stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Doug Moon on February 18, 2021, 12:28:02 PM
-
Hello,
I am starting a new plane. There are a few things I want to change. The stab may be one of them.
As long as I can remember I have used 1/2" thick flat stab with molded round LE and TE. So far it has served me well.
I have seen over the past several years the move towards a stab with a very sharp LE back to a flat stab. Not sure on the TE.
Way back in 2000 I had a Saturn with a slight hunt that was giving me fits from time to time. It was a good model but that hunt was bugging me. I read David's article again and again and tried a few ideas from there, trip strips, wire on the LE and nothing worked. Then I taped 1/4" triangle stock to the LE. This was also a 1/2" flat stab with round LE and TE. Nothing else was changed on the plane during the tests so I could really see the differences. The triangle stock locked that plane in like a laser. It was "dead nuts" level. No hunting. At whatever altitude I flew it at it was dead on. In the rounds it was locked in. I tried the squares it took alot of stick pressure to get it out of the level flight and at about 60% of the turn it shuddered violently and flew off track. I almost lost the plane. It was scary. Luckily the first square turn was an upward turn or it would have been in the ground. I flew to a much higher altitude and tried several more square maneuvers and it did the same thing at the same places every time.
It appeared to me that sharp LE on the stab was creating a separation point that would cause the air on the back of it to snap off at higher AoA and it would stall. That was my conclusion but I am sure it more complicated than that.
I did a couple of flights with this to make sure it wasn't just a fluke. It acted the same every time. Locked in level and rounds. Lots of stick pressure needed to get out of the level flight. Square corners caused what appeared to be a violent stall.
I removed the 1/4" triangle stock from the front of the LE and it went back to it's old self. After many adjustments on the pushrod and the handle I was able to get that plane to fly really well until it's untimely demise.
I want to build a new stab with a sharp LE but this experiment all those years ago has scared me off of doing it.
Why did this happen?
Why did it not work like the stabs you see today?
Does the round TE have anything to do with it?
Thank you
-
Doug I know the pointy stab is supposed to be the 'bees knees' but I didn't like it either-about the same experience as yours on three different airplanes. I struggled with it through the Nats two years ago and finally built new round leading edge stabs to replace them and they once again became manageable . These airplanes weren't real light and likely required a little more deflection than a light one would. Frank Williams thought the sharp stab was driving the airplane at a higher AoA and maybe causing stall of the wing. I had been thinking the stab was stalling. In any case I'm done with them...
Dave
-
My experience with pointey stabs been really good with airfoil stabs and not so good with flat stabs.
-
Maybe what is needed is a small radius that flares into the flat stab rather than the sharp triangle shape. Also did you have the hinge line sealed?
Best, DennisT
-
Maybe what is needed is a small radius that flares into the flat stab rather than the sharp triangle shape. Also did you have the hinge line sealed?
Best, DennisT
We had airfoils on our pattern ships in R/C.
-
I rebuilt one of my older stunt ships last year. The foam wing had held up very well over the years but the cowl had gotten pretty fuel soaked and beat up and the fuselage needed attention. I figured if I am doing all of that I might as well try a new stab. I built a StarGeezer stab and elevator per plans and used it to replace the old stab. I've only gotten to fly it a few times thanks to our Chinese Commie friends and their pet running-dog-lackey Covid. But in the few flights I got I was impressed. It turns scary sharp in the squares and seems to lock in on the levels. I'm happy with it.
-
I built a StarGeezer stab and elevator per plans and used it to replace the old stab.
Maybe I am the only one who does not know, but there could be others -- what do those StarGeezer stab and elevator plans show?
Keith
-
i had a Scorpio (still being used by my flying Buddy ) it had a 3/8 flat slab stab and elevator rounded front and back .it flew the pattern better than i could but would wonder on level flight upright and inverted .after a year of playing with it i tapered the elevators to about 1/16 and it took care of all the wondering .
i figured that being tapered the elevator had to move some before it took affect .is my thinking correct??
-
Maybe I am the only one who does not know, but there could be others -- what do those StarGeezer stab and elevator plans show?
Keith
Yeah, what Keith said!
-
Doug,
At the Nats, the sharp stab LE I've seen on Paul's airplanes, they were sharp but flowed nicely into the stab. A nice some what gentle taper. Not a triangle shape at all. Maybe that was your problem?
-
Was the hinge taped or untaped. And was there a bit of a gap, like 1 mm or more, there .
Youve effectively got a sharp split 90 / 45 degree ' seperation point , with the tri stock. On a L E itll break off the top flow ( on hard inside turns ) but still go round sitting on the air under .
Ifits doing the same , might be a bit wierd & varyable, aft . A touch of sandpaper , so theres a 1/8 or 5/32 diameter dowel, in effect , at the front . with a radius from that into the flat ,
is about a standard sharpish L E . or at least it has some radius rather than a knife edge. For Aerobatics . A 45/90 wouldnt be very good on a knife , but its still a ' Hard Edge ' unless you softened it .
-
I suspect the triangle caused a separation bubble and the previously unstable flow over the stab now moved smoothly over the bubble. In effect, you use the entrained vorticity to create laminar flow above it.
-
The Dave Fitzgerald article on leading edge shapes (sharp/blunt/in between)for stabilizers is in the March/April 1998 issue of Stunt News.
https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/copy-of-the-david-fitzgerald-article-'de-tails'-from-the-marapr-98-stunt-news/msg511851/#msg511851
Well worth reading.
Joe Ed Pederson
Cuba, MO
-
I use the very sharp leading edge on my stabs as does Paul , Chris Cox and others. That being said, we fly electric. In the past when l flew IC, l had one ship l built with a sharp LE and it hunted until l blunted the egde. The sharp LE seems to be favored by electric flyers along with forward CG locations and rearward leadout locations. Don't ask me why, it just works better.
-
The Dave Fitzgerald article on leading edge shapes (sharp/blunt/in between)for stabilizers is in the March/April 1998 issue of Stunt News.
https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/copy-of-the-david-fitzgerald-article-'de-tails'-from-the-marapr-98-stunt-news/msg511851/#msg511851
Well worth reading.
Joe Ed Pederson
Cuba, MO
Thanks for posting that. I have been looking for support for my airfoiled stabs since I live in the "flat stab lands" I use David's "C1". It had a 1/16" radius when it was IC and since going to electric I keep it really sharp. On both on the ships that I sharpened the "LE" after flying them tracking improved. One was electric, the other IC but the improvement on the electric was greater.
Ken
-
I use the very sharp leading edge on my stabs as does Paul , Chris Cox and others. That being said, we fly electric. In the past when l flew IC, l had one ship l built with a sharp LE and it hunted until l blunted the egde. The sharp LE seems to be favored by electric flyers along with forward CG locations and rearward leadout locations. Don't ask me why, it just works better.
This starts to make sense to me-especially the more forward CG with electric. That would be less likely to stall. Alan you may have provided us a clue....
Dave
-
I use the very sharp leading edge on my stabs as does Paul , Chris Cox and others. That being said, we fly electric. In the past when l flew IC, l had one ship l built with a sharp LE and it hunted until l blunted the egde. The sharp LE seems to be favored by electric flyers along with forward CG locations and rearward leadout locations. Don't ask me why, it just works better.
Here’s something to throw a wrench into the fire. I have a Staris, with a tapered stab to a pretty small radius leading edge. That plane has a tendency to hunt a lot more in level flight than any of my other planes. The next plane was my SV-11 which has a flat stab and semi sharp leading edge. The plane was very well locked in everywhere in flight and you could fall asleep in inverted and level flight and it would stick. Dracula has the sharp leading edge and is the best tracking airplane I have by far. Each time I’ve gone to progressively sharper leading edges on the stab, the airplanes have tracked better. My new one is just as sharp as Dracula (sharper if anything) so I don’t foresee any reason I should see different results
-
Here’s something to throw a wrench into the fire.
Please, no fire. ~^ The wrench will melt. :'(
Ken
-
Please, no fire. ~^ The wrench will melt. :'(
Ken
LOL!
-
Great discussion. Since there seems to be no one hard and fast rule that works for all designs or even ships of the same design, it makes a good case for building with a take-a-part stab/elevator. This would allow trying several arrangements (ala Dave F's testing) to find which one works for a particular ship. Once found one could make it permanent. On electric one could do the testing before final finishing since no oil on the surface to mess up the finish.
Best, DennisT
-
Great discussion. Since there seems to be no one hard and fast rule that works for all designs or even ships of the same design, it makes a good case for building with a take-a-part stab/elevator. This would allow trying several arrangements (ala Dave F's testing) to find which one works for a particular ship. Once found one could make it permanent. On electric one could do the testing before final finishing since no oil on the surface to mess up the finish.
Best, DennisT
y1 y1
-
This issue is the best illustration ever of the problem of "cut-and-try" to test design features. You/we are trying to pick out a tiny signal out of a giant mass of noise - along with textbook examples of "confirmation bias". I am not trying to pick on anyone, because I am doing the same thing.
The problem is that we are comparing different airplanes with different stab airfoils, and drawing conclusions about how they fly - they hunt, indistinct around corner exit, etc. - and just assuming that the stab airfoil is difference because that's what we are looking at - and not the thousands of more important things what we aren't looking at or controlling. That's why it is so hard to make good conclusions simply by observation.
Brett
-
This starts to make sense to me-especially the more forward CG with electric. That would be less likely to stall. Alan you may have provided us a clue....
Dave
Hmmmm. Not sure about that one. The further forward the CG the more the tail needs to "push" so seems like it would stall earlier with a forward CG.
And in real life Ted and the other pilots will tell you that a a plane with the CG forward does in fact, stall at a higher airspeed than the same one with the CG shifted aft. Pretty easy to work out why.
I suspect that most "hunting" on stunt planes is not because of the stab leading edge, but the fuselage, and the wake of the wing. So all the "fixes" that we do address the symptoms and not the problem.
-
While I'm well known for pontificating about aero "stuff" without a degree in aerodynamics, nonetheless into the breech!
If you're not flying an SR71 at supersonic speeds you should probably not be looking at a razor sharp leading edge on either the wing or tail...especially of an aircraft flying in circles at more or less 50Knots or so...and even more especially not if the aerodynamic surface to which it is attached is flat...re no air'foil' involved.
The leading edge of a lifting surface only does a handful of things based on its shape but the primary one is to divide the airflow above and/or below the surface to which it is attached to provide lift (either to "get the ship in the air and keep it there" or...in the case of tails...provide a lifting force in either up or down direction so as to "fly" the tail "about" the CG of the aircraft to which attached and thus alter the angle of attack of that aircraft's primary lifting surface...generally, a wing.
Airfoil on the wings of "real" airplanes are pretty much never "flat". They have curved surfaces top and bottom so as to allow/utilize the airflow over (or under in wings and tails of aerobatic machines) and their leading edges are generally modestly rounded (unless it's one of the SR-71 sorta ships...which our stunters aren't). For the lifting surface to do its job the air through which it flies must be divided to pass above and below in an orderly fashion. By and large we've learned that in order for the lifting surface to do its job it is desirable to have the upper and lower surfaces curved...and then call it an air"foil". They generally do this to aide/assist/assure that the airflow above and below the the surface remains "attached" to that surface at at least the angles of attack necessary to achieve the design intent of the airplane to which attached.
They've generally come to the conclusion that airplanes intended to perform tricks in the pitch axis at modest airspeeds need to have surfaces configured to keep that airflow "attached" to the surface and delay the inevitable stall to an angle of attack adequate to perform those tricks without stalling.
A "sharp" leading edge isn't conducive to delaying the surface's stall especially at modest airspeed...i.e. 50-60MPH for instance.
A "flat" surface behind either a sharp or rounded leading edge isn't conducive to delaying the surfaces stall, especially at modest...oh, wait...just said that. Sorry.
IOW, the sharper-flatter a lifting surface is the poorer it will perform the functions necessary for aerobatic flights at modest speeds (see Brett's oft repeated discussion of the improved performance of the famous design ARF with the sharp leading edge that stalled dramatically when asked to corner briskly but...after rounding the leading edge in less than Concours fashion...performed very respectfully...posted frequently on SH.
What we don't want on a stunt ship are design elements that will predictably reduce the angle of attack at which the lifting surfaces stop doing that..."lifting"...that is! Both a sharp leading edge and a flat surface are a step in that direction! As in so many things, the solution is moderation. A modestly rounded leading edge attached to a modestly airfoiled lifting surface of adequate area; flown at the speeds we fly is a low tech but sensible sure road to a functional machine.
-
It took me a few minutes to decide how to answer your post Ted. I have read MANY of your posts in the past and enjoyed most all of them. Yes, there were lots of words there. This one just hit nerve though.
In my days at work, when it came time to certify an airplane, full scale tests were done for verification. As one Air Force representative told me, emperical data from test trumps analytical data. My friend, your post had neither any analytical data or empirical data to base your conclusion on.
Before I committed to this route, I tested them. I built a removable stab/elevator assembly that could be fitted to al last three different planes. They varied in weight, and geometry. The result in each case was the same. A noticable improvement in track, both in level flight and in rounds, and the corners had a better turn and stop. I have had them in every plane since.
I have had other quality fliers try it, and none have gone back to their rounded LE stabs. It apparently works.
So, I have empirical data that say it works. I will leave it at that!
-
HOW SHARP is this here leading edge ? . Any Pictures , Please.
-
Like this. One of Matt's.
-
So, I've tried to avoid talking about circulation because it causes the folks like High School or undergraduate science teachers that still believe Bernoulli's Principle causes an airplane to fly's heads to explode - but here goes:
What happens at the leading edge is a direct result of what happens as the trailing edge. The incoming direction of the air is not straight into the surface. In aerodynamics we talk about the "stagnation streamline1", the streamline that represents the path of an air molecule that hits the incoming surface so dead nuts square to the surface that it would stop, rather than deflect over the the top or under the bottom of the body.
When the surface changes velocity, AoA, or defects it sheds a vortex off the trailing edge2. Since our little plane is flying significantly slower than the speed of sound the flow field around the surface - in this case the stab - gets warped and the incoming stagnation streamline now moves up or down on the leading edge. And it is for this reason we want a round leading edge. Were it sharp the streamline would flip to one side and possibly cause a stall or at the very least a non-linear control response. When the leading edge is round, the stagnation streamline can move smoothly up or down on the leading edge allowing smooth control.
Nobody here would ever propose a sharp LE on the wing. The horizontal tail is not imbued with any magical quantities that make the air it's flying through react any differently than the wing.
To add to Ted's post, I'm sure he and others have noticed "stall strips" on wings of full scale aircraft near the wing root . These are basically triangular protrusions added onto the leading edge that add pointy bits to said LE, their purpose being to initiate the stall sooner. Their purpose is to have the inboard portion of the wing stall first allowing the pilot to maintain roll control and avoid a stall-spin accident. That right there should be enough to convince you rounder is better.
1.And again, I'm using a 2D model to explain so remember that in real life things may be more complicated, but in this case it's a good way to visualize the effects of circulation. BTW, if you're a real geek you should know that his circulation is usually represented mathematically as capital Gamma. Unless there's a non-trivial representation of the greek alphabet it's not real aerodynamics, lol.
2.If by now I've piqued your interest you might want to do a search on the "Kutta condition".
-
So, I've tried to avoid talking about circulation because it causes the folks like High School or undergraduate science teachers that still believe Bernoulli's Principle causes an airplane to fly's heads to explode - but here goes:
What happens at the leading edge is a direct result of what happens as the trailing edge. The incoming direction of the air is not straight into the surface. In aerodynamics we talk about the "stagnation streamline1", the streamline that represents the path of an air molecule that hits the incoming surface so dead nuts square to the surface that it would stop, rather than deflect over the the top or under the bottom of the body.
When the surface changes velocity, AoA, or defects it sheds a vortex off the trailing edge2. Since our little plane is flying significantly slower than the speed of sound the flow field around the surface - in this case the stab - gets warped and the incoming stagnation streamline now moves up or down on the leading edge. And it is for this reason we want a round leading edge. Were it sharp the streamline would flip to one side and possibly cause a stall or at the very least a non-linear control response. When the leading edge is round, the stagnation streamline can move smoothly up or down on the leading edge allowing smooth control.
Nobody here would ever propose a sharp LE on the wing. The horizontal tail is not imbued with any magical quantities that make the air it's flying through react any differently than the wing.
To add to Ted's post, I'm sure he and others have noticed "stall strips" on wings of full scale aircraft near the wing root . These are basically triangular protrusions added onto the leading edge that add pointy bits to said LE, their purpose being to initiate the stall sooner. Their purpose is to have the inboard portion of the wing stall first allowing the pilot to maintain roll control and avoid a stall-spin accident. That right there should be enough to convince you rounder is better.
1.And again, I'm using a 2D model to explain so remember that in real life things may be more complicated, but in this case it's a good way to visualize the effects of circulation. BTW, if you're a real geek you should know that his circulation is usually represented mathematically as capital Gamma. Unless there's a non-trivial representation of the greek alphabet it's not real aerodynamics, lol.
2.If by now I've piqued your interest you might want to do a search on the "Kutta condition".
I am quite aware that the main lifting surface need to have nice ROUND LE. Mine clearly do. You have taken this further than Ted, by adding some analytical information.
What is missing is your empirical verification of this. Have you ever put a stab of the pointy LE variety in one of your stunt planes? How did it feel? Did this verify the theory you explained? You should also ask Igor about his stab. It is not as sharp as mine, but has a small radius at the LE.
My inputs are based on real world data. This sharp LE has done more for making a linear feel than many other things I have tied. The real world tests on the original 3 test vehicles was very conclusive. It worked on a very light plane, on a medium weight plan, and a heavier plane. The difference on each was easy to feel. The turn and stop on the light plane was simply amazing.
Once again, my empirical data shows that it does work.
Someone asked how sharp. I embed a carbon strip at the CL of the LE and shape it to that. Before paint, it is likely sharp enough to shave with. Then after paint, it has a slightly larger radius due to the thickness of the paint.
-
There is also analytical data that shows that it works.
The triangles and circles in the charts are measured data .... the red dashed line is theoretical from a math model.
The thing to note is the fact that the reversed airfoil, with extremely "sharp" end pointed into the wind, has a very linear passage through zero angle of attack. The rounded end forward has some wanderings around zero before it settles on a slope. Yes the Re number for this data is less than our applications, but I suggest that its still applicable data.
Now you are going to say that, "I know at 10 or 15 degrees a sharp stab is gonna stall like an sob. Who says that the stab ever "sees" an angle of attack that high? Remember in a sharp turn the tail is being rotated very rapidly in a direction that reduces the aoa. Save that for another time.
Empirically, yes I have tried it, .... it works. I went for a year of feeling Paul's stabs at the Nats before I tried it. It doesn't stall. I was somewhat surprised. The feeling I got was just what the charts show, a more rapid initiation of the turn with no degradation in tracking.
-
Paul,
That's pretty neat. Without a lot of pictures and math, when you sharpen the LE enough it starts behaving like a thinner airfoil than it really is (in some respects). Again, from an aero point of view it matters not whether it's a stab or main surface or a rudder.
I don't doubt your evidence. It's sounds intriguing! It implies that there's something else going on with your ships we haven't identified and addressed. You are almost certainly creating a separation bubble aft of the LE and smoothing out the streamlines flowing over it. I also suspect that the extra drag that creates is adding a stabilizing moment and that could be helping.
An airplane is stable in pitch if the slope of moment vs AoA is negative. That's all there is too it. If the plane is hunting that means it's either a) not properly damped in pitch and you're really fighting the short period phugoid oscillation due to gusts or other perturbations, or b) something else is wrong somewhere.
A stable aircraft wants to return to it's trim condition - it's built in by the math. This is pretty basic aero stuff that's been understood for over 100 years.
-
Without a lot of pictures and math, when you sharpen the LE enough it starts behaving like a thinner airfoil than it really is (in some respects).
That respect being higher Cl. The pertinent phenomenon here is the behavior around zero Cl.
It implies that there's something else going on with your ships we haven't identified and addressed. You are almost certainly creating a separation bubble aft of the LE...
Stop there. Yep. Igor posted a piece on the Preacher's board in 2009 explaining it. Frank elaborated at the time. The sharp LE prevents the laminar-turbulent transition point from moving abruptly as elevator is moved a little, changing the stab-elevator Cl abruptly.
I also suspect that the extra drag that creates is adding a stabilizing moment and that could be helping.
Ted suspected that, too. Drag effect is infinitesimal. I posted some calculations showing that awhile back, but you can do them, too.
If the plane is hunting that means it's either a) not properly damped in pitch and you're really fighting the short period phugoid oscillation due to gusts or other perturbations, or b) something else is wrong somewhere.
b is the correct answer.
I presume you forgot a comma before phugoid. Do these airplanes have two pairs of complex roots? Beats me. Maybe something like the phugoid is involved, but I think Igor and Frank explain it.
-
It implies that there's something else going on with your ships we haven't identified and addressed.
And mine and just about everybody else who has tried it. Sometimes we get really bogged down in the science and forget to simply observe. It is entirely possible that the reason many of us feel that the sharp LE works has nothing to do with why it does. I use Paul's method of making the LE then allow the covering to wrap around it giving me something in-between Paul and Igor. Personally I didn't see much change in hunting. When you have a plane trimmed to fly straight and level with no control input it is not going to hunt on it's own but it will if you tell it to. I think much of what we call hunting is simply poor level flight technique. What I was thrilled at was how well it tracked in the round maneuvers and how much better it transitioned back to level in corners.
Ken
Howard - thank you for explaining what I observe!
-
It took me a few minutes to decide how to answer your post Ted. I have read MANY of your posts in the past and enjoyed most all of them. Yes, there were lots of words there. This one just hit nerve though.
In my days at work, when it came time to certify an airplane, full scale tests were done for verification. As one Air Force representative told me, emperical data from test trumps analytical data. My friend, your post had neither any analytical data or empirical data to base your conclusion on.
Before I committed to this route, I tested them. I built a removable stab/elevator assembly that could be fitted to al last three different planes. They varied in weight, and geometry. The result in each case was the same. A noticable improvement in track, both in level flight and in rounds, and the corners had a better turn and stop. I have had them in every plane since.
I have had other quality fliers try it, and none have gone back to their rounded LE stabs. It apparently works.
So, I have empirical data that say it works. I will leave it at that!
My bad, Paul. My apologies. (No worries.)
Just for the record, were the optimum stabs "flat" aft of the sharp leading edge in all cases or were some "airfoiled" (is that even a word???) and some flat? I'm guessing the elevators were/are tapered aft of the hinges to a more or less "sharp" trailing edge?
Ted
-
My bad, Paul. My apologies. (No worries.)
Just for the record, were the optimum stabs "flat" aft of the sharp leading edge in all cases or were some "airfoiled" (is that even a word???) and some flat? I
They were all flat aft of the transition from the point LE. That is around 1" aft of the LE.
'm guessing the elevators were/are tapered aft of the hinges to a more or less "sharp" trailing edge?
Yes, they are tapered to around 1/8" at the TE.
Ted
-
There is also analytical data that shows that it works.
The triangles and circles in the charts are measured data .... the red dashed line is theoretical from a math model.
The thing to note is the fact that the reversed airfoil, with extremely "sharp" end pointed into the wind, has a very linear passage through zero angle of attack. The rounded end forward has some wanderings around zero before it settles on a slope. Yes the Re number for this data is less than our applications, but I suggest that its still applicable data.
Now you are going to say that, "I know at 10 or 15 degrees a sharp stab is gonna stall like an sob. Who says that the stab ever "sees" an angle of attack that high? Remember in a sharp turn the tail is being rotated very rapidly in a direction that reduces the aoa. Save that for another time.
Empirically, yes I have tried it, .... it works. I went for a year of feeling Paul's stabs at the Nats before I tried it. It doesn't stall. I was somewhat surprised. The feeling I got was just what the charts show, a more rapid initiation of the turn with no degradation in tracking.
Mine looks like this, except it has the front rounded off to about a 1/16" radius and much thinner. The part that I think matters (after having done some experiments myself, and witnessing and analyzing the results from numerous other's tests, like David's documented tests, Ted and David's largely undocumented tests with flat stabs and turbulators, and Paul's various solutions) is that you maintain some amount of normal component of q as far back as you can.
This is my analysis of the various experiences (back to Gid Adkisson's "Laser", which is where a lot of this started), I emphasize that this is merely my analysis of others experiences and a few of my own experiments (with various “slippers” over the stab/elevator of several airplanes). I don’t claim it will meet anyone else’s standards for “validity”, however it does seem to cover most examples for which the stab/elevator was the relevant factor and for which the experimenters were known to be sound and objective observers. It does meet my standards (low or otherwise):
Thin flat stabs of low aspect ratio and radiused LE- thin means the pressure change at the corner is so abrupt that the separation bubble is always present and more-or-less in the same place, and, the vortex from the tips curls around and affects a significant fraction of the stab all the time, and adds normal force, or at least, turbulates the surface
Moderate flat stabs - These have the issue with the separation bubble forming or not forming, because the radius is such that it doesn't always guarantee that it forms on both sides all the time, and either forms or goes away with tiny changes in AoA. If you make it low aspect ratio, the interference from the tip interferes with it some, and maybe helps. Even more so with low aspect ratio and a large LE sweep angle. High aspect ratio allows the "bubble/no bubble" effect because most of the stab is free of any influence from the tip. Even worse with tip plates, that interrupt the main vortex and replace it with a much smaller one that has nearly no effect at the LE
Moderate flat stabs with turbulators - experiements show most of the problems if you have have the "bubble/no bubble" problem with the medium flat stab are eliminated if you put turbulators on it, top and bottom, right near where the radius ends and the flat begins. It is better than nothing to put them further back, but the further forward you put them, the better. My theory on why that is is that it forces those bubbles to form and be stable at the same place most of the time at most AoAs, in addition to deflecting a bit of normal force back due to viscous shear effects.
The “moderate flat stab” comments and analysis are based on very extensive experiments by David, Ted, with me observing/commenting, and with me finding that my similar stabs saw no real problem and no improvement from turbulators, and Paul's observation of the same - not a problem. The big difference was that my stab and Paul's stabs were lower aspect ratio than those Ted and David were using, and also Doug's bear, who with tip plates, came a lot closer to infinite aspect ratio and gave a negative example (gleaned through comments on SSW). This was what lead up to the "De-Tails aticle, after David decided that, based on the analysis above, that he wanted to experiment with further variants and airfoils. It was already posted so I won’t belabor it.
As far as I can tell, David’s results with flat stabs and various LE’s were consistent with the “separation bubble” theory and I was able to pretty reliably predict the results using that theory, particularly the thin and triangle-shaped LE. The “smaller elevator” was no surprise to anyone, but that is a different topic.
So, to the extent I understand it, with Ted’s “pointy” rework of the second Trivial Pursuit stab, which is very close to if not identical to what Paul is currently using, and looks very similar to the one Craig Beswick posted earlier. Same theory works there – it’s *better*, because the abrupt change in shape is less abrupt – a slope leading into the discontinuity at the radius/flat transistion point and less likely for the bubbles to form/disappear with small changes in the AoA, although apparently, still not immune because on both Ted’s model (wire turbulators) and Pauls (zigzag strips) it still helps, but perhaps not as much as turbulators on the flat stab with a blunt radius. The gadgets help by stabilizing the existence and position of the separation bubble.
Also from David’s article – the airfoiled C1 stab. This was at my suggestion and more-or-less straight off the second Infinity plan, with the exception the squared-off corners at the hinge line (another thing I shamelessly ripped off from Paul). This was designed using the theory of separation bubbles from the various flat-stab experiments, trying to keep at least some positive slope until I couldn’t avoid it any more, and eliminating the bubbles at least at low AoA where it matters most to tracking and corner exit. Effectively, this extends the point section that is more-or-less “tacked on” to the front of the otherwise flat stab all the way to the hinge line, so, similar idea just taken to the obvious conclusion. Note it is also very similar to the Green Box and ’52 Nobler plans, particularly once you round off the hinge lines.
I note that this also explains why, so far, I haven't had *any* significant positive effect with tripper strips, VGs, or turbulator wires, turbulator wires being a moderate *negative* and the others a wash. David had very positive effect with tripper/zigzag strips, but he also didn't round of his corners at the hinge line, so that may be a different (also very interesting) issue.
Again, C2 the same thing with the thinner stab, which predictably had poor tracking by running the elevator in turbulence.
The advantage to the flat stab, or variations, is that it is easy to align. The second half the theory is that, after a lot of examples slapping us in the face, there is a fair bit of tolerance in the alignment in one direction (positive) and not the other (negative). However, if you have a flat stab, it is far, far more critical, because you can’t have it running at a tiny positive or negative angle of attack due to the same separation bubble theory – that’s where it is the most critical. So, with an airfoiled stab as shown, you can’t align it as well, but you also don’t have to.
Of course, if make it removable in the most convenient way, you can also experiment with the alignment instead of having to glue it in place at construction and then hope it never changes - in my case by building the fuselage like a bridge girder, and in other cases just crossing your fingers. The alignment (positive/negative) was barely mentioned in David’s article but was a much bigger effect than the stab airfoil, with the flat stabs super-critical and the airfoiled stabs much less so – as long as you never put in even the slightest breath of “negative”. David actually ended up with FAR MORE positive than I ever would have had the guts to build in, inadvertently leading some others (particularly with flat stabs) to grief – the sort of grief that leads to the use of Zona saws.
Frank's data tends to confirm the situation I envisioned, he posted a picture earlier that was nearly identical to what I drew out in the pits at the old Napa field when we were doing the flat stab turbulator experiments.
So, anyone can throw darts if they will, but I was able to predict what was going to happen and what seems to happen in most of the variations.
Brett
-
I have a really great suggestion!
Oh-Oh ;D
I volunteer Brett to become a famous author!
Easy - see all he has to do is assemble all of his various posts on aerodynamics (if he wants he could also assemble all of his political posts - but that would be a different book) and then edit them to create the soon to be famous tome: "All You Ever Needed to Know About Model Aerodynamics - But Were Afraid to Ask".
Here's the process:
1) Identify all relevant posts in Stunt Hanger (and even Stuka Stunt if assessable)
2) Set them in relative order (this would be by various topics and sequence of explanation)
3) Edit out the repetitions
4) Get it reviewed by a non-engineer (or by an engineer who has mostly forgotten this stuff because he went into management)
5) Revise as necessary based on reviewers comments
6) Publish it (or maybe serialize it in Stunt News....oh, wait...)
See, I've got the top-level part done for you and haven't even broken a sweat. The rest should be straightforward.
Plus, you can cut into it all of the nice graphics by Frank Williams and others so you wouldn't have to mess with that part of it.
Great idea, right? When can we...I mean, you...start?
-
Easy - see all he has to do is assemble all of his various posts on aerodynamics (if he wants he could also assemble all of his political posts - but that would be a different book) and then edit them to create the soon to be famous tome: "All You Ever Needed to Know About Model Aerodynamics - But Were Afraid to Ask".
How about All You Ever Needed to Know About Model Aerodynamics - But Were too classy to steal!". Stealing, er, "being inspired by" ideas is certainly not beneath my dignity, so your can benefit from it with a clear conscience. I have a lot of issues but knowing how to rip off good idea is not one of them.
Brett
-
Moderate flat stabs - These have the issue with the separation bubble forming or not forming, because the radius is such that it doesn't always guarantee that it forms on both sides all the time, and either forms or goes away with tiny changes in AoA. If you make it low aspect ratio, the interference from the tip interferes with it some, and maybe helps. Even more so with low aspect ratio and a large LE sweep angle. High aspect ratio allows the "bubble/no bubble" effect because most of the stab is free of any influence from the tip. Even worse with tip plates, that interrupt the main vortex and replace it with a much smaller one that has nearly no effect at the LE
Brett
Can you expand on the stab leading edge sweep comment a bit? Is more sweep or less sweep preferable on a low aspect ratio stab?
-
frank, the data you show are making me curious. Generally on the 00xx series we see the exact opposite behavior around 0° AoA, more commonly other data are often showing the slope of Cl vs. AoA actually steepens slightly with lower Re. numbers.
Another thing to consider - the Cl vs. AoA for the section isn't applicable when discussing a stunt stabilizer/elevator combination. it would be for an all-flying tail but an elevator works differently. What happens when we deflect the elevator is we alter the camber line, and that shifts the Cl vs AoA in either direction as well as changing the AoA for the "new" airfoil created. That creates the tail force in the direction required. It also creates a pitching moment, but lucky for us, wing's moment is much much larger than the tail's so the system remains stable.
The fun part is we get to opine and have peer review. Too cold in the basement to work on the new ship this time of year.
Well, the main thing is always use what works. I'm a proponent of round LE's and razor sharp TE's. Works for me. I say make the tail as thin as you can and still have it hold together. Others have a system that works for them that may be vastly different. For decades we've been beholden to the geometry of our control systems when it comes to horizontal tails. :)
Chuck
-
Can you expand on the stab leading edge sweep comment a bit? Is more sweep or less sweep preferable on a low aspect ratio stab?
Preferable? I think it tends to create even more interaction between the planform (particularly air swirling around and interfering with the other flow characterstics) than just having low aspect ratio. Whether that is preferable or not depends on what you are trying to do.
I offer this as an explanation of the results with one of Paul Walker's experiments which we briefly discussed, specifically, the usual Impact "flat stab" except with a much higher LE sweep angle, and it's apparent better characteristics related to what we are talking about.
My gut feeling is it was better in that case because it made it less likely to form/destroy the separation bubble by increasing the finite-span effects, and also probably by shortening the distance from the LE (where the problem starts) to the elevator (where you are stuck dealing with it in any case, since something far more dramatic happens at the hinge line). If nothing else, it makes absolutely sure that the same condition is less likely to occur at all points along the span at the same time, breaking up any sort of tendency to have dramatic changes with tiny variations in the AoA or elevator movement.
One observation is that it seemed like the worst problem with the flat stabs were when they were also of reasonably high aspect ratio, even the "normal" range (like 5.5:1) . This makes at least some sense, because while just looking at section characteristics, all airfoils have about the same Cl vs AoA curve (~.1 Cl for 1 degree AoA), this starts to flatten out with finite span effects, and seems to start showing dramatic deviations in the range we currently use. Same as the "leadouts on wrong side" thread, the *drag* seems to start falling off a cliff at <5:1, presumably because you have to start cranking in more AoA to get the same Cl. This takes us all the way back to the mid-80s and Gid Adkisson's "Bud Light Laser" that started this whole line of reasoning.
Brett
-
See, I've got the top-level part done for you and haven't even broken a sweat. The rest should be straightforward.
Plus, you can cut into it all of the nice graphics by Frank Williams and others so you wouldn't have to mess with that part of it.
Great idea, right? When can we...I mean, you...start?
When I see my advance check.
Seriously, the problem with any such book is that it is a moving target - even in the last few months or a year we have had fascinating new results, most of which are consistent with my understanding and reinforce my confidence, and a few that no one seems to have a good explanation for.
But any of it is heavily compromised/complicated by the factor I noted above. If you work entirely by experiment, unless you are extremely careful, you are changing multiple things at once and have no idea what might work next. That's why I am very careful about whose observations I take, unless I am directly involved.
Brett
-
Brett you said something before that sort of gave me a DUH! moment. Flat stabs being much more critical to alignment and also the floating aspect of the bubble. I had forgotten about the positive things putting zig zag trip strips on a couple of my airplanes just past the curve on my rounded stab leading edges did. Think I will find my pinking shears for my new planes. My original 'Music" airplanes had an airfoiled stab and flew quite well. My gripe at the time was getting them aligned as close to zero as I could guess. This was before I had the incidence meter. Simply to help make construction fool-proof for others I went to the flat stab. Never was sure I liked it flying as well but stuck with the practice for simplicity. I am starring at the drawing board now at a new design and thinking this may be a good time to return to a more shapely stab. Might be better than trying new shades of lipstick for a flat stab.
Dave
-
I've enjoyed flying my Impcats with Round Stab LEs and squared off elevator TEs. One day at the NATs I saw a worthy fellow with a swept-back stab LE on his Impact (not to be confused with an Impcat) which removed half of the stab area. I inquired why he did that...in layman's terms, please. His reply? "It flies better."
I had to have one! I built one. I took it to Muncie, where I noticed the Master of the Manor had returned to the straight stab. My crest fallen...I harkened back to a time long ago when my mentor had so eloquently spoken, in a soft voice..."These guys are good!"
Yes, they are, and I'm enjoying trying to keep up with them.
dg
-
frank, the data you show are making me curious. Generally on the 00xx series we see the exact opposite behavior around 0° AoA, more commonly other data are often showing the slope of Cl vs. AoA actually steepens slightly with lower Re. numbers.
This is something weird that happens with the 0012 at low Reynolds number, 15,000 to 20,000 as I recall. I saw it on XFOIL or Javafoil or maybe both, I forget. The Stuttgart wind tunnel data shows it.
-
My bad, Paul. My apologies. (No worries.)
Just for the record, were the optimum stabs "flat" aft of the sharp leading edge in all cases or were some "airfoiled" (is that even a word???) and some flat? I
They were all flat aft of the transition from the point LE. That is around 1" aft of the LE.
I'm guessing the elevators were/are tapered aft of the hinges to a more or less "sharp" trailing edge?
Yes, they are tapered to around 1/8" at the TE.
Thanks, Paul.
Last queries: 1l Are the transition sections from the sharp leading edge to the flat stab surface "airfoiled" or "flat"? 2. What is the overall thickness of the flat sheet stab prior to final "shaping"?
Ted
-
Ted,
The flat stab is 1/2 inch thick. The pointy LE tapers to the 1/2 inch constant section with a smooth round transition about 0.80 inch aft of the LE.
Hope this describes it well enough.
-
Here is a photo of the geometry of the HT LE.
It reaches the full stab thickness in 0.80"
Here is a link to a previous thread on the this topic. Paul attached this picture showing the leading edge curvature:
- https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/walker's-stab-leading-edge/msg547251/#msg547251
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/walker's-stab-leading-edge/?action=dlattach;attach=296063;image)
-
Here is a link to a previous thread on the this topic. Paul attached this picture showing the leading edge curvature:
- https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/walker's-stab-leading-edge/msg547251/#msg547251
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/walker's-stab-leading-edge/?action=dlattach;attach=296063;image)
So much great info here!!!! This is the kind of discussion I was hoping would happen. THANK YOU!!
After looking at Matts in person and the pics of the drawing. I think that slight "foil" slope back to the flat area is a huge key to the equation. When I taped on triangle stock there was no transition and also there was a bump where the 1/4" triangle butted up against 1/2" LE. This conversation tells me that there was no way the air could stay "attached" with that setup. With the ever so slightly "foil" you get what Frank posted...
Paul,
What does the trailing edge look like?
-
TE of stab, 1/4 inch radius.
-
Chuck
The particular data that I showed might be a little misleading in that the Re number is fairly low (20K). Our tails see about 250K. Howard is right that the regular facing 0012 does show the “switchback” in the 20K Re no. region, but goes away as Re number increases. So, maybe not the best picture but still useful I think in regard to the pointy section.
There is also data from Hoerner for a reversed 0012 at Re no.of 2M and the lift slope is the same, very linear through zero. And, even though this isn’t a conventional stab / elevator, I think it is still informative when looking at really pointy leading edges.
No aero guy alive would look at Paul’s le and not say, “it ain’t gonna work, it’ll stall so bad you won’t even be able to do a loop, Hell much less a hard corner”. But it does work. It doesn’t stall and fall out of the sky. +/- 7-8 degrees it doesn’t show a stall like we would think. The tail really doesn’t see the angle of attack that we think it does. Practically I haven’t felt a stall at all.
Yes, the elevator behind moving around is going to affect the total flowfield, so its not that great a picture to use, maybe, but its real data and it is close to what we are trying to understand.
Round leading edges and pointy trailing edges are the standard for tail sections and they do work. They have worked for a long time …… while I’m thinking about it …..have you seen the new Americas Cup AC75 boats? ….. apparently there are better ways to skin the cat …..
-
It's times like this that I wished I had a simple wind tunnel that could work at the Re No that we use. The actual tunnel would be "easy", but the mechanisms and electronic equipment might cost a pretty penny!
-
Paul, when I started using wind tunnels we had balances and manometer tubes and we did good science. No need for expensive gear. Make sure you have one that sucks instead of blows. We used about half a million soda straws as flow straighteners and a blade to throttle the flow so we didn't even have a VFD on the fan motor!
I figure anyone who can build a nice CLPA plane has more than enough skills to built a wind tunnel. Heck, the Wright Brothers built one.
-
[quoteTE of stab, 1/4 inch radius.][/quote]
So, no squared-off trailing edge on stab anymore?
Flaps TE are still squared off aren't they? But elevator trailing edge is still tapered to sharp edge? ???
-
There has been much discussion about the LE & TE shapes. I am convinced, through having tried them, that the sharp LE (eg a radius < 1/32") and a flat TE of about 1/8" is best for what we do. What is left is whether the full airfoil or the flat center section is best or does it perhaps not make any difference. Except for most profiles, I have used airfoiled sections for as long as I can remember going back to the nearly laminar ones on my first Nobler. Flat stabs are easy to build and keep straight. Fully airfoiled ones are not. If there is little to be gained from the airfoil section .....
One other observation that probably has nothing to do with this. When I was a teenager, I was involved in the development of one of the HLG classics. What we ended up with was a "razor" sharp LE. So much so that we had to add a spruce strip to keep the dings out from landings in the brush.
Ken
-
An easy way to test sharp leading edges is to make some "slippers", maskiing tape them to the stab. One inch alluminum window blind slats are a great building material in general and good for making "slippers". Tape two strips together and then tape the glove to the stab leading edge. Makes for a quick experiment. It'll fit to either 1/4 in. stabs or on up to 1/2 in. stabs.
-
[quoteTE of stab, 1/4 inch radius.]
So, no squared-off trailing edge on stab anymore?
Correct
Flaps TE are still squared off aren't they?
Yes
But elevator trailing edge is still tapered to sharp edge? ???
It has about a 0.06" radius
-
[quoteTE of stab, 1/4 inch radius.]
So, no squared-off trailing edge on stab anymore?
Correct
Flaps TE are still squared off aren't they?
Yes
But elevator trailing edge is still tapered to sharp edge? ???
It has about a 0.06" radius
clop, clop, clop, clop (sound of my foot-falls running down stairs to basement shop)
"Stop Everything! Stop Everything! You need to round off the stab trailing edge!" (Me yelling at building elves)
"How much?" (Elves all yelling back in unison)
"One-quarter inch radius!" (Me yelling back at elves)
"What's that in millimeters? We're Scandinavian......"
-
The actual tunnel would be "easy", but the mechanisms and electronic equipment might cost a pretty penny!
I have been wanting to build one myself since I was about 8 years old and flying rockets, but, same issue. To get any usable results you need pretty good measuring equipment because the effects we are discussing are so small.
Brett
-
clop, clop, clop, clop (sound of my foot-falls running down stairs to basement shop)
"Stop Everything! Stop Everything! You need to round off the stab trailing edge!" (Me yelling at building elves)
"How much?" (Elves all yelling back in unison)
"One-quarter inch radius!" (Me yelling back at elves)
"What's that in millimeters? We're Scandinavian......"
6.350 mm
-
Midway in to my bourbon last night I think I had an epiphany. I'm theorizing that the sharp LE makes the stab behave like it's thinner than it really is. I vaguely remember back in the day having a conversation with some peers on Viper stability and control and how the sharp LE's on the Viper's tail behaved before they went supersonic (where sharp is great- everything gets so much easier past Mach 1). Calspan guys IIRC.
Chuck
-
I have been wanting to build one myself since I was about 8 years old and flying rockets, but, same issue. To get any usable results you need pretty good measuring equipment because the effects we are discussing are so small.
Brett
I am trying to visualize a wind tunnel that can simulate a CL Flight. Closest I can come up with is being able to vary the fan speed to simulate the wind constantly changing direction in 5-6 second intervals as our test subject "flies" a circular path through it, sometimes stopping to change direction 16 times. If you find one I too have been wanting one since I was 8 and building model rockets using CO2 cartridges and crushed matches for thrust. That was until my father made me stop with the rockets after nearly blowing my foot off and build some airplanes instead (glad he did). He said our rockets were too dangerous - duh.
Ken
-
I am trying to visualize a wind tunnel that can simulate a CL Flight. Closest I can come up with is being able to vary the fan speed to simulate the wind constantly changing direction in 5-6 second intervals as our test subject "flies" a circular path through it, sometimes stopping to change direction 16 times. If you find one I too have been wanting one since I was 8 and building model rockets using CO2 cartridges and crushed matches for thrust. That was until my father made me stop with the rockets after nearly blowing my foot off and build some airplanes instead (glad he did). He said our rockets were too dangerous - duh.
Ken
The intent would be to test different airfoil cross sections with different flap configurations as well a stb/elevator combinations.
These would be at level flight AoA and at higher AoA's to simulate corners. The ability to test yaw angles is only valid for cross sections at a yaw angle an will miss the fuselage influence as well as the circulation around the tips.
The problem is test section area. Big enough for a full plane is WAY out of the scope of something at home.
But it is nice to dream about a much smaller one where a full size cross section will fit!
-
I am trying to visualize a wind tunnel that can simulate a CL Flight. Closest I can come up with is being able to vary the fan speed to simulate the wind constantly changing direction in 5-6 second intervals as our test subject "flies" a circular path through it, sometimes stopping to change direction 16 times.
I don't think you would ever use it to simulate complete flights or even an entire airplane at once, just take data of various points - in this case, lift measurements at a range of extremely low AoA, and maybe flow visualization. It probably has to be big enough to allow half a stab or something like that, but trying to make a 60 mph wind tunnel large enough to contain an entire airplane, (which might have to be twice the size to avoid interaction with the tunnel) is probably beyond a reasonable home design.
In the large, we know what to do and more-or-less conventional analysis works OK. It's this small stuff that we are continually experimenting with.
Brett
-
The intent would be to test different airfoil cross sections with different flap configurations as well a stb/elevator combinations.
These would be at level flight AoA and at higher AoA's to simulate corners. The ability to test yaw angles is only valid for cross sections at a yaw angle an will miss the fuselage influence as well as the circulation around the tips.
The problem is test section area. Big enough for a full plane is WAY out of the scope of something at home.
But it is nice to dream about a much smaller one where a full size cross section will fit!
This would be similar to what Al did back in the 70's. I wonder if there might be something out there in the academic world we are missing? Surely some aspiring Aeronautical graduate student has built something we could use and probably has it sitting in a garage somewhere. My brother is director of the Lincoln Labs flight test facility at MIT. I am going to ask him.
NO! in only one of the possible answers.
So, from reading back through this thread I conclude that the sketch below is where we are with stab airfoils?
Ken
-
As far as a wind tunnel goes, back in my sailplane days, there was a group that restored a low speed wind tunnel some where at a college in northern Illinois for the purpose of testing different air foil sections for sail planes. Clubs across the country volunteered to make the test sections of the required airfoil shapes and all the data was compiled in a book that was made available. The name Selig-Donavon is all I can remember about the compilations efforts . That is probably what you would be talking about, isn't it? I do not know if it is still in operation or not, perhaps some one else will.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Clubs across the country volunteered to make the test sections of the required airfoil shapes and all the data was compiled in a book that was made available. The name Selig-Donavon is all I can remember about the compilations efforts . That is probably what you would be talking about, isn't it?
Michael Selig. As i recall he did do a few stunt-relevant examples, but I don't know of anyone in stunt that knew about it and also knew what we really needed while he was doing it.
Brett
-
The Selig gang is up to I believe volume 5 of their low speed airfoil studies. Here is a link to volume 1.
https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/uiuc_lsat/Low-Speed-Airfoil-Data-V1.pdf
Here’s a link to volume 5
https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/uiuc_lsat/Low-Speed-Airfoil-Data-V5.pdf
Just a few thousand pages in the middle. I remember reading volume 1. One of the main points I took away was the degradation in performance due to inaccuracies in construction. If a giving design parameter didn’t perform in the real world the way it did in the wind tunnel or in simulation, it was most likely because it was inaccurately constructed and not because it was a bad design.
I think too often when we incorporate features into our designs that don’t work as expected we fault the idea and not the execution. This is likely what Doug Moon experienced when he installed triangle stock on the leading edge in an attempt to replicate Paul’s leading edge shape and he recognized that after seeing the sketch of Paul’s leading edge in a previous post.
I agree with Doug, this had been a most interesting and educational thread.
Edit: the reference to construction inaccuracies was not from volume 1 above but from the book, Airfoils at Low Speeds, 1989 by Selig, Donovan and Fraser.
5.5 Surface Waviness and Contour Accuracy
So long as an airfoil surface is smooth, that is,free of sharp edges protruding into the boundary layer, surface waviness of the type produced by Monokote over balsa appears to have no measurable impact on performance. For a 12 in chord, the Monokotejbalsa waviness has a peak-to-peak amplitude on the order of 0.02% chord. On the other hand, the warping of the covering in open-bay construction as it stretches over the cells alters the airfoil contour beyond what is normally considered waviness. In such cases, the airfoil really has no single shape and one can expect its performance to be significantly different from the nominal.
Based on our measurements, the best modern-day construction techniques used by modelers are capable of yielding contours accurate to ±0.004 in. For a 12 in chord an error of ±0.004 in is only 0.033% chord. Although at present there is no criterion on the accuracy necessary to meet the nominal performance, all indications are that errors of this order have only a small affect. On the other hand, errors two to four times this amount (which are more common) do begin to effect performance. Error in contour is undoubtedly one of the factors that explains differences in performance between two different models of the same RC sailplane.
The book is available here:
https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/uiuc_lsat/Airfoils-at-Low-Speeds.pdf
-
I'll add another question. What about thinner elevators than their stabilizers?
-
I'll add another question. What about thinner elevators than their stabilizers?
No (as a general proposition), as noted earlier.
Brett
-
One of the main points I took away was the degradation in performance due to inaccuracies in construction. If a giving design parameter didn’t perform in the real world the way it did in the wind tunnel or in simulation, it was most likely because it was inaccurately constructed and not because it was a bad design.
Bingo, and why it is so difficult to separate out effects of the intended design from many other random elements.
Brett
-
No (as a general proposition), as noted earlier.
Brett
Brett,
Could you let me know where it was noted earlier. Apparently I missed it.
Thanks.
-
At the PAMPA meeting at the Lubbock Nats I pointed out that the Selig tests were being done at UI and we (PAMPA) could submit models for testing. crickets ... Don Hutchenson and Todd Lee showed interest as I recall. I kick myself for not pushing on and getting something done. A Nobler, a Rabe, a Fancher all would have been good tests articles. At that time he wasn't doing sections with flaps, however they have since made fixtures to allow flap deflections. The test articles are 12 inch chord and are two feet in span. It still could be done. There are instructions on how to build the models. This is really good high zoot data. The only applicable stunt symmetrical airfoils from the Selig data are two RC trainer sections. I've shown data from them in other posts. They are good info in the sense that one is blunter than the other. The balance is three components and has pitching moment data.
So many fun things to do with our tiny airplanes. We don't have the ultimate design yet.
-
Frank,
Maybe you could submit the airfoil test work done by Al Rabe with his car hood tests. With this as a starting point they could see how close he was to correct answers or what was missed (to bad he's gone, probably had that data and the test parts). Would also be interesting if Ted's Intimidation work could be tested and again see how that comes out. Last would be Dave's stab testing, be nice to have some instrumented data and see what that would predict vs. actual flying results. Interesting stuff.
Best, DennisT
-
So the elevators LE doesnt start out thinner than the stab TE. Brett said no it was noted earlier. I find this interesting as well. I have been making my stabs 1/2" thick and my elevators are 3/8" thick at the LE. That doesnt work with this newer design?
I seem to also remember Windy had a few sharp stabs on his Spitfires??
-
I seem to also remember Windy had a few sharp stabs on his Spitfires??
One of the last planes he had at Brodaks had an extremely thin stab and elevator. Maybe close to 1/8th inch thick? Not sure what he made it of.
-
Dennis - Lots of good analysis done by the notables. A 2D wind tunnel to look at stunt wing sections needs to be fairly tall, not so much wide, to be able to satisfactory accommodate a flapped model flowfield. The tough part of a wind tunnel is the balance system, either mechanical or electronic, it must measure accurately without altering the model attitude. Lots of "stunt physics" could be run to ground.
Back to pointy stabs .... Brett hit the nail on the head in that probably the best analysis for what we are interested in right now could be done with some flow visualization of the activity around the sharp leading edge. Working on it. Lots of fun things to do!
-
The problem with most small wind tunnels is they only do a 2D analysis of a section, so you need to transform the data based upon aspect ration. If you make it big enough to mount a 3D model inside the model needs to clear the sides by at least 1/2 a wingspan. So you scale down the model, and now you need to either increase the flow velocity or pressurize the wind tunnel to achieve Reynolds numbers with dynamic similarity for analysis. Finally it will be quasi steady-state data, you won't get data on control per se- you'll only be determining the stability coefficients - which are fun math-wise because they have multiple subscripts. That will only give you aero data, you'll still need to know the plane's inertia tensor to get he control response. Then you need to know the apparent mass effects of the air too.
Might be more fun to build a plane with changeable parts.
In the end, I believe what we're really talking about here is "handling" and it's so subjective and personal that there's not going to be a one-size-fits-all solution. I've had people fly my ships and ask me how I can fly them so sensitive and rearward CG, I've flown other great flyer's planes and thought they were annoyingly nose heavy. I fly with a very light hand, others want to give harder inputs.
I can tell you empirically that sealing the elevator gap reduces the required force for a given deflection and that can make a ship seem to turn better when it's not the case, but it "feels" a lot more responsive.
-
Here is what the Max Bee plans show for a stab/elevator side view. Seems that the elevator is much thinner than the stab.
I have no idea why it wants to show upside down!
-
Doug - I feel that the elevators size and shape is a bit secondary to the stab leading edge. I personally don't disapprove of the thinner elevators generally. The flow around the stab / elevator intersection generally begins to "let go" at about 15 degrees of deflection. Its tough for the flow to make the turn. The best thing to do is to seal the hingeline for sure. There are "slats" and "thingies" that can be treat the hingeline, .. but that later.
-
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/stab-aerodynamics-question/?action=dlattach;attach=321800;image)
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15886.0;attach=295619;image)
LJ / BJ ? ? sweeper 900. Sorry its a bit rough. But is correct .
Thats a classic ' dead zone ' stab. airfoil . A derivitive of the Greenaway ' Tadpole ' stab./ elevator . ?
The EXPLANATION , particularly in regard to Igors Geared Flaps - Is that FLAP Movement alters Airfoil A.o.A. without altering aircraft A.o.A. . IF there is no initial aerodynamic funtion at the Stabilizer .
We have found a 3/4 inch rearward C. G. with 5 m.m. slack at elevator T.Edge. repeatedly though there are exceptions where the Zero Slack may be benificial .
Typically corrections at the handle for hunting/ porpoiseing exacervate it , without the dead zone set up , wherby theres a small Wing Lift initial control effect rather than a aircraft pitch response .
The Fore & aft lift thing is a bit like under & overster ( pushing & pulling, to Mr Petty ;)) on a car or motorcyle . A well balanced one you can get it to do both, simultaeneously . Throttle & steeringwheel
Rear wheel drive, of course .
Supose the high lift wing IS a bit like a front wheel drive , where the wings lifting it through the corner , and the ( small ) tailplan follows / is neutral . MB 3 . With enough elevator travel ,
or the tail slewed around . See the " .60 Nobler " . same thing .
-
Thats a classic ' dead zone ' stab. airfoil . A derivitive of the Greenaway ' Tadpole ' stab./ elevator . ?
That existed long before Big Jim was doing it. The theory is that it runs in the "shadow" of the elevator. It makes it less effective around zero, although the fact that it at least partially fairs into it greatly reduces the effect over a squared-off hinge line. I expect in Igor's case it tends to increase the effect of the logarithmic flap horn.
Brett
-
Yep , as regards dead zone . But wondered if Igor & the Tadpole were familiar .
(https://outerzone.co.uk/images/_thumbs/plans/10161.jpg)
Typical drawing .
Most plans shoe a ' double wedge ' . 1/2 Stab. 3/8 Elev. or similar . , Etc . Even if photos of the model dont .many appear airfoiled . Out with the magnifying glass . ! S?P