TINSFOS question

[Brad[_2_]]

am curious about 16.5m wing extensions, are ailerons usually
incorporated into these, or if the existing aileron/flaperon ran full
span to begin with, would the roll rate suffer if the extension did
not include the control surface?

BTW...................Mr. Moffat inspired me when I saw him sawing the
tip of his big Cirrus and gluing on that tip extension!

also................I really like the polyhedral look, is that pretty
typical for modern extensions?

Thanks,
Brad

PS..........TINSFOS was the big debate during the Russia SIFOW
controversy!

[Grider Pirate]

On May 20, 6:06*pm, Brad > wrote:
> am curious about 16.5m wing extensions, are ailerons usually
> incorporated into these, or if the existing aileron/flaperon ran full
> span to begin with, would the roll rate suffer if the extension did
> not include the control surface?
>
> BTW...................Mr. Moffat inspired me when I saw him sawing the
> tip of his big Cirrus and gluing on that tip extension!
>
> also................I really like the polyhedral look, is that pretty
> typical for modern extensions?
>
> Thanks,
> Brad
>
> PS..........TINSFOS was the big debate during the Russia SIFOW
> controversy!

Okay, I used http://www.acronymfinder.com/There-is-No-Substitute-for-Span-(gliding)-(TINSFOS).html
to find out what TINSFOS is, what is SIFOW?

[Tony[_5_]]

On May 21, 9:26*am, Grider Pirate > wrote:
> On May 20, 6:06*pm, Brad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > am curious about 16.5m wing extensions, are ailerons usually
> > incorporated into these, or if the existing aileron/flaperon ran full
> > span to begin with, would the roll rate suffer if the extension did
> > not include the control surface?
>
> > BTW...................Mr. Moffat inspired me when I saw him sawing the
> > tip of his big Cirrus and gluing on that tip extension!
>
> > also................I really like the polyhedral look, is that pretty
> > typical for modern extensions?
>
> > Thanks,
> > Brad
>
> > PS..........TINSFOS was the big debate during the Russia SIFOW
> > controversy!
>
> Okay, I usedhttp://www.acronymfinder.com/There-is-No-Substitute-for-Span-(gliding...
> to find out what TINSFOS is, what is SIFOW?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text

Span Is FOr Wimps ?

[Grider Pirate]

On May 21, 8:06*am, Tony > wrote:
> On May 21, 9:26*am, Grider Pirate > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 6:06*pm, Brad > wrote:
>
> > > am curious about 16.5m wing extensions, are ailerons usually
> > > incorporated into these, or if the existing aileron/flaperon ran full
> > > span to begin with, would the roll rate suffer if the extension did
> > > not include the control surface?
>
> > > BTW...................Mr. Moffat inspired me when I saw him sawing the
> > > tip of his big Cirrus and gluing on that tip extension!
>
> > > also................I really like the polyhedral look, is that pretty
> > > typical for modern extensions?
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Brad
>
> > > PS..........TINSFOS was the big debate during the Russia SIFOW
> > > controversy!
>
> > Okay, I usedhttp://www.acronymfinder.com/There-is-No-Substitute-for-Span-(gliding...
> > to find out what TINSFOS is, what is SIFOW?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text
>
> Span Is FOr Wimps ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I came up with Span Is For Old Wimps, but you can reach ISBT
(Insufficient Span Ballistic Trajectory) if you take it too far.

[noel.wade]

Brad -

IIRC, early ships with 16.5/16.6 extensions had no additional control
surfaces.

Ships with 17+ tips tended to have an aileron extension of some kind.
As far as I know, only later-model ships have tended to have the
polyhedral, and from what I understand its more about preventing
wingtip scrapes (easier to leave the wingtip skid on the non-removable
part of the wing) or requiring a beefy spar in the tip exension (to
handle ground loads) than anything else.

Enjoy,

--Noel

[Brad[_2_]]

On May 21, 1:06*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Brad -
>
> IIRC, early ships with 16.5/16.6 extensions had no additional control
> surfaces.
>
> Ships with 17+ tips tended to have an aileron extension of some kind.
> As far as I know, only later-model ships have tended to have the
> polyhedral, and from what I understand its more about preventing
> wingtip scrapes (easier to leave the wingtip skid on the non-removable
> part of the wing) or requiring a beefy spar in the tip exension (to
> handle ground loads) than anything else.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> --Noel

thanks Noel, that's sort of my strategy. I added the wing tip wheel
fairing on the left wing and the plan is to add an extension someday,
angle it a bit to allow for the wheel to still work, but that
polyhedral just plain looks cool!

Brad

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 9:06*pm, Brad > wrote:
> am curious about 16.5m wing extensions, are ailerons usually
> incorporated into these, or if the existing aileron/flaperon ran full
> span to begin with, would the roll rate suffer if the extension did
> not include the control surface?
>
> BTW...................Mr. Moffat inspired me when I saw him sawing the
> tip of his big Cirrus and gluing on that tip extension!
>
> also................I really like the polyhedral look, is that pretty
> typical for modern extensions?
>
> Thanks,
> Brad
>
> PS..........TINSFOS was the big debate during the Russia SIFOW
> controversy!

Extending the ailerons allows the airfoil to be consistent to the tip
which helps maintain expected spanwise lift distribution.
It DOES complicate things.
FWIW
UH

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

If the plane has flaps, and you don't run the ailerons on out, you
probably won't be able to use all or any of the negative flap for
higher speed running. The LS-3/17 manual says "Thou Shalt Not Use ANY
negative flap if you installest thy long tips." They didn't put
ailerons on their tips. The Nimbus 3 manual says "Thou shalt limit
the flap travel to -2 (block thy "S" position) if you increase the
span from 24.5 to 25.5 meters. Why? As Hank said, if you run the
flaps up and don't have aileron (interconnected with the flaps, of
course) on the extension, the tips pick up a LOT of load, as they are
at a much higher angle of attack than the rest of the wing.

If the plane does not have flaps, adding aileron will only complicate
your life.

The poly wing actually helps the plane "groove" a bit more in
thermals. It can also have the benefit of pushing the downwash field
down and outboard at the tips, potentially providing a small increase
in effective span. Or maybe, less of a decrease in effective span as
compared to a planar wing. And if your tip chord gets really small,
it makes it so you are less likely to drag three feet of wing on the
ground if a wing goes down on takeoff.

My nickels worth,

Steve

[[email protected]]

On May 23, 11:06*pm, Steve Leonard > wrote:
> If the plane has flaps, and you don't run the ailerons on out, you
> probably won't be able to use all or any of the negative flap for
> higher speed running. *The LS-3/17 manual says "Thou Shalt Not Use ANY
> negative flap if you installest thy long tips." *They didn't put
> ailerons on their tips. *The Nimbus 3 manual says "Thou shalt limit
> the flap travel to -2 (block thy "S" position) if you increase the
> span from 24.5 to 25.5 meters. *Why? *As Hank said, if you run the
> flaps up and don't have aileron (interconnected with the flaps, of
> course) on the extension, the tips pick up a LOT of load, as they are
> at a much higher angle of attack than the rest of the wing.
>
> If the plane does not have flaps, adding aileron will only complicate
> your life.
>
> The poly wing actually helps the plane "groove" a bit more in
> thermals. *It can also have the benefit of pushing the downwash field
> down and outboard at the tips, potentially providing a small increase
> in effective span. *Or maybe, less of a decrease in effective span as
> compared to a planar wing. *And if your tip chord gets really small,
> it makes it so you are less likely to drag three feet of wing on the
> ground if a wing goes down on takeoff.
>
> My nickels worth,
>
> Steve

I was once told, by someone who is likely to know, that S-H put the
poly in the tips to keep them from ground contact loads and then
discovered it made the glider fly better. Not sure if this is true,
but it makes sense. Driving the outer aileron in one direction(up)
with spring down can allow poly and disconnects the mass which
simplifies the flutter issue-provided extension ailerons are properly
mass balanced.
In any case, they look cool.
UH

[Brad[_2_]]

On May 24, 2:24*pm, wrote:
> On May 23, 11:06*pm, Steve Leonard > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > If the plane has flaps, and you don't run the ailerons on out, you
> > probably won't be able to use all or any of the negative flap for
> > higher speed running. *The LS-3/17 manual says "Thou Shalt Not Use ANY
> > negative flap if you installest thy long tips." *They didn't put
> > ailerons on their tips. *The Nimbus 3 manual says "Thou shalt limit
> > the flap travel to -2 (block thy "S" position) if you increase the
> > span from 24.5 to 25.5 meters. *Why? *As Hank said, if you run the
> > flaps up and don't have aileron (interconnected with the flaps, of
> > course) on the extension, the tips pick up a LOT of load, as they are
> > at a much higher angle of attack than the rest of the wing.
>
> > If the plane does not have flaps, adding aileron will only complicate
> > your life.
>
> > The poly wing actually helps the plane "groove" a bit more in
> > thermals. *It can also have the benefit of pushing the downwash field
> > down and outboard at the tips, potentially providing a small increase
> > in effective span. *Or maybe, less of a decrease in effective span as
> > compared to a planar wing. *And if your tip chord gets really small,
> > it makes it so you are less likely to drag three feet of wing on the
> > ground if a wing goes down on takeoff.
>
> > My nickels worth,
>
> > Steve
>
> I was once told, by someone who is likely to know, that S-H put the
> poly in the tips to keep them from ground contact loads and then
> discovered it made the glider fly better. Not sure if this is true,
> but it makes sense. Driving the outer aileron in one direction(up)
> with spring down can allow poly and disconnects the mass which
> simplifies the flutter issue-provided extension ailerons are properly
> mass balanced.
> In any case, they look cool.
> UH

I suppose if I can make the whole damn glider, I can make tips with
control surfaces! But.............that's down the road a ways. I
agree, they look really cool and the polyhedral will make good use of
the wing tip wheel I installed.

Brad