in the aileron bellcranks to get the 5" total =
travel. This=20
stiffens the ailerons a bit, but it flies GREAT!!!! I also =
have the=20
VG's and except for the higher landing speeds, short final handling and =
landing=20
is nearly as good as my old 172.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ronnie Brown</DIV>
<DIV>173 Elite RG (140 hours and LOVING IT!!!!!!!) </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DNMFlyer1@aol.com =
href=3D"mailto:NMFlyer1@aol.com">NMFlyer1@aol.com</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dreflector@tvbf.org=20
href=3D"mailto:reflector@tvbf.org">reflector@tvbf.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, April 03, 2004 =
11:26=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: REFLECTOR:Re: =
Aileron=20
Rigging Frustration</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>After looking at my notes, there is one more number that needs to =
be=20
mentioned on my aileron system. The distance from the inboard hinge =
line=20
(point of rotation) to the edge of the aileron (point of measure) is =
6.375"=20
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best, Kurt </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00E1_01C41A7B.2169D4E0--