Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / June 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

flapperons

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Andy - 07 Jun 2004 13:07 GMT
Hi all,
I am having a go at setting up flapperons on my Tail dragger. I am doing it
using chanels 1 & 6 and wing- mixing them in my futaba set.  It has been
suggested that I program-mix some down elevator (channel 6 the master and
channel 2 the slave) to help keep the nose level, can anyone suggest a
percentage of mix for this. Also any views on the pros and cons of using
flapperons would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Andy.
MJC - 07 Jun 2004 14:44 GMT
   There's absolutely NO way to guess the elevator to aileron mix that will
work best when using flaperons. Each aircraft is different so the only thing
you can do is to dial in about 5% as a "guess" start point and try it. You
should be able to get it right after 3 or 4 test flights.
   Flaperons are fun and are a good alternative to flaps if the aircraft is
already built and you want to play a little. The only thing to watch out for
is that the aircraft will tipstall easier with flaperons than it will with
flaps so do some stall tests at altitude until you learn to judge a safe
slow speed with the flaperons down.
   You don't say what kind of aircraft you have, but if it's a floater like
a Cub or something of that sort, you might have more fun with spoilerons.
It's the same set up except that you're dialing UP aileron on both sides
(and also some up elevator to compensate). With a floater, you're problem is
not usually slowing down for landing (needing flaps), but that the aircraft
doesn't want to land and floats down the entire runway while it "thinks" of
landing. Spoilerons are fun as hell because you can pop the switch on final
and come in for an almost "carrier" landing.

MJC

> Hi all,
>  I am having a go at setting up flapperons on my Tail dragger. I am doing it
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Thanks.
> Andy.
Andy - 07 Jun 2004 15:18 GMT
Thanks for your reply MJC My model is Blackhorse models Super Air Low wing
sport/aerobatic...
Andy.

>     There's absolutely NO way to guess the elevator to aileron mix that will
> work best when using flaperons. Each aircraft is different so the only thing
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> > Thanks.
> > Andy.
Dan Thomas - 08 Jun 2004 02:23 GMT
>     Flaperons are fun and are a good alternative to flaps if the aircraft is
> already built and you want to play a little. The only thing to watch out for
> is that the aircraft will tipstall easier with flaperons

   Not tipstall. Wing-drop stall.

>     You don't say what kind of aircraft you have, but if it's a floater like
> a Cub or something of that sort, you might have more fun with spoilerons.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> doesn't want to land and floats down the entire runway while it "thinks" of
> landing.  

    Airplanes that "float" are typically being approached with too
much speed. Almost any airplane will do this if the approach speed is
too high. Rule of thumb is to approach at 1.3 times stall speed (which
can be difficult to determine without airspeed information) and to
bleed speed off further by reducing power and raising the nose a bit
before getting into ground effect.
    I used to fly a Taylorcraft, which is famous for its float. I
found that I had to approach no faster than 1.3 times stall,  and then
get even that down before getting near the ground. I see other
modelers approaching way too fast, or too high and then diving at the
runway, which produces the same problem. You have to PLAN your
approach way back on downwing leg, get the right speed at the right
altitude at the right point. Then the airplane is easy to land.
    Spoilers shouldn't be necessary except for very slick, very fast,
low-drag airplanes like airliners or a very few smaller singles. Those
are the only full-scale airplanes you'll ever see them on.

   Dan
MJC - 08 Jun 2004 13:34 GMT
Umm... the wing usually tags along with the wing tip. Too much sugar in your
coffee??

As far as the spoilerons on a floater that won't land: You never flew a
giant Telemaster, have you?

MJC

> >     Flaperons are fun and are a good alternative to flaps if the aircraft is
> > already built and you want to play a little. The only thing to watch out for
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
>     Dan
Dan Thomas - 09 Jun 2004 00:36 GMT
> Umm... the wing usually tags along with the wing tip. Too much sugar in your
> coffee??

     "Tipstall" is a misnomer that implies that the wing will drop
only if the wingtip stalls. Most wings have stall behaviour that is
progressive, beginning at or near the root at the trailing edge and
progressing forward and outward as the angle of attack increases. It's
NOT a sudden thing, and the wing can drop if the stall is slightly
more advanced on that side. THE TIP CAN STILL BE FLYING AND STILL
DROPPING. I've said it before: get some textbooks.
   See http://www.av8n.com/how/#contents

   I quote from Chapter 18 of that excellent site:

"Stalling Part vs. All of the Wing
"We can arbitrarily divide the wing into sections; each section
contributes something to the lift of the whole wing. It is highly
desirable (as discussed in section 5.4.3) to have the coefficient of
lift for sections near the wing-root reach its maximum early, and
start decreasing, while the coefficient of lift for sections near the
tips continues increasing1 (as a function of angle of attack).

"Therefore it makes perfect sense to say that the sections near the
roots are stalled while the sections near the tips are not stalled. If
only a small region near the root is stalled, the wing as a whole will
still have an increasing coefficient of lift --- and will therefore
not be stalled.

"We see that the wing will continue to produce lots of lift well
beyond the point where part of it is stalling. This is the extreme
slow-flight regime --- you can fly around all day with half of each
wing stalled (although it takes a bit of skill and might overheat the
engine)."

   This website has an enormous amount of easy-to-understand info and
is well worth the model flyer's time.

> As far as the spoilerons on a floater that won't land: You never flew a
> giant Telemaster, have you?

   I'll bet it's being approached much faster than necessary.
You've never flown full scale, have you? The aerodynamics are the same
for all subsonic airplanes. See the website section on landings.

     I don't put sugar in my coffee. Real pilots drink it black.

         Dan

> > "MJC" <nospam@noway.com> wrote in message
>  news:<ca1r5m$ksl@library1.airnews.net>...
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> >
> >     Dan
MJC - 09 Jun 2004 14:09 GMT
   Oh c'mon, get real.
   Using the term "tip stall" is totally correct because it very accurately
describes what's happening with the AIRPLANE, which is what we are talking
about. I'm not trying to impress anyone with my aeronautical knowledge, I am
simply explaining "real world" behavior in a way that's relevant to the
conversation.
   The whole point of washout is to insure that a stall occurs in exactly
the way you describe, i.e., that the tip stalls LAST so that a stall, when
it happens, is progressive, gentle, and recognizeable. That's why the inner
area of a wing will stop producing lift before the outer wing area does and
the airplane is still able to be controlled.
   It doesn't matter one bit that the inside of the wing "stalls" while the
tip hasn't, because we're not talking about the aerodynamics of airfoils
here, we're talking about an AIRPLANE stalling, period. If the tips are
still flying, so is the airplane, slow flight or not. An AIRPLANE has NOT
stalled, even if part of the airfoil has, as long as you can control the
airplane. Once either tip stalls, the AIRPLANE has stalled and is no longer
controllable.
   I guess the anal retentive need to ply their trade here in rec.models,
too.

MJC

> > Umm... the wing usually tags along with the wing tip. Too much sugar in your
> > coffee??
[quoted text clipped - 85 lines]
> > >
> > >     Dan
Dan Thomas - 09 Jun 2004 19:37 GMT
> Oh c'mon, get real.
>     Using the term "tip stall" is totally correct because it very accurately
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> MJC

     If the airplane is not in coordinated flight near the stall, the
stall will be further progressed on one wing and that wing will drop
simply because the wings are not generating equal lift. In a skidding
turn, the inside wing will drop first, even if the tip is not stalled,
because the outside wing is less stalled than the other. To claim that
the wingtip will not drop in such a maneuver until the tip stalls is
completely in error.  If that was the case, all we'd need for flight
is wingtips. And the airplane won't keep on flying as long as the tips
aren't stalled; if the enough of the wing is stalled that there's
insufficient lift generated, it will sink, and if the stall pattern is
large enough the centre of pressure moves way back and forces the nose
down, even if the tips are still flying. The airplane has stalled.
   We can fly a Cessna 172 (and many other airplanes) at the point of
stall, get a bit of skid going, see that inside wing drop and still
pick it up with aileron, something that would be impossible if the tip
was stalled. Application of aileron will aggravate a wing drop if the
tip is stalled, and some airplanes are really nasty that way.
    Washout isn't necessary in many airplanes to control stall
progression, though it makes it a lot safer. Rectangular wings
normally have no washout because the stall progression is just the way
we want it. Tapered and elliptical wings will often have some washout
to improve the stall.
    Not anal retentive. 31 years of full-scale flight. Commercial
Pilot, Flight Instructor, Instrument Flight Rating, Aircraft
Maintenance Engineer. A college degree in this stuff. A modeler before
going to full-scale. And a son who I got started in RC.
 
   Dan
MJC - 10 Jun 2004 14:18 GMT
   I'm also a CFI and with all the typical ratings that lead up to that,
but what we're trying to do here is to put things in a way that casual R/C
flyers can understand and use. I started falling asleep half way through
your last post, and I KNOW what you're talking about.
   How interesting and useful do you think your explanation is to a guy
who's happy just to fly a circle in the air and make a landing without
damage? If I were to simply drive it into someones head to keep the
longitudinal axis of the aircraft either level or slightly nose down, and to
keep the wings from banking more than 20 degrees at any time, and
maintaining airspeed that will allow him to do those two things, he'll never
crash. That's information that a casual low-time flyer can use without
having to pull out his copy of "Airfoil Design - by Dan Cohen" and trying to
land at the same time.
   You're not wrong, you're just not relevant to the discussion in a
meaningful way that the average R/C guy can use.

MJC

> > Oh c'mon, get real.
> >     Using the term "tip stall" is totally correct because it very accurately
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
>     Dan
Six_O'Clock_High - 11 Jun 2004 05:41 GMT
ROFLOL!

I don't have as much time or ratings as eithor one of you, but I sure can
explain what he needs to know in less time and space!  Now don't get the
idea that was a shot, because I watch what both of you say, rather consider
it constructive.  C/I SEL

>     I'm also a CFI and with all the typical ratings that lead up to that,
> but what we're trying to do here is to put things in a way that casual R/C
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
> >
> >     Dan
MJC - 11 Jun 2004 14:31 GMT
Yes indeed, I saw the humor in that exchange as well :-)
I just didn't have enough sense to walk away from it, but I assure you that
my last response was the last in that goofy thread.
If Dan (the almighty aviation god) wants the last word to convince us of his
total superiority of the subject, he can have it.

MJC

> ROFLOL!
>
[quoted text clipped - 95 lines]
> > >
> > >     Dan
Fermin Labiano - 12 Jun 2004 17:35 GMT
Hello all:
Just i want stay off all the confrontation about the "medals" of each one.

now, what i think is the real explanation:

-It is desirable that a plane that begin to stall, still have some control

-It is desirable that a plane has the maximun efficience from his wing to
gain speed and reduce consum

A plane flies because the diferent speeds between upside and downside of the
wing are diferent and produce a diference of pression, but as the wing is
not infinite, at the tips a turbulence between the two sides is generated,
making drag in form of spiral turbulence track, in order to reduce the drag,
designers reduce the cord at the tip to generate less sustentation, as the
diference in speed is lower as the way to walk is less,  because the
reynolds number is lower and the eficience of the profil is lower, yes they
reduce drag but as eficience is lower the wing tips need a higher speed to
be operatives. There are some solutions to this problem, maintain the
control at wing tips and reduce the drag:

As the stall of a given profile is function of angle of attack we can reduce
the wing tip AoA giving some washout at wing tips
We can add Extra Leading Edge Extesions to modify the profil and gives it
less AoA, because profile is longer now, just the inverse from flaperons or
spoilerons
In function how ailerons are placed on the wing, they can be outer wing,
middle or most rare inner, they affect how the wing is designed, the goal is
when the wing is stalling, still have some aileron control

Now my self experience:

The most of times you get a plane that are more fast than you want for
landing, this is the main reason to apply some kind of brake and reduce
speed, as the most of the planes have not dedicated flaps ( if you see, all
the planes have the flaps inside the wing, ) we use the ailerons as flaps,
lowering the ailerons increase drag and also AoA as you lower the rear edge
of the profile, yes the plane slows but it is more propense to stall( this
is because dedicated flaps are inside wing, the first part of the wing
stalling is the inside, getting still some control at the tips).
In my opinion, just use spoilerons, they slows a bit less than flaperons but
also reduce the AoA, and in consecuence yo can increase the AoA of the
plane, showing more frontal section and adding drag to reduce speed, I use a
40% of the aileron way upside, seems to be small but you will land in no
wind days as if you are in a moderate wind day.

As i stated before, it is a mix from what i know and my experience, sure
other people can add or refuse that, i am not a master.

Salute all, Fermin

> Yes indeed, I saw the humor in that exchange as well :-)
> I just didn't have enough sense to walk away from it, but I assure you that
[quoted text clipped - 111 lines]
> > > >
> > > >     Dan
John Hollinshead - 07 Jun 2004 18:17 GMT
>  I am having a go at setting up flapperons on my Tail dragger. I am doing it
> using chanels 1 & 6 and wing- mixing them in my futaba set.  It has been
> suggested that I program-mix some down elevator (channel 6 the master and
> channel 2 the slave) to help keep the nose level, can anyone suggest a
> percentage of mix for this. Also any views on the pros and cons of using
> flapperons would be appreciated.

Why not go full house, Use the Air brake switch  to have flapperons,
spoiler/air brake, then set up flapperons to elevator on another switch the
combinations are exhilarating or is that adrenaline running.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.