News:



  • March 29, 2024, 07:02:01 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Question on the Netzeband wall  (Read 17045 times)

Online RC Storick

  • Forum owner
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12395
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Question on the Netzeband wall
« on: January 09, 2014, 12:22:04 PM »
This will be my only post because I don't want to get into a argument.

It was explained to me that the Netzeband wall was the plane not having enough weight to fly smoothly through maneuvers due to loss of line tension.

So my question is (and my fix) Is it possible to hurtle this impossible wall with motor offset and line rake , rudder offset and tip weight.  Of course making sure everything weight wise is in alignment. The next thing involved is super free (low friction) controls.

Engineer types answer here .
AMA 12366

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2014, 12:50:05 PM »
So my question is (and my fix) Is it possible to hurtle this impossible wall with motor offset and line rake , rudder offset and tip weight. 

Yes, but your airplane may not be in the highest scoring trim.  The Netzeband wall, as I understand it, is a condition where having all the tension on one control line is still inadequate to overcome control surface hinge moment.  The wall is squishy, though.  Before you get to the point of running out of control oomph, the airplane will merely be difficult to fly accurately.  I did some calculation and was working on a short monograph on the subject, but got sidetracked, where I'll remain until late summer.  There are other ways to get around the problem that don't make the airplane fly poorly.   
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6823
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2014, 01:06:30 PM »
   My guess is that if you get enough different actions working against each other, like the offset, rudder, etc., you will detract from the overall performance of the airplane. As far as the "wall" theory, I think that it is true, and related to the wing loading of each individual airfoil. Each airfoil, I believe, has a wing loading that it will perform and penetrate best at. I saw this first hand in my R/C sailplane and free flight days. It was very visible, to see a model that was not quite on step and penetrating well, to see it's L/D increase and rate of sink decrease in dead air by just adding a little ballast. Trim changes to the elevator had no effect on the glide ratio, and sometimes made it worse. But when you hit the magic weight, you could really see a ship respond, and the only way I could come to that point was trial and error. I have to believe that a stunt model is no different. Look at different airplanes and how well they glide at engine cut off, some do much better than others. The ones that do better, I feel, have to do better in the maneuvers due to the better penetration. There are of course several factors involved, but I think that an optimum weight for a particular size airplane is a real entity and part of the equation. I have said before that a stunt model is a true sum of all it's parts, no one single feature can make or break a design, they will fly better if all the aspects of a design work with each other, and weight is a part of that. And I stress, a proper weight, not heavy. I am not saying that a heavy airplane has any advantage. I've built too many that have proven the opposite! But a proper weight for a specific wing area and wing loading will let you take most advantage of your power plant and control set up.
    Type at you later and off work,
   Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2014, 01:23:38 PM »
The Netzeband wall, as I understand it, is a condition where having all the tension on one control line is still inadequate to overcome control surface hinge moment.

Aha!  That's it.  Robert kind of stated it differently than I remembered, because where I saw it come up was in the context of making your control surfaces too big, thereby increasing the control force necessary.

The easy way to make things way better would be to do the fly-by-wire thing: just read the position of the bellcrank with something 'lectronic, and drive servos.

Thinking about it that way, there's only so much advantage you'll get from reducing friction in the controls: at some point the friction forces will be dwarfed by the aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces, and less friction will not lead to discernibly better control.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2014, 01:31:16 PM »
The easy way to make things way better would be to do the fly-by-wire thing: just read the position of the bellcrank with something 'lectronic, and drive servos.

Or you could fly RC, or just watch airplanes on television.  It kinda removes the essence of control line.


The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2014, 01:39:50 PM »
As far as the "wall" theory, I think that it is true, and related to the wing loading of each individual airfoil. Each airfoil, I believe, has a wing loading that it will perform and penetrate best at. I saw this first hand in my R/C sailplane and free flight days. It was very visible, to see a model that was not quite on step and penetrating well, to see it's L/D increase and rate of sink decrease in dead air by just adding a little ballast. Trim changes to the elevator had no effect on the glide ratio, and sometimes made it worse. But when you hit the magic weight, you could really see a ship respond, and the only way I could come to that point was trial and error. I have to believe that a stunt model is no different. Look at different airplanes and how well they glide at engine cut off, some do much better than others. The ones that do better, I feel, have to do better in the maneuvers due to the better penetration. There are of course several factors involved, but I think that an optimum weight for a particular size airplane is a real entity and part of the equation. I have said before that a stunt model is a true sum of all it's parts, no one single feature can make or break a design, they will fly better if all the aspects of a design work with each other, and weight is a part of that. And I stress, a proper weight, not heavy. I am not saying that a heavy airplane has any advantage. I've built too many that have proven the opposite! But a proper weight for a specific wing area and wing loading will let you take most advantage of your power plant and control set up.

Adding weight will increase both wing loading and line tension, but I don't think it's a useful way to look at the control problem, nor will it give Robert what he wants.  I think Robert wants to have a really light airplane without getting near the Wall.  That is possible. 
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2014, 02:17:37 PM »
Or you could fly RC, or just watch airplanes on television.  It kinda removes the essence of control line.

I know, but it's allowed and it's being done.  From a political perspective I wish there was a rule against it, but from a competitive perspective -- you gotta do what wins.

(And please, if someone wants to turn this into a rules debate go spawn a thread over in the rules section -- or pick up the one that's already there, and lying dormant).
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2014, 02:27:33 PM »
Yes, but your airplane may not be in the highest scoring trim.  


BINGO!!!!!

I find that I fly better when the plane pulls harder. More resistance gives me more "feel" which is good in my book.

I have said many times that "I" believe that there is a perfect weight for any given design, not too light and not too heavy. Something like a 63 oz 690 sq in Cutlass XL would do the trick.

Derek

Eric Viglione

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2014, 03:20:39 PM »
Eric's Rules for stunt (right or wrong, I still try to go by them)

1) No matter how good or neutral your plane is, trim is still speed sensitive to some extent - So always try to fly the exact same speed so your trim remains optimal.
2) We tend to need to fly faster in the wind in order to penetrate, so get used to flying whatever that "faster" speed is, even on calm days. See rule #1.
3) Trim for as clean of a corner as possible and the most even line tension, then see what it takes to make it comfortable to fly. You have to come to the plane, not make the plane come to you, at least I think we have to in order to score well.
4) Shorter lines will give more line tension on a light plane, given an equal ground speed. Find the planes sweet spot for line length and learn to like it. Oh, and see Rule #1.
5) Line tension has to be even & symmetrical, or you won't have good shapes. Flying slow looks kewel, but when you crawl up hill, pause at the top, and zoom down, your shapes are shot. Turn up the wick until your speed & line tension is constant and you will have pretty rounds. (well, you should). Ya, and you guessed it, See rule #1.
6) Trim that induces yaw (rudder, engine offset, tipweight) is best kept to minimum, because it will make the trim even more speed sensitive and...ya...see rule #1

The Netzeband wall is something the above steps should help avoid, but can still happen. I don't build light enough, or with flimsy enough controls or big enough surfaces to worry about it, or at least I haven't yet. I suppose if it got windy enough, the opposite of too light, perhaps too heavy with too much load on the controls could negate my ability to move them or flex would flatten them out, so it would seem under those conditions a lighter plane with a more controlled run (no runaway 100mph loops) would have the advantage.

Everything is a trade off.

You make your best guess, and live with it until the next build. At some point you have to choose a dancing partner and just learn to dance with them (unless she's got two left feet). Sooner or later you find that changing partners all the time just leaves you with no rhythm, and you end up going home alone...

Offline John Stiles

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
  • one shot=one kill
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2014, 03:21:49 PM »
I tried to correct that once on a Ringmaster by using gurney flaps....it flew a little better in the upright and inverted, but trying to do an outside loop was murder. I finally added a couple flat washers to the front mm bolts, and it was bearable, but I gave it[plane] away. H^^
John Stiles             Tulip, Ar.

Offline John Stiles

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
  • one shot=one kill
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2014, 06:57:56 PM »
Wsheeewwww...I didn't get to finish my earlier post, had un-expected company, and had to cut it off. Anyway, when all the guys started showing up with flapped planes, it made my ringmaster look kinda un-interesting! Thus the attempt to modify the S-1. That turned out to be a bust! So I bought a P-51 Mustang that was an R/C model and tried to convert it to C/L and that was a disaster[came inside and turned into a lawn dart]. And I destroyed the next attempt which was an Imperial that and hung on the wall too long. By the time i got my first Nobler, all our guys could fly the whole pattern. About then's when I discovered the phenom of "the loss of control on wingovers and other moves that percipitated a loss of line tension. That's when I decided I'd never be competitive, and relegated myself back to the planes without flaps. Except for the Super Clown I built after I came here to SH. That's the first time I heard anyone say that flap to elev. ratios were important. I still have that one, I just haven't had the guts to go past lazy 8s on it. I said all that to say....there's something simple that evades me....that could solve it. I just haven't discovered it yet. H^^
John Stiles             Tulip, Ar.

Offline Allan Perret

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1892
  • Proverbs
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2014, 07:49:54 PM »
Eric's Rules for stunt (right or wrong, I still try to go by them)

5) Line tension has to be even & symmetrical, or you won't have good shapes.  plane with a more controlled run (no runaway 100mph loops) would have the advantage.

Hey Eric, great post.
"Line tension has to be even"      OK got that, but     "Line tension   symmetrical" ???     Can you explain ?
Allan Perret
AMA 302406
Slidell, Louisiana

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2014, 07:57:46 PM »
The Netzeband wall is something the above steps should help avoid...

Just like those copper bracelets help avoid arthritis.
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2014, 08:01:56 PM »
Well, having uniform line tension helps get around the situation of having control deflection be a strong function of line tension (which it is near the Wall), but I'd also try to make control deflection less influenced by line tension.    
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2014, 08:15:46 PM »
This will be my only post because I don't want to get into a argument.

It was explained to me that the Netzeband wall was the plane not having enough weight to fly smoothly through maneuvers due to loss of line tension.

So my question is (and my fix) Is it possible to hurtle this impossible wall with motor offset and line rake , rudder offset and tip weight.  Of course making sure everything weight wise is in alignment. The next thing involved is super free (low friction) controls.

Engineer types answer here .

     The "Netzeband Wall" is as Howard describes - when the line tension is insufficient to move the control enough, or as much as you want. Its about running out of control torque. It takes substantial torque to deflect the controls into the airstream, and the control system has to supply it. The torque is applied by differential line tension.

    If you move the controls, the line you are pulling towards you has more tension than the line you are allowing to be pulled away from you. The maximum amount of difference you can get is the full line tension all on one line (one line taking all the load, or "hung on one line"). That amount of force times whatever bellcrank lever arm you might have, is the maximum amount of torque you can apply to the bellcrank. This torque, divided by the lever arm from the bellcrank pivot to the pushrod is the maximum amount of force you can apply to the pushrod. This force, times the lever arm of the control horn, is the maximum amount of torque that can be applied to the flap horn.

      In any case, the controls will deflect until the differential line tension x all the mechanical advantage equals the torque required to deflect the controls. Since the line tension is limited, the controls can only move so far. If that is less than you need them to move, you hit the Netzeband wall.

     With a conventional straight bellcrank and a normal control setup, the torque available to move the controls goes down as you deflect it. A neutral, on a 4" bellcrank, with 10 lbs of tension, you can get 20 inch-lbs of torque at the bellcrank (2" x 10 lbs). With a 3" bellcrank it's 15 in-lb - that's why you want a big bellcrank.

    As you deflect it the lever arm at the bellcrank is reduced. If a 4" bellcrank is deflected 45 degrees, the lever arm goes from 2" at neutral, to 1.41", so you now only have 14 in-lb available. You can see it by figuring what might happen if you let the bellcrank go to 90 degrees - in that case, the leadout and the pivot are in line, so you get *no* torque at all.

    While you are moving the bellcrank and reducing the torque available, the flap and elevator deflect, too, increasing the torque required. At neutral it takes nearly nothing to move the controls. As you go further, the required torque goes up very quickly. This torque is called the "hinge moment". So as you move the controls as a system the torque available goes down as the controls require more torque, and it will stop and deflect no further at some point.

    Note that you might be tempted to slow down the control ratio from the bellcrank to the flap to make better use of the available bellcrank torque. That works to a limited extent (as Paul Walker has done it) but at some point, you have to move the bellcrank through such a large angle that you start losing torque because of the bellcrank angle.

    Note also that making the handle larger doesn't make effect the available bellcrank torque at all. It's not like using a "cheater bar" on a wrench as some have suggested. You still only have so much line tension, once you hang it on one line, you are done, and with the other line hanging slack, it doesn't matter how far that side of the handle moves.

   You can only do one of two things to improve this - either get more bellcrank torque, or reduce the control torque required for a given deflection. To get more bellcrank torque, you can make the bellcrank larger, making the lever arm larger, or get more line tension. The bellcrank can only be so big and still fit in the airplane, to you are necessarily limited there. Getting more line tension is certainly possible, and your first thought might be to speed the airplane up so you get more tension. Unfortunately, speed it up also increases the hinge moment, since it is a function of aerodynamics, it goes up quickly as the speed increase. As it turns out, many times speeding it up doesn't help at all, its faster but you haven't been able to increase the control deflection.

    If you try to fly it slower, it reduces the hinge moment, but also reduces the line tension and thus the bellcrank torque.

    You can try to get more line tension by other trim adjustments, without increasing the speed. This usually involves putting in extra tip weight, extra rudder offset, etc to "manufacture" line tension. The Nobler was set up like this, with an idea to fly it very slowly (compared to others at the time) by putting in large amounts of rudder offset and a far aft leadouts to yaw the airplane outboard. You can still do it that way, but it definitely compromises the trim in other ways.

     You can reduce the hinge moment by changing the aerodynamics of the airplane. For example, reduce the flap or elevator chord, and make the span larger to compensate, or use aerodynamic counterbalances, or a servo tab like Howard did, or a number of things like that. That doesn't help the available torque, but it does reduce the torque required.

   The other half of Paul Walkers "Impact" approach is to reduce the control deflection required by running the CG aft. If the CG is further aft, it takes less deflection, so less hinge moment for a given amount of turn, so you have more margin over running out of torque, or get more corner for a given hinge momement.

    Finally, you can just make the airplane heavier. The weight is more-or-less a linear relationship to the line tension. Add 20% to the mass, and you get 20% more line tension, all other things being equal. That way, you can definitely deflect the controls further at a given speed. Or, you can get the same deflection at a lower speed.


   Ted's Tucker Special experiment was the latter. The airplane was already built, so most of the other options didn't exist. The aerodynamics were set by the design, and since it was a classic airplane, couldn't be changed. The controls were installed and couldn't be adjusted in any useful way. It was pretty light to start with, with light line tension, and otherwise trimmed conventionally without compromises to increase the line tension (and create other problems). Plenty of power. It didn't turn very well, and was very floaty. The first thing he tried was to fly it faster. Eventually it was down to maybe 4.6 seconds a lap, but it wasn't any better because although it had more line tension, it also required more hinge moment, so it was no better off.  We then added weight in 2 ounce increments, right on the CG. The first 2 ounces greatly improved the turn, and permitted significantly slower lap times. We then went to 4, then 6, then 8 ounces. Each time, the turn got better, the airplane could fly more slowly, and generally looked far more solid overall.

  It was not a subtle effect, or a figment of imagination, it was a very large and blatantly obvious improvement.

    In traditional lore, the turn should have degenerated because the wing loading went up dramatically, and the vertical performance would have suffered because dragging 46 ounces to the top of the circle is a lot harder than 38. In fact, the turn got *much* better, because the lift was not a limiting factor in the first place, and the controls could be deflected much further than before, he could get more lift (more flap deflection) and a higher pitch rate (more elevator deflection). By the same token, the vertical performance was hardly affected at all since it had much more power than the original.

    Point being, of course, that if the weight is not the limiting factor in the first place, adding weight doesn't hurt, and may help. Of course, eventually, adding more and more weight, it would become a limiting factor and starts hurting. Even on a vintage design like the Tucker, with modern power, this is much higher than most people seem to think.

      My other example was actually a real one - two 585 square inch airplanes, both with PA65s, one at 54 ounces, the other at 66. The 66 ounce airplane flies *much* better because it can be trimmed conventionally and still have enough margin over the Netzeband wall, and the light one has severe issues with trim and turns poorly because it runs out of control effort (among other issues).

     So, the Netzeband wall is where the control torque required equals the control torque available. There are number of ways to improve the situation, but simply adding weight (either otherwise useless dead weight like this, or in beneficial added structure like the Infinity) can improve it, up to the point weight does start hurting in other ways.
    
    Brett

Eric Viglione

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2014, 09:07:19 PM »
Hey Eric, great post.
"Line tension has to be even"      OK got that, but     "Line tension   symmetrical" ???     Can you explain ?

Sure... Even meaning same tension at all altitudes in the hemisphere (said no or minimal speed loss up top) symmetrical meaning same tension and input in consecutive pos and neg g maneuvers like inside loops and squares as the outsides, or the right loop of an eight as the left loop or the top loop of a vert eight as the bottom.

Thanks Howard, but copper bracelets are so yesterday. You need to get some rare earth magnets and healing crystals, that's the ticket now! Oh, and don't forget to pee on your PH strip while you are at it.  ;)

Edit: I guess I should actually explain why I care about consistent line tension and symmetry in trim in relation to the original question about hitting the Netzeband wall. Sorry, I sometimes assume people can just read my mind like my wife does. Heh. Well, one thing I have noted, with the trend to droop elevators for instance, opposed to say stab incidence. With drooping the elevators, your flaps are deploying early in one direction and load up the controls more in that direction. So, I prefer minimal or no asymmetry for a more consistant feel at the handle.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 09:35:39 PM by Eric Viglione »

Offline Mark Scarborough

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5918
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2014, 09:15:09 PM »
Brett
as a point of interest,,for me anyway ( by the way, thanks for taking the time to write this all out so clearly,)
as you reach that point where you are carrying all the tension on one line,, would not the arc of the line ( I canno recall the correct name,, parabola is not correct) would not by definition the arc of the line be reduced as well? I would think that would lend some springiness" to the control response at higher input levels.
My understanding, and basis for this is that the arc in the line is a function of tension on the lines, or line, and the airspeed creating drag as well as gravity playing on the weight of the lines..
For years the rat race had me going around in circles, Now I do it for fun!
EXILED IN PULLMAN WA
AMA 842137

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2014, 09:25:21 PM »
Thanks, Brett.  Good explanation.  One might add that "centrifugal" force goes up as the square of inertial speed and hinge moment goes up as the square of airspeed.  

I don't know about yours, but mechanical advantage in my dog goes up (if I read the graph correctly) with increased control deflection.  You gotta do a 3D analysis, looking at d flap / d leadout.  
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2014, 09:30:38 PM »
as you reach that point where you are carrying all the tension on one line,, would not the arc of the line ( I canno recall the correct name,, parabola is not correct) would not by definition the arc of the line be reduced as well? I would think that would lend some springiness" to the control response at higher input levels.
My understanding, and basis for this is that the arc in the line is a function of tension on the lines, or line, and the airspeed creating drag as well as gravity playing on the weight of the lines.

I'm not Brett, but yes, you got it.  That springiness (and the slack line goes way bowed) is nonlinear and gets worse as you approach the Wall.  Add to that the line elasticity and it's hard to fly accurate stunt.
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Mark Scarborough

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5918
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2014, 09:42:25 PM »
Thanks,, I suspected it was part of the reason,,
I have not really had to worry about it,, none of my airplanes have been light enough to be concerned about the wall

YET,,
but the new one may be
For years the rat race had me going around in circles, Now I do it for fun!
EXILED IN PULLMAN WA
AMA 842137

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2014, 09:49:42 PM »
Brett
as a point of interest,,for me anyway ( by the way, thanks for taking the time to write this all out so clearly,)
as you reach that point where you are carrying all the tension on one line,, would not the arc of the line ( I canno recall the correct name,, parabola is not correct) would not by definition the arc of the line be reduced as well? I would think that would lend some springiness" to the control response at higher input levels.
My understanding, and basis for this is that the arc in the line is a function of tension on the lines, or line, and the airspeed creating drag as well as gravity playing on the weight of the lines..


   Of course, and it's not just when hanging on one line, it's any time the controls are deflected - the line you are pulling on straightens a bit, and the line being pulled gets more curved. That's the idea behind the "front up leadout" - it takes advantage of this fact to compensate for the (purported) nose-out yaw on insides, and nose-in yaw on outsides.

      I think you can even compute the sag angle of the tighter line with the nomographs and LINEII or LINEIII, by doubling the weight of the airplane and leaving everything else alone. It won't be exactly right but it will be in the ballpark, at least as close as the rest of the calculations.

    Brett

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2014, 09:54:41 PM »
    snip


   Ted's Tucker Special experiment was the latter. The airplane was already built, so most of the other options didn't exist. The aerodynamics were set by the design, and since it was a classic airplane, couldn't be changed. The controls were installed and couldn't be adjusted in any useful way. It was pretty light to start with, with light line tension, and otherwise trimmed conventionally without compromises to increase the line tension (and create other problems). Plenty of power. It didn't turn very well, and was very floaty. The first thing he tried was to fly it faster. Eventually it was down to maybe 4.6 seconds a lap, but it wasn't any better because although it had more line tension, it also required more hinge moment, so it was no better off.  We then added weight in 2 ounce increments, right on the CG. The first 2 ounces greatly improved the turn, and permitted significantly slower lap times. We then went to 4, then 6, then 8 ounces. Each time, the turn got better, the airplane could fly more slowly, and generally looked far more solid overall.

  It was not a subtle effect, or a figment of imagination, it was a very large and blatantly obvious improvement.

    In traditional lore, the turn should have degenerated because the wing loading went up dramatically, and the vertical performance would have suffered because dragging 46 ounces to the top of the circle is a lot harder than 38. In fact, the turn got *much* better, because the lift was not a limiting factor in the first place, and the controls could be deflected much further than before, he could get more lift (more flap deflection) and a higher pitch rate (more elevator deflection). By the same token, the vertical performance was hardly affected at all since it had much more power than the original.

    Point being, of course, that if the weight is not the limiting factor in the first place, adding weight doesn't hurt, and may help. Of course, eventually, adding more and more weight, it would become a limiting factor and starts hurting. Even on a vintage design like the Tucker, with modern power, this is much higher than most people seem to think.

      My other example was actually a real one - two 585 square inch airplanes, both with PA65s, one at 54 ounces, the other at 66. The 66 ounce airplane flies *much* better because it can be trimmed conventionally and still have enough margin over the Netzeband wall, and the light one has severe issues with trim and turns poorly because it runs out of control effort (among other issues).

     So, the Netzeband wall is where the control torque required equals the control torque available. There are number of ways to improve the situation, but simply adding weight (either otherwise useless dead weight like this, or in beneficial added structure like the Infinity) can improve it, up to the point weight does start hurting in other ways.
    
    Brett

Thanks, Brett.  You saved me an hour of typing!

Only additional comment I'd make (and you alluded to it) has to do with the size of our movable surfaces and whether bigger is always better.

As I look at the Tucker on the wall beside me one of the big things that jumps out is the large chord of the full span flaps.  In the "early stunt designers' minds" we needed big flaps to get the necessary lift to do our tricks.  To avoid going off on a tangent from the subject matter, let me just say that they were wrong for probably  99% of the flapped classic era designs and nearly as many of the modern ones.

What we need in a stunt ship is enough combination of wing area or wing and integrated flap area (at an appropriate aspect ratio) to provide the lift "necessary to do our tricks" while producing minimal induced drag plus a small amount to prevent ugly surprises.  More than enough flap is seldom an advantage.

With respect to the "wall" large chord movable control surfaces all contribute to increased hinge moments and should be minimized unless there are valid reasons in the designers' minds to do other wise.  I believe this is almost never the case with flaps and will make only a modest argument in favor of wide chord elevators (believing instead that a low aspect ratio tail should utilize a much smaller than 50/50 split between the stab and elevator.

Minimizing the chord (increasing the aspect ratio) of movable surfaces directly reduces hinge moments and reduces the need for "methods" to increase line tension because it will be unnecessary to do so to obtain the necessary deflection with the available line tension.  Rather than using the "classic" flap layout (three inch chord at the root because that's the width of the sheet of balsa) tapering to one inch at the tip (because it looks nice) I've postulated that a three percent more intelligent approach is to utilize a nearly full span, much smaller chord flap that is the same percentage of the wing chord at every station.  My designs have utilized chord ratios between 15% (the Imitation and Excitation types prior to the heavier power trains) up to 20% on the Trivial Pursuit in recognition of the higher wing loading...I didn't want a huge wing area and wanted to utilize the larger % high lift device to produce the necessary lift on the modest 650 or so square inches.

Sorry, getting off the track.  Bottom line, avoid large chord flaps because: 1. They move you closer to the Netzeband wall and  2. You don't need them.  3. If you're going the low aspect ratio tail route reduce hinge moment by using at least a 55/45 split and don't worry at all going to 60/40.  The Infinite is that way and does pretty darn well.  Remember, it isn't the "flipper" that's producing the pitch change, it's the lift produced by the entire stab/elevator.

Ted

Oh, a quick edited p.s.

I didn't want to cut it up but an additional experiment could have been performed on the Tucker by slicing off a big chunk of the flaps to reduce the hinge moment.  I've zero doubt that doing so would have prevented the wing from developing the lift necessary to do our tricks.  There have been plenty of unflapped stunt designs of the same area as the Tucker that would perform very presentable patterns.

Oh, and second p.s.  Howard can probably tell us the answer to this.  How much would the negative pitching moment developed by bigger than necessary flaps/chord retard the rate of pitch change...simultaneously requiring more deflection for the desired turn, which gets you closer to the wall, etc. etc. etc.

Offline Chris Wilson

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1710
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2014, 10:06:11 PM »

    As you deflect it the lever arm at the bellcrank is reduced. If a 4" bellcrank is deflected 45 degrees, the lever arm goes from 2" at neutral, to 1.41", so you now only have 14 in-lb available. You can see it by figuring what might happen if you let the bellcrank go to 90 degrees - in that case, the leadout and the pivot are in line, so you get *no* torque at all.
 
    Brett

Wonderfully worded as usual, thanks Brett.

But would the above make a case for a circular bell-crank that does not suffer from an effectively diminishing arm length during rotation? (Perhaps the complications of having a rolling contact for the lead outs would negate any perceived gains.)

Cheers.
MAAA AUS 73427

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
 Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.  It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2014, 10:06:39 PM »
     My other example was actually a real one - two 585 square inch airplanes, both with PA65s, one at 54 ounces, the other at 66. The 66 ounce airplane flies *much* better because it can be trimmed conventionally and still have enough margin over the Netzeband wall, and the light one has severe issues with trim and turns poorly because it runs out of control effort (among other issues).

So do you think you could thunk a chunk of lead into the light one and make it fly better?  I would be intensely interested in the results of that experiment.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2014, 10:09:19 PM »
So do you think you could thunk a chunk of lead into the light one and make it fly better?  I would be intensely interested in the results of that experiment.

  Yes, that, and getting rid of the 13.5" 3-blade.

      Brett

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2014, 10:11:15 PM »
Sorry, getting off the track.  Bottom line, avoid large chord flaps because: 1. They move you closer to the Netzeband wall and  2. You don't need them.  3. If you're going the low aspect ratio tail route reduce hinge moment by using at least a 55/45 split and don't worry at all going to 60/40.  The Infinite is that way and does pretty darn well.  Remember, it isn't the "flipper" that's producing the pitch change, it's the lift produced by the entire stab/elevator.

But do I have the courage to try?

I'm recalling a recent flying session where the wind and other circumstances placed me at the perfect spot to watch my flying buddy do his stuff with a Score ARF.  Even on the square corners I never saw the elevator deflect more than 15 degrees or so; on the round maneuvers I could barely see deflection at all.  That would certainly suggest that there's room for less elevator with higher deflection.

Has anyone equipped one of our dogs with telemetry to monitor the control surface deflections during tricks?
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2014, 10:29:10 PM »
Sorry, getting off the track.

No, that's right on track.  It's one of the main things one can do about hinge moment.  I had an airplane once that suffered from excessive hinge moment.  The more elevator chord I added, the less it would turn.  I wish I'd read your famous article before I did that.

Howard can probably tell us the answer to this.  How much would the negative pitching moment developed by bigger than necessary flaps/chord retard the rate of pitch change...simultaneously requiring more deflection for the desired turn, which gets you closer to the wall, etc. etc. etc.

It's not obvious to me.  The bigger the flaps, the less they'd have to deflect, which thickens the plot.  I reckon I could use XFoil to figure pitching moment vs. flap chord for a given amount of lift.  That part might be easy.  Then there's trying to figure hinge moment.  As Gary Letsinger says, hinge moment calculations are easy to do, but hard to believe.  Wait until after August.
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2014, 10:30:03 PM »
Has anyone equipped one of our dogs with telemetry to monitor the control surface deflections during tricks?

Stay tuned.
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Paul Walker

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1626
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2014, 10:50:04 PM »
Hey Howard....Did you move your computer into the model shop?????


Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2014, 11:32:25 PM »
Here's some ciphering from that short monograph in progress.  The first picture shows the weird behavior of lines with differential tension from reacting hinge moments.  The blue line is the shape of the lines with no differential tension.  The purple and green lines are the shapes of the tighter and slacker line, respectfully, with equal amounts of line tension added and subtracted.  I forget the flight condition, but the X axis is fraction of distance from handle to airplane, and the Y axis is line sag in feet.

The second picture may actually answer Robert's original question (high time).  This is for a 64 oz. airplane on approx 68-ft. lines flying level at a 5.3-second lap time.  The X axis is differential line tension needed to react from 0 to 4 lb. of hinge moment.  The Y axis is the amount of differential line position in feet at the handle: how much difference you have to put in between the up and down line length at the handle.  The vertical asymptotes are the Netzeband wall.  The different lines represent different amounts of force on the airplane in addition to centrifugal force: gravity or aerodynamic forces from stuff like side force on the fuselage, engine offset, or lift vector component toward or away from you.   Lines on the graph go from -6 (6 pounds of extra force aimed at the pilot) to +3 (3 pounds of extra force aimed away from the pilot).  I hope I remembered the units right.  Making the airplane lighter would move you toward the upper lines that tickle the Wall.  Remedies would be adding side force, which Robert asked about, or requiring less differential force to react hinge moment: moving to the left on the X axis.

OK, Paul, back to the laboratory.
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9920
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2014, 01:46:32 AM »
I believe somebody did a simple experiment to determine maximum control deflection (Frank Williams or Al Rabe?) with a mini-marker mounted on a flap, scratching on a mini-chalkboard attached to the fuselage side. Not that hard to try, if you can find the right sort of marker doodad. It may have been in SN or MA many years ago?  D>K Steve

"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline John Stiles

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
  • one shot=one kill
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2014, 04:34:27 AM »
  when the line tension is insufficient to move the control enough, or as much as you want. Its about running out of control torque. It takes substantial torque to deflect the controls into the airstream, and the control system has to supply it. The torque is applied by differential line tension.

    If you move the controls, the line you are pulling towards you has more tension than the line you are allowing to be pulled away from you. The maximum amount of difference you can get is the full line tension all on one line (one line taking all the load, or "hung on one line"). That amount of force times whatever bellcrank lever arm you might have, is the maximum amount of torque you can apply to the bellcrank. This torque, divided by the lever arm from the bellcrank pivot to the pushrod is the maximum amount of force you can apply to the pushrod. This force, times the lever arm of the control horn, is the maximum amount of torque that can be applied to the flap horn.

      In any case, the controls will deflect until the differential line tension x all the mechanical advantage equals the torque required to deflect the controls. Since the line tension is limited, the controls can only move so far. If that is less than you need them to move, you hit the Netzeband wall.

    
    Brett
Outstanding,  I think I can wrap my head around that. Time to drag out the Super Clown and Nobler once again. The worst I could possibly do is crash them. I'll let the clown be my test platform!  H^^
John Stiles             Tulip, Ar.

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2014, 04:43:38 AM »
Hey Howard....Did you move your computer into the model shop?????



You heard the man, get to work.  mw~

Derek

Online Dave_Trible

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6135
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2014, 06:14:28 AM »
I believe somebody did a simple experiment to determine maximum control deflection (Frank Williams or Al Rabe?) with a mini-marker mounted on a flap, scratching on a mini-chalkboard attached to the fuselage side. Not that hard to try, if you can find the right sort of marker doodad. It may have been in SN or MA many years ago?  D>K Steve


Big Art did such back when.  Take off,  one square corner,  land,  12 degrees.  Obviously many thing affect that from weight to power to trim but I think it's still a lot less then many think.  I would guess 20 degrees max for most 'normal' airplanes.  Anything much more is airbrakes.  (Flapped airplanes). I also think if you needed to go much further the handle travel/ response time would be so slow to return to neutral you couldn't avoid jumping on exit of a square corner.  You can see that simply by watching a too-nose-heavy machine fly.

Dave
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 06:31:46 AM by Dave_Trible »
AMA 20934
FAA Certificate FA3ATY4T94

Offline Phil Krankowski

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1031
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #34 on: January 10, 2014, 07:02:30 AM »
When I Google "Netzeband Wall" (I had no clue what it was) I get returns of several anecdotes regarding hitting this wall in windy conditions, when the plane is otherwise in proper trim.

I have plainly experienced this.  With 1/2A it doesn't take much wind to reduce control ability.

With changing weather conditions and the desire to fly in less than ideal situations how can one limit or prevent hitting this "wall" of insufficient line tension?  Is it just trim and ballast? 

Phil

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #35 on: January 10, 2014, 07:09:54 AM »
Is it just trim and ballast? 

As seen above, get more leverage over the control surface and don't have more control surface chord than you need.  The easy solution (if you haven't yet built the airplane) is to use a big bellcrank. 
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Phil Krankowski

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1031
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #36 on: January 10, 2014, 07:34:32 AM »
As seen above, get more leverage over the control surface and don't have more control surface chord than you need.  The easy solution (if you haven't yet built the airplane) is to use a big bellcrank. 

So big bell crank, proper size control surfaces (long and narrow), trim, and ballast if the airplane isn't built, trim and ballast if it is.  Adding ballast isn't what I think about when trying to trim an airplane, especially these little ones.

On a related note, I trimmed a coroplast wing for a cox reedy by trimming the elevator significantly (cutting away the trailing edge).  It not only balances better, it turns better.  The elevator ended up about 1/4 inch more narrow than plan. 

I also learned immensely about too-stiff hinges, and why pin hinges are desirable.  For winter time flying a cut flute provided little up and no down.  (I suppose that would be the Netzenband wall in practice due to stiff controls.)

Phil

Offline Doug Moon

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2188
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #37 on: January 10, 2014, 08:05:54 AM »
BINGO!!!!!

I find that I fly better when the plane pulls harder. More resistance gives me more "feel" which is good in my book.

I have said many times that "I" believe that there is a perfect weight for any given design, not too light and not too heavy. Something like a 63 oz 690 sq in Cutlass XL would do the trick.

Derek

WoW!!!!!  There is tons of good info in here.  Thank you to all of those who took the time to post it as well!!

I tend to be right in line with Derek.  I believe there is an optimal weight for each design.  Since I can't really figure out what it will be prior to flying I tend to try to build as light as I can without sacrificing the integrity of the model.  I was always told, "It's alot easier to add weight to the plane then it is to take weight off of the plane."  That still holds true today.  BUT...last years plane gained some weight due to a repair and it came in at a hefty 68.5 oz. "YIKES" I thought!!  Performance didn't seem to suffer much.  Plane still penetrated everywhere and didn't sink anywhere at the same time.  I do think I was out on it's heavy end for sure.  But (there's that word again) I did notice it had a smaller window of speed in which it would perform.  I have found over the years on the lighter side of the optimal will give you a larger speed window you can operate in and still have the needed tension to be precise everywhere you need to go.  On the heavier side and you will be cornered into a smaller range of speed for optimal performace. In both situations line tension is steady and strong. 


I want to stay as far away as possible from any of the netzeband wall characteristics.  I try my best to trim the model to fly on both lines at all times everywhere in the hemisphere.  When it feels the tension is equal across both lines throughout the corner I actually feel as though I can fly the model through the corner and not just snap it and watch it flip through the corner hoping for the best.  It almost becomes slow motion as it happens.  The quality and repeatability of the corner and rounds is greatly improved when trimmed for equal line tension on both lines.  It has been described by Brad Walker as a "nonevent" corner. Plane flys to a point then it turns and flys away from that point with no oscillation or hinging of any kind.  Once that trim is achieved the mistakes are all me and not the plane.  Eric, said we have to come to the plane and not the other way around.  This is partially true in the fact that we will always be way more capable than our planes but through trimming we get the plane to come to us as much as possible.  Then the rest is up to us.

This may seem to be a bit off track here but the point of all of this writing is to say RUN AS FAR AWAY FROM THE NETZABAND WALL AS POSSIBLE!
Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com

Offline john e. holliday

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22752
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #38 on: January 10, 2014, 08:15:29 AM »
Back in the day when Wild Bill wrote this stuff for the magazines, I tried to read it.  It was way over my head at the time.  All those algebraic formulas and such.   I figured when I built from a  kit or plans, stay as close as possible to what the designer did.   Never had much of any problems.   As someone stated, horse power,  that is what my RSM Doodle Bug lacked in reality.   Will get around to building another  one of these years if I live long enough.   Now I need to pull the King Sweep off the hook and fire up the tea kettle.  Also change power plants.
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline 55chevr

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 742
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #39 on: January 10, 2014, 09:31:27 AM »
The philosophy in building race cars is make it as light a possible and then add lead to make the class weight break.  The idea is put it where it will it provide the best benefit or minimize the handicap.


Joe
Joe Daly

Offline Doug Moon

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2188
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #40 on: January 10, 2014, 09:55:12 AM »
So many times I go back and read stuff from BB, Howard and others and I realize how much I have forgotten over the years....   I read BB's link the trimming thread, wow so much good stuff.

Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com

Offline Jim Thomerson

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #41 on: January 10, 2014, 10:44:26 AM »
I have built and flown two Big Frys in OTS.  It is a high wing British design with a huge elevator.  I was flying with the sun just right  where I could see the lines while flying overhead 8s.  I was amazed at how slack the non-pull line became.  I came to the conclusion that making the transition from inside to outside in figure 8s requires a quick movement of the handle because you have to take up the slack in the non-pulling before the airplane would change direction.

My never applied idea for a linear bellcrank is rack and pinion, a circular bellcrank with gear teeth, the pinion for a line of teeth on the pushrod, the rack. 

Offline Serge_Krauss

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1331
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #42 on: January 10, 2014, 11:09:21 AM »
Off topic, but needs to be said: This very quickly emerging thread is possibly the best ever. Lucid posts, notably Brett's, take time and effort, and as a (former) teacher, I really appreciate the ability and generosity that went into some of these submissions. I've certainly enjoyed the finely crafted responses.

SK

Eric Viglione

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2014, 11:19:47 AM »
So many times I go back and read stuff from BB, Howard and others and I realize how much I have forgotten over the years....   I read BB's link the trimming thread, wow so much good stuff.

Tru dat! Amazing what I lose and forget if I don't use it... fortunately we have this great resource to search! (As long as it doesn't get deleted.  :X )

I was just ruminating about a friend who passed away. Whenever I flew one of his planes, it was almost always trimmed the same way, some of the smaller ones weren't, but his big stunters always were where the pull was all on the down line and almost no pull on the up line, darn near slack, yet up was so sensitive, you just had to think up and it would turn like crazy. That doesn't make sense to me, especially with the N-Wall in mind as described in this thread? Even just level flight was painful to hold, the downline pulled so hard. When I'd land, I'd rub my pinkie finger for 5 minutes trying to get the feeling back.

Somehow, he flew OK, and was reasonably competitive at the local level. If you watched him fly and didn't watch the plane, he moved his hands, arms, feet, hips, shoulders, well you get the idea, moved a whole lot during the square8, especially for down turns. He flew a pistol grip biased, front bar handle with a lot of overhang too. I never could understand how he just didn't simply crash on every flight, especially when the wind came up. He must have been an outstanding pilot, with just terrible taste in trim... super nice guy, still miss him at our field.

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2014, 02:16:47 PM »
When I Google "Netzeband Wall" (I had no clue what it was) I get returns of several anecdotes regarding hitting this wall in windy conditions, when the plane is otherwise in proper trim.

I have plainly experienced this.  With 1/2A it doesn't take much wind to reduce control ability.

With changing weather conditions and the desire to fly in less than ideal situations how can one limit or prevent hitting this "wall" of insufficient line tension?  Is it just trim and ballast?  

Phil

Phil,

That's an excellent point and one that needs to be added to the discussion.  Well designed airplanes that hit the Netzeband Wall when flown in strong winds are almost certainly nose heavy.  As we all know, stunt ships can accelerate when performing consecutive manevuers in the wind.  As they accelerated the G forces on the airplane increase proportionately (Howard can tell you how big the proportion is...I can't).  If the Center of gravity is well ahead of the center of lift (25% of the average chord is good ballpark figure) the moment between the CG and CL will have to be corrected by downforce on the tail.  The greater the G force the greater the demand on the  tail to overcome that "pitching moment."

For instance.  Let's say a four pound super stunter has the CG (improperly) one full inch forward of the CL.  In level flight the tail will have to produce four inch pounds of downforce to maintain level flight...not very much.  Now, let's say round loops produce an increase in load of 10 Gs.  Ten times four pounds is 40 oz acting at the CG and the tail must now produce 40 inch pounds just to maintain the desired constant radius loop.  small radius maneuvers in squares and triangles multiply those factors significant as the radius of the pitch change reduces.

Again, we've all seen how some stunters want to accelerate and open up maneuvers when flying in substantial winds.  This is generally where the model described above runs out ideas and altitude at the same time.  The faster the airplane goes while flying a given sized radius the greater will be the G forces.  The faster the airplane goes the more control deflection will be required to maintain the radius as  more of the tail down force is busy simply overcoming the moment between the CL and the increasing mass at the CG.  It is "entirely" possible to have insufficient tail authority to do so.

If an airplane is designed so as to allow a further aft CG (let's just pick @25% of the average chord for a ball park) the moment arm between lift and the Center of Gravity now is more or less zero and the adverse moment between the two that must be supported by downforce from the tail essentially disappears.  Airplanes designed for and trimmed to that approximate CG/CL relationship have greatly reduced tendency to open up maneuvers and/or accelerate in high winds.  The primary source of increased hinge moment now becomes the need to deflect the surface roughly the same amount as in good conditions but doing while the airplane is flying faster...thus modestly increasing necessary input forces.

Other advantages are the fact that turn rates are very little affected in high winds and it is possible to fly the same maneuvers in that windy air as in perfect conditions.  More demanding, for sure...but your airplane will remain your friend rather than fighting you.

Ted

p.s.  Over the years of stunt history way too little attention has been directed at the importance of a properly located CG and the design factors necessary to support it (primarily a large enough stab and elevator).  I believe more attention has been directed at the far less important vertical location of the CG due to heavy wheels, dihedral in the wing, overweight and unnecessary batteries splattered all over the front end, etc.

In concert with the subject matter, larger (or further deflected than necessary) flaps are also a contributor to attacks on the Wild Bill wall.  Deflecting flaps is another source for adverse pitching moment that must be countered by downforce at the tail end.  The existence of flaps on airplanes that don't really require them to fly the pattern (38 oz Tucker Specials with 550 or square inches of perfectly capable wing, for instance) display proof positive that their CGs ought to be further aft to overcome both the CG/CL moment plus the pitching moment of the  "cambered by virtue of the deflected flaps" airfoil.  Take a good flying, well trimmed flapless profile like a Ringmaster, Coyote, Doctor ,etc. and, without changing the CG add full span flaps to it and then fly it.  I guarantee that, despite all the additional lift of which the wing is now capable, the pitch response of the airplane for the same control input will suffer dramatically.

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2014, 02:35:14 PM »
Tru dat! Amazing what I lose and forget if I don't use it... fortunately we have this great resource to search! (As long as it doesn't get deleted.  :X )

I was just ruminating about a friend who passed away. Whenever I flew one of his planes, it was almost always trimmed the same way, some of the smaller ones weren't, but his big stunters always were where the pull was all on the down line and almost no pull on the up line, darn near slack, yet up was so sensitive, you just had to think up and it would turn like crazy. That doesn't make sense to me, especially with the N-Wall in mind as described in this thread? Even just level flight was painful to hold, the downline pulled so hard. When I'd land, I'd rub my pinkie finger for 5 minutes trying to get the feeling back.

Somehow, he flew OK, and was reasonably competitive at the local level. If you watched him fly and didn't watch the plane, he moved his hands, arms, feet, hips, shoulders, well you get the idea, moved a whole lot during the square8, especially for down turns. He flew a pistol grip biased, front bar handle with a lot of overhang too. I never could understand how he just didn't simply crash on every flight, especially when the wind came up. He must have been an outstanding pilot, with just terrible taste in trim... super nice guy, still miss him at our field.

Wow, Eric.  A ton of good stuff in a couple of paragraphs which are good for several independent threads!  Especially the part about the Latin salsa dance your friend did to fly the pattern.  I've seen that dance more than a few time and generally, the sort of feel you describe when flying his airplanes were the accompaniment for the dance!

Ted

Offline Phil Krankowski

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1031
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2014, 03:01:29 PM »
If the CG is too far forward, the result would be the maneuver will open AND/OR added input would be required to maintain the shape of the maneuver.  

The CG being too far forward will exaggerate this tendency if there is added velocity to the maneuvers due to being propped too fast AND/OR increased velocity entering the maneuver due to wind...

...

I need to digest this for a while.

Phil
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 05:17:02 PM by Phil Krankowski »

Offline Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2014, 05:11:05 PM »

I need to digest this for a while.

Phil

Me, too.  Everything goes up as speed squared, but in the wind airspeed is different from ground speed, and the two act on different things. 
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2014, 05:49:58 PM »
That's an excellent point and one that needs to be added to the discussion.  Well designed airplanes that hit the Netzeband Wall when flown in strong winds are almost certainly nose heavy.  

    I touched upon it above, but I was already droning on a bit. Running the CG aft has the effect of requiring less elevator deflection for a given rate of turn, and thus also deflecting the flap less. It doesn't help you move the controls further, just makes it less important, so you are still better off. The part I barely mentioned above about Paul's slow control ratios - which are enabled by the aft CGs, and the slow control ratios improve the margins because you get better translation of the bellcrank torque to control horn torque.

    The downside to the aft CGs is exactly the same as the advantage. By requiring less control deflection, you get less flap deflection, and less camber in the wing from the flap deflection (for a given pitch rate). If you were going to run out of lift, moving the CG aft and doing nothing else would hurt you and make the stall happen sooner. Al Rabe used the inverse of this to good effect, theorizing that running out of lift was his problem, he moved the CG forward (in the days of unadjustable controls) so he would would have more flap deflection at a given pitch rate, so he didn't run out of lift. The same side effects happened, of course, but it's better than stalling. So he ended up improving his corners by running the CG forward.

     Now, to accomplish the same thing, you might be tempted to use your adjustable control ratios to decrease the elevator travel in relation to the flap to solve the same problem without moving the CG at all. Or make the flap bigger, since many people are making the flaps removable.

     This illustrates several interesting points, but mostly,  that there isn't one dogmatic solution for everything. You design the airplane the best you think you can, build it the way you think it should be, and then solve the issues you have by diagnosing them correctly and devising a solution. When you reach some compromise solution that you would rather remove, you design the next one with changes necessary to resolve that compromise. That's why most successful designs are evolved over a long period of time - people usually start with a sort of dogmatic approach, or some killer feature or approach that they take to an extreme, trying to optimize one aspect. They build it, find some problems, and either realize where the shortcomings are and address them, or, they figure the problems are because they didn't go extreme enough, and double down on the same ideas.

    The former results in what is biologists call "convergent evolution" where you might have people start with wildly different ideas and have everyone end up and just about the same spot. Usually, the latter is a dead end, mostly because the person is more wedded to the idea that their killer feature is really killer and is unwilling to compromise on that.  I have mentioned it before but in many cases people care more about maintaining their one solution regardless of the consequences, and will also observe others having success, and intentionally do just the opposite, just to show they aren't part of the herd. Howard's "radical independents".

    It doesn't really matter, ultimately, since the entire point of the event is to enjoy yourself. You can do it by winning trophies, or by losing while sticking it to the man, who cares, as long you are having fun doing it. I can assure you that you aren't going to get money or girls doing stunt, so you had darn well better be having fun.

 
    Brett

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9920
Re: Question on the Netzeband wall
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2014, 06:09:07 PM »
Say there was a guy that built, oh, say, four new stunt planes every year for 40 years. That would be a lot of planes! But I don't see how that one guy would be able to fly enough to get 4 new planes really well trimmed each season. Without getting them well trimmed, will he be able to correctly evolve his design, even if they are all basically the same? I don't see that being possible, plus, they are not all basically the same. Hypothetically speaking, of course...  H^^ Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here