REFLECTOR: Velocity 20B update
John Dibble
aminetech at bluefrog.com
Sat Nov 4 11:05:25 CST 2006
Al Gietzen wrote:
>
> Im no expert either, but its more complicated when you add
> a fowler flap elevator to the airfoil. The issue seems to
> be the canard stalling before you can get full down
> elevators. The incidence was initially set exactly to the
> gauges (presuming they are correct). I then reduced the
> canard incidence by about 1 degree (roughly 3/16 front to
> back on a 12 wide canard). It helped, but not a lot. The
> advice from the factory was not to decrease incidence
> further because of risk of reducing the differential between
> canard and wing too much.
>
> I agree that reducing the differential too much poses the
> huge risk of a deep stall. However sometimes individual
> planes don't fit with factory standards. My W&B calcs
> indicate when I fly solo, I am aft of the aft cg limit.
> However I have done a stall test and determined that my
> canard will stall, so I am satisfied with that and decided
> not to add ballast to the nose. I think actual stall data
> should carry more weight than calculated values. Still, if
> you are going to push the envelope, you have to be very
> careful. If the vg's work that is obviously a safer
> approach.
>
>
> I think that is very interesting. Unless I misunderstand,
> the sole function of the sparrow strainer is to increase the
> stick force in pitch at higher speeds to reduce the
> apparent pitch sensitivity. It makes you push harder
> against the spring in one direction, and the airfoil load in
> the other.
>
> That's my understanding as well. Based on my experience, I
> conclude that the trim spring alone provides adequate pitch
> stability. I believe others have flown without the strainer
> without stability problems.
>
> John
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/private/reflector/attachments/20061104/f90705cc/attachment.htm
More information about the Reflector
mailing list