Howard,
It had a sharp leading edge and was "hinged" at the 50% point.
Howard,
It had a sharp leading edge and was "hinged" at the 50% point. Reading Ted's post, that may have been the problem.
Wow, Schultzie. You've got my nostalgia genes all agog.
Another great pilot who is no longer with us (Roger Barrett) came up to Bill at the first Nats he brought the Nobler to and asked what he had painted the ship with. Yes, it was that good!
Another great ride for a Big Art .35. We had a lot of them in those days.
Ted
p.s. Just noted the "76" on the rudder. That tells us that the ship first showed up at the Nats the same year, 1976, as did my Moby Dick in the other thread.
I think stabalators was a pretty good idea. They first showed up in Stunt in 1949 when Bob Daily won the Nats with one hinged at 33%. His buddy had one hinged at 47% I think they did OK with them hinged there because they flew the OT pattern at very high speeds with Fox .59's.
For slow speed flying I think 15-20% hinge would be necessary. Ted what did the original Mobey Dick look like?
Did I see it fly at Concord CA around May 1974?
Jim Pollock ???
Conclusion: if the darned things worked, we'd all be using them. y1 #^ LL~ LL~ D>K
hey dont blame me I dinna' say nothin' !!!LL~ LL~ LL~WHAT THE VD~ VD~ VD~was I drinkin' when I typed this??? DK^
"IF"???? OK> D>K H^^I am feeling myself this morn...uhh? Took my meds..all is well in Gig Haaaba. Wheeeeeee@@ LL~
. . .
Then there's an idea that such a layout does not need the vast horizontal tail area of fixed-stab/moving-elevator designs. Also true. . . .
. . .
. . .
. . . and the fact that I can pretty much get all the corner I can handle from a plain vanilla stab/elevator so don't see much to be gained from the time spent experimenting (other than the search for more wisdom).
. . .
Ted
A stabilator, if you get it right, has the potential of somewhat easing the powertrain chore of coping with those different drags. The potential advantage, for us bottom-feeders anyway, would be an unpiped powertrain that flies more like a piped ship. The huge change in lift requirements from level to a square means there will always also be a huge difference in drag between the two configurations. However, diminishing the difference should give some advantage, somewhere.
I feel like that with the reduction in stab area allowed by the stabilator, any weight difference would be negligable.
Structural issues can be easily overcome with a little non traditional thinking.
I wouldn't put the pivot back more than 25% and 33% would be absolute max.
I suppose "quick" is the more descriptive word. To me that relates more to airspeed; "sensitive" to me doesn't mean "unstable", but that it will jump with minimal control input. My combat wings would fly "eyes-off" of course, by feel, and go where you pointed them--right now.
I experimented with counterbalanced tails (hinged behind the LE), as did many others, and concluded there was no advantage, for me anyway. Perhaps there would be for stunt ships, I don't know.
That is why you have to static balance it.
The flap has nothing to do with it.
Brett
My limited knowing of things---
Depends on the center of pressure of the stabilizer airfoil.
25 % or forward would be a good starting place that's for sure.
If it was me I would probably start at 20% with any, even a selected airfoil because there is no way I am going to do the Reynolds number math!
Picking an airfoil that the Center of pressure moves the least is a good starting place also.
David,Not quite true, Lou. The area of the surface, whether it is a stab/elevator or stabilator, is what contributes the stability. If you wiggle your hand, the plane will wiggle, whether is has a stab/elevator or stabilator.
Long elev horn radii help, but do not cure a basic negative: without a fixed stab, YOU hold the model to its path, every instant and all the way.
An interesting "balance" or compromise problem involves stabilator area. If anywhere near the tail area of a stab+elev model, it will be hard to restrain motion in a way that prevents overcontrol. If only of enough area to do everything you need in calm air conditions, tail power may not be enough to make a high-g recovery like inthe bottom turns in the Triangles, Hourglass or even the Vert 8. There, you can too easily "dirt-track" right into the ground.
There are easier ways to fly CLPA....
Not quite true, Lou. The area of the surface, whether it is a stab/elevator or stabilator, is what contributes the stability. If you wiggle your hand, the plane will wiggle, whether is has a stab/elevator or stabilator.
Whether you use a stab/elevator or stabilator, the force on the pushrod is determined by the position of the stab hinge line or the stabilator hinge line, relative to the chord. Wild Bill's articles detail the calculation.
While surfing through some old slides...this "G-GOBBLER" with the flying stab...keeps boggling my britches...ever since seeing Lynn Howard Dooty socked it to us by winning the first Tacoma Mall contest here in the NW 40 years ago with a flying "stab-a-lator"
Here is a shot taken at the nats...about that same time...showing a Geiske Nobler utilizing the same set up. As I remember...I too was quite impressed with this models sharp corners and turning radius.
However, every time this subject of FLYING STABS comes around...Most flyers discount and blow off any advantage that could possibly be an advantage to CLPA.
One advantage after seeing Lynn's model fly....was that he could VIRTUALLY SWAP ENDS...with that stunter of his...expecially when finding himself needing that extra turning punch during those heart stopping "OOOPS...TOO LOW PULL OUTTAVA' REVERSE WING OVER...ETC? LL~ LL~
GIFTED CLPA-DESIGNER GRUNTS?
ANY IDEAS OR FURTHER THOUGHTS or JABS...ABOUT FLYIN STABS?
Note:
If I ever build an electric plane it will have a flying stab, not sure but could have a forward canard too? Ouch, I think I would have to reinforce the wing center section. I could see it pulling 25+ G's.
Note:
If I ever build an electric plane it will have a flying stab, not sure but could have a forward canard too? Ouch, I think I would have to reinforce the wing center section. I could see it pulling 25+ G's.
Jim Pollock
This is one amazing piece of art with what appears to be a flying stab. Nice photo....but take a close look at this stab
Hello David,
No, nothing farther back than 25% of the mean aerodynamic chord. At 25% there will be no contribution to the "feel" of the airplane so you will actually want to move farther forward than 25%. How much? That argument has been raging in this forum for some time now. I wouldn't go any farthe forward than 20% and I would probably stick with 22 or 23.
best regards,
Dean Pappas