Design > Stunt design
Ted's Tucker Special Ballast Experiment
Dennis Toth:
Very interesting stuff. It is also interesting that in the original article published in April 1962 American Modeler, Tucker states that a weight of 40oz is what the final version weight in at, very close to what Ted & Brett found.
https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=1528
Maybe there is a wing load somewhere around 11- 12oz/ft^2 that for the normal design numbers (basically, Nobler moments and ratios with some tweaking but around those) that gives good performance and line tension.
Best, DennisT
Brett Buck:
--- Quote from: Dennis Toth on December 30, 2023, 05:11:41 PM ---Very interesting stuff. It is also interesting that in the original article published in April 1962 American Modeler, Tucker states that a weight of 40oz is what the final version weight in at, very close to what Ted & Brett found.
https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=1528
Best, DennisT
--- End quote ---
It was actually a lot more than 40. I want to say 46 or so. But it doesn't matter what the original article said, they didn't have the same engine, Ted's had much more effective power. So, making it light to enhance vertical performance was not as important as giving more margin over the Netzeband wall. It may have been completely different on the original, with something like a Fox, you are going to need it to be as light as you can make it, so it can make it to the top of the circle.
Brett
Scott Richlen:
Considering all of this, would a partial solution be to use a 4" belcrank to increase leverage to the surfaces (assuming that Ted's plane was built using a 3 inch belcrank)? While the forces on the control surfaces would be the same, and the line tension would be the same, the extra inch of belcrank would provide a 30% increase of handle leverage (arm length going from 1.5 inch to 2 inches.)
Brett Buck:
--- Quote from: Scott Richlen on November 13, 2024, 07:00:03 PM ---Considering all of this, would a partial solution be to use a 4" belcrank to increase leverage to the surfaces (assuming that Ted's plane was built using a 3 inch belcrank)? While the forces on the control surfaces would be the same, and the line tension would be the same, the extra inch of belcrank would provide a 30% increase of handle leverage (arm length going from 1.5 inch to 2 inches.)
--- End quote ---
Of course. This would have addressed the Netzeband Wall issue directly. But the airplane was built. And the flaps were still more appropriate for a heavier airplane with much less speed control. That could have been corrected by slowing down the flaps WRT the elevator- but that wasn’t adjustable, nor could the flaps be cut down because it was for Classic, no design changes allowed. So even with a larger bellcrank it may still have benefitted from additional weight.
As before, you solve the problems you have using the options you have, those are not always the same.
Brett
Scott Richlen:
--- Quote ---That could have been corrected by slowing down the flaps WRT the elevator
--- End quote ---
Since the Tucker Special is on my bucket list (and I'm having to get more serious about that list as time passes...) and I have the kit, it sounds like there are only a few things to be done:
- use a 4" belcrank
- shoot for 40 ounces (or was it 44?)
- use a 3/4 to 1 flap to elevator ratio (does that sound about right?)
So, would an OS-35S be the right engine for this or should I go to an LA-46? The 35 would be a bit weak, wouldn't it?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version