News:


  • March 28, 2024, 03:23:19 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?  (Read 5587 times)

Offline Peter Germann

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?
« on: June 24, 2009, 06:24:27 AM »
Thanks for establishing the engineering board, I really appreciate, and enjoy, this very much.

Here is a question for you:

When using lineIII to define leadout position the result shows a number valid for horizontal flight with x amount of fuel. Nice.
However, would it not be at least equally important to avoid yaw when flying overhead?  Therefore, what shall I do to calculate the leadout position leading to accurate fuselage tangency when flying through the top of the hemisphere with approx. 1/4 of fuel on board, such as when flying the top segment of the hourglass manoeuvre?

regards
Peter Germann

Alan Hahn

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2009, 03:13:09 PM »
I don't have the formulae, but when you are overhead I have to believe (my data recorder with airspeed from ~1.5 years ago supports it) that the airspeed is slower. So line drag also should be less (and I think gravity when the plane is above 45 degrees tends to be along the line direction). This would argue for leadouts more forward. How much of course is your question.

I am not sure what exactly LineIII is calculating--the optimum position for level flight, or does it have a built in fudge factor to account for the overhead difference.


Offline Dick Fowler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2009, 08:39:16 PM »
Posted on SSW By Igor Berger. A rather interesting approach and runs contrary to some people's opinion.


 http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=130453&mesg_id=130453&listing_type=search

Yaw and leadouts on pictures after all"
Fri Dec-03-04 03:55 AM

           I see my texts are not very clear, so I did some pictures. Hope this will show what I mean. I do not know if my ability to make self explaining pictures is better than my English, but I hope all together will be enough to understand what I mean after all.

So first of all usual understanding what is happening here.

I assume:

1/ Model is tangent to the circle
2/ fuselage & engine has no side aerodynamic forces
3/ lines are outside of wing
4/ bellcrank (BC) is at (CG)

Here is Ted’s visualization from "Bellcranks and CGs redux":

We have dragy lines and moving mass point CG at end of them. Centrifugal force of CG makes tension in lines, so they tend to be straight, but drag makes its usual curvature.

So let’s call the centripetal force Fc. The line drag of lines Fd. It is clear, that stable situation is, if the angle makes another force Fy which is in size equivalent to Fd but with opposite orientation. All is on pic1.



Static (flat) theory tells us where to put lines in leadouts to keep tangent position of fuselage.

So we know the shape and we can convert the CG point to real model and fix lines on place, which will match actual position of lines. Nothing happens. Line drag is counterbalanced by centrifugal force of CG to LO position and forces are balanced. Pic2.





Now assume that we have the same model and we fly overhead. The shape of lines curve is different, because the force FC is less gravity FG. The drag is the same. It means lines are more round. Pic3.





Therefore if LO is in wing fixed on the same place, the nose will yaw inwards. That is happening because CG position is not aligned with LO position and therefore any change in that force leads to yawing. Pic4.




Such a model is not flyable, so “flat” theory cannot work for aerobatic model. … at least at those conditions over.

Now another try.

Assume that we have little bit functioning rudder and it makes constant force Fr on tail. Tail is of the same length as wing. So that force is permanently yawing nose out and thus inboard tip forward. Just opposite than the line drag Fd is. Pic5.





It means that it is the force, which counterbalances line drag instead of CG position. If we want reach no friction in LO, we must put BC far forward, but we know that BC position has no effect to yaw and thus we can live it in CG.

Both line drag and also force on rudder are aerodynamic forces and every change in speed has proportional effect to both of them, so they are in balance at every speed. It means that CG can stay aligned with LO not making any yaw.

As the CG is aligned with LO and not making yaw, then also variation in line tension does not make any VARIATION in that nonexistent yaw. Aerodynamic forces are still in balance, thus also if curvature of lines is different, the resulting stable orientation of fuselage still tangent. Pic6.





We can fly overhead or strongly pull handle and model will still keep its angle.

It is not only CG or (exclusively) only rudder what can balance the line drag. They can work together. Assume the rudder is little smaller and its effect is too small for line drag. Its force is not enough, model tends to yaw in, but we can put lines little back and give CG chance to balance the rest. No problem, but it will make lower line tension overhead.

Opposite situation – if rudder is stronger than necessary, it will lead to opposite situation. We will move leadouts FRONT, CG will fall aft of LO thus not allow outboard yaw caused by excessive rudder force (Fr>Fd) and we are still at tangent position. But lack of line tension will point nose OUT … Dick, are you watching? No gismo, no screws, no tricks, just simply proper design/trim. It means LO moved forward will improve line tension overhead – sounds familiar?

I am not calling for any change. We are able trim models and they fly well. I am only explaining what is happening here. So if we use calculation in hope that “flat” theory is proper and works also for our stunt models, then we simply get situation on pic 2. But we fly on circular path and that makes forces permanently yawing out. The CG can in that case fall to in-flight level of LO, or front of or aft of LO. That situation is on Pic 7.





So the rudder, LO position can very effectively place CG on proper place making that proper response not allowing too much yaw, but also keeping good tension overhead. Pic 8 shows detailed configuration. Fvr is variation of line tension and it gives idea what is its effect on yaw.









  
 
« Last Edit: June 24, 2009, 09:02:08 PM by Dick Fowler »
Dick Fowler AMA 144077
Kent, OH
Akron Circle Burners Inc. (Note!)
North Coast Control Liners Size 12 shoe  XXL Supporter

Offline Peter Germann

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
Re: Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2009, 08:11:10 AM »
I don't have the formulae, but when you are overhead I have to believe (my data recorder with airspeed from ~1.5 years ago supports it) that the airspeed is slower. So line drag also should be less (and I think gravity when the plane is above 45 degrees tends to be along the line direction). This would argue for leadouts more forward. How much of course is your question.
I

Interesting, Alan. What exactly did your airspeed recorder indicate? I thought that my PA .75 adds sufficient power when I go overhead to maintain airspeed. If this would be so, then line drag would remain constant while line tension will be minus one G. I therefore believe, if speed is maintained and relative to the LineIII level flight setting, leadouts must go to the rear to get tangency while flying throught the zenith of the hemiphere.
Peter Germann

Alan Hahn

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2009, 10:36:10 AM »
Peter,
Here is a link to a post I made. The first post has a plot of airspeed, altitude, watts input, and derived tangential acceleration (just subtracting adjacent airspeed points). I note that the airspeed magnitude is off based upon my lap times (indicated 54mph whereas the indicator gave ~45mph. But I think the variations are correct. I note that I run a governor on the prop and as I recall the rpm is somewhere in the 8000 rpm range (I think I mention it in the text).

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=7574.0

Online Igor Burger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2009, 03:52:22 PM »
:-))))))

Nice to see my old pictures here, thanks Dick for posting, I even forgot that I wrote it :-)

But to the point - yes, the line XXX program gives "some" LO offset good for tangent flight in level. The angle gives equilibrium between momentum of centrifugal force on an arm and line drag on arm.

It works well for speed (team) models but not for stunt. Stun models fly also overhead, where the centrifugal force is lowered by gravity. As I wrote that time, it will point the nose toward the pilot and it is the last thing we want overhead.

Additionally we have also rudder and side area of fuselage going to the game.

That is one point. Another point is, that perfect tangent position is necessary for speed models, not for Stunt models, I know many well flying model with relatively lot of yaw. Large models typically does not need any yaw for good line tension, because they have long lines and centrifugal force is enough, but since I started to play with indoors, I know that small model on short lines need to make line tension aerodynamically on large side area, yaw and prop offset :-).

Offline Dean Pappas

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1195
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
Re: Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2009, 04:10:49 PM »
You are so right, Igor! Trading off a little line tension under 45 degrees for an improvement above is most sensible: a balance of opposing torques ( line tension inward and rudder/thrust outward) that shifts outward as the lines become parallel with gravity is desirable. It's funny that both the centrifics and the aerodynamics are speed-squared terms and  they do not change much relative to each other, but the gravity changes everything. (or as the 4-year old next door calls it: grabbity)   LL~
Dean Pappas
Dean Pappas

Alan Hahn

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2009, 07:01:24 PM »
:-))))))

<snip>....
That is one point. Another point is, that perfect tangent position is necessary for speed models, not for Stunt models, I know many well flying model with relatively lot of yaw. Large models typically does not need any yaw for good line tension, because they have long lines and centrifugal force is enough, but since I started to play with indoors, I know that small model on short lines need to make line tension aerodynamically on large side area, yaw and prop offset :-).


Well all you need to do is fly a BiSlob through a wingover to see what offset can do for you!

Online Igor Burger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2009, 02:34:50 AM »
:- )))))

Alan, if you use all that math calculating with centrifugal force, it will show you numbers indicating that this model:



just cannot fly :- )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

because:
- centrifugal force is too low to keep lines tight
- line offset is at angles not usefull for flying and it must fall down from top of hemisphere
- fuselage is 20deg off and by all theoretical rules meaning "only tangent is proper" the model must do lot os induced and unwanted crazy movements, yaws, rolls etc in every corner, but those corners are in reality clean (read "clean enoughh" for 150g light model from foam plate withou too much mass inertia at such a slow flight)

that model is built and trimmed under all rules from that long post ... I would say ... proofed  VD~

Offline phil c

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2009, 03:41:46 PM »
Posted on SSW By Igor Berger. A rather interesting approach and runs contrary to some people's opinion.
 

I had a model with a serious line tension problem overhead.  All the usual tricks did nothing.  I finally got fed up, sliced the fin and cranked in an unscientific rudder offset of about 15 deg.  It made a tremendous difference in overhead line tension and did not cause any other problems that I could seee.

An adjustable rudder, or a Rabe rudder should be included in every stunter for those times when "going by the numbers" doesn't quite work out.
phil Cartier

Alan Hahn

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Leadout position for overhead fuselage tangency?
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2009, 05:29:50 PM »
I had a model with a serious line tension problem overhead.  All the usual tricks did nothing.  I finally got fed up, sliced the fin and cranked in an unscientific rudder offset of about 15 deg.  It made a tremendous difference in overhead line tension and did not cause any other problems that I could seee.

An adjustable rudder, or a Rabe rudder should be included in every stunter for those times when "going by the numbers" doesn't quite work out.

The rudder does a lot of good at slow speed---as long as you can stand it during the rest of the flight, and the prop is putting a good breeze over it. It reminds me when I was a student pilot practicing power on stalls---you need a pretty heavy right foot to keep the nose pointing the right way.


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here