News:


  • April 23, 2024, 09:34:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Moments......  (Read 1340 times)

Offline John Watson

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Moments......
« on: July 23, 2019, 09:21:31 AM »
Is there a formula for arriving at the ideal moments of a stunt ship.....that is nose to leading edge trailing edge to elevator , size of rudder and elevator , ideal balance point etc.? or is it still just trial and error...……...

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6112
Re: Moments......
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2019, 09:53:58 AM »
Is there a formula for arriving at the ideal moments of a stunt ship.....that is nose to leading edge trailing edge to elevator , size of rudder and elevator , ideal balance point etc.? or is it still just trial and error...……...
IMHO it is a combination of both.  There are formula's for all of it but in the final analysis it boils down to what works.  I am not sure that AI is even up to the task of balancing all of the aerodynamic factors that go into a "perfect" PA pattern so it really boils down to starting with something that is known to work and adapting it to your style then trim it to fly like you want it to.  There is a reason we see so many SV-11's, Impact's, etc.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13736
Re: Moments......
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2019, 10:16:18 AM »
Is there a formula for arriving at the ideal moments of a stunt ship.....that is nose to leading edge trailing edge to elevator , size of rudder and elevator , ideal balance point etc.? or is it still just trial and error...……...

  There are a bunch of rules about this, but there's no particularly good basis for it aside from trial and error. The absolute value of the tail moment matters, it's not a ratio to anything else. The nose moment is technically irrelevant aside from the balance, which depends on how heavy your propulsion components might be, and how heavy you build.

    My airplanes have a 18" "tail moment" and a 10.5" "nose moment" and they tend to come out lighter than the target and nose-heavy. 10.5 is as short as I can make it and easily contain all the necessary parts, so I almost always wind up with substantial weight (1/2 oz - 1.5 ounces) in the tail. This amount of weight is negligible for these sorts of airplanes, irrelevant, so no harm done.

     I have used various "tail moments", as defined to drive Howard crazy, from hinge line to hinge line, of anywhere from 16" to 22" on full-size airplanes. I think the right answer is about 18" more-or-less. The reason it drives Howard crazy is that this measurement also has no technical relevance, it's the distance from the CG to the CP of the tail that matters. And it's also not a "moment" (which means torque), but a lever arm (which means distance). But with a typical set of other parameters, it's reasonably OK to compare hinge line to hinge line distance, since you really don't calculate any of the dynamics involved.

     Brett

Offline Larry Renger

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3997
Re: Moments......
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2019, 07:19:38 PM »
Copy an establised design, change the wingtips,vertical tail and canopy position and you are in the class with most of the stunt design authors of the past.

Still’s Stuka Stunt is rumored to have been built from a Barnstormer kit. The Pinto was, I am told, originally designed. and built by Dee Rice, borrowed, then published by Dick Mathis. Similarly, the Chisler, Olympic and numerous others were tweaked Noblers. Don’t hold me to these, they are rumors.

To quote Tom Lehrer, “Let no one else’s work evade your eyes. Plagurize, plagurize, plagurize!”

Basically, stunt design has evolved toward things that work. Who needs the pain of finding out how to make something different work well. (Actually, I do, as witness my published designs, but that’s my problem)

A local flyer stunts with a modified RC 3-D airframe. It is slow and it is really difficult to judge the actual path of the model compared to what the airplane orientation is showing. Definitely disorientating.

There have been several other radical approaches like the Barecat and the Doodle Bug. And most definitely Rich Porter’s “Outrageous”.

Sadly, no matter how well these flew, they didn’t win. Judges see what they expect to see. As a judge myself, I suffer from the same problem.  :X
Think S.M.A.L.L. y'all and, it's all good, CL, FF and RC!

DesignMan
 BTW, Dracula Sucks!  A closed mouth gathers no feet!


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here