I have not written a paper nor do I have a program or math equation to prove my theory.
Why do you constantly tell us this?
...Capt Jack Ridley convinced Yeager that by changing its angle of incidence in small increments, he could control the craft without having to rely on the elevator. This had never been attempted at extremely high speeds but Yeager was game to give it a try on the next flight....
A little tidbit for you here…
From Wikipedia…
“Colonel Jackie Linwood "Jack" Ridley (June 16, 1915 – March 12, 1957) was an aeronautical engineer, USAF test pilot and chief of the air force's Flight Test Engineering Laboratory. He helped develop and test many cold war era military aircraft but is best known for his work on the Bell X-1, the first aircraft to achieve supersonic flight. He was highly respected among fellow test pilots, most notably Chuck Yeager, for his engineering skills.”
Me again,
When Capt Ridley told Yeager what to do next he was getting that from his aeronautical engineering and ability to understand what was going on during the flight based on Yeager’s description by his feel. One of the main factors as to why Chuck Yeager was so successful on that world record setting flight, and many others, was because he and the engineers worked together. They listened and trusted him with their design and he trusted them with his life. They worked together. Yeager, an exceptional pilot with great feel and instinct, told him what he was feeling. They, the engineers, figured out what was happening and then told him how to combat the issue with the built in features of the aircraft.
Chuck didn’t just blow off the “smart” guys because they weren’t in the plane and holding the stick. He listened, trusted, and applied what they said and BOOM the sound barrier was broken….
The same can be done here in CLPA, I know because I have done it. I learned about moment of inertia a long time ago due to a Saito powered model with a short moment and what it was telling me was happening. I described what I was feeling at the handle and laid out the particulars of the setup. The engineers on the board at the time broke down what was happening and why I was feeling what I was feeling. There were several opinions about what was going on. There were several ideas to try. With ONE change the model became one of the best flying planes I have ever built, that includes last year’s winner. That one change enforced the opinion that it was the moment of inertia in this case that was causing the issue. Their postings also helped me to understand why the other changes I had made did not in fact work. I was also wondering if the smart math guys were getting beaten to death by my questions and descriptions after flight tests. But I forged ahead until I had some very SMALL amount of understanding of the subject.
This is not some battle about who is right and who is wrong. That’s proven on the circle. It’s an exchange of information about an activity we all love to participate in together. Tossing the win or lose attitude and setting one’s mind to understanding “why” I feel what I feel on the handle will only yield further successes in the future. Refusing to try can severely limits one success as they may think something is causing the “feeling” they are receiving on the handle but in fact it is another opposing reason all together and the same problem may be built right into the next model.
Had I not chosen to ask the “EXPERTS” what the issue was, and stayed with it until I understood what they were telling me, there is no way I would have found the solution to my problem. I was looking at another hanger queen at that point, and months of wasted time and energy. I was simply not looking in the right spot as the feeling was telling me one thing but my limited understanding of the issue at that point was telling me to look somewhere else to cure my problem.
Topic: Hind sight Topic: CG discussions for IC/E power (Read 14264 times)