Wing Extensions

[Jay]

Seems like it might be useful to have removable wing extensions for an
experimental. There are times when you want a fast airplane for cross
country and you can stand a long runway for the high TO/landing speeds
and then there are other times you want the low speed handling for
short field, etc. Flaps do this to some degree depending on how
exotic you want to get and have the advantage of being adjustable in
flight but the wing extensions would appear to extend the flight
envelope (on separate flights) beyond what can be done with typical
flap configurations.

A solid composite structure, perhaps 2 feet on each side that plugs
into the main spar(s) would do nicely to allow you to have both a high
speed clipped wing plane (when removed) and a long wing high lift
plane, of course not at the same time. The further out you go on the
wing the less the loads are so these wouldn't have to be built up as
strong as other parts.

They could be made with no control surfaces or other moving parts.
You could even select a different airfoil for that section if you
wanted. No problem plugging composite extensions into an aluminum
main wing. Of course the main short wing would have to be built to
allow access to the main spar(s). A hollow rectangular cross section
spar could accept an insert to mate with removable extensions.

I guess you'd need some sort of plastic overlay for the airspeed
indicator to remind you of the new critial speeds.

Anyone seen anything like this?

[DJFawcett26]

>Anyone seen anything like this?

A kitplane under design has a cruise and loiter wing.

Go to www.vulcanaero.com/index.html to see it.

Best Regards

[Rick Pellicciotti]

"Jay" > wrote in message
m...
> Seems like it might be useful to have removable wing extensions for an
> experimental. There are times when you want a fast airplane for cross
> country and you can stand a long runway for the high TO/landing speeds
> and then there are other times you want the low speed handling for
> short field, etc. Flaps do this to some degree depending on how
> exotic you want to get and have the advantage of being adjustable in
> flight but the wing extensions would appear to extend the flight
> envelope (on separate flights) beyond what can be done with typical
> flap configurations.
>
> A solid composite structure, perhaps 2 feet on each side that plugs
> into the main spar(s) would do nicely to allow you to have both a high
> speed clipped wing plane (when removed) and a long wing high lift
> plane, of course not at the same time. The further out you go on the
> wing the less the loads are so these wouldn't have to be built up as
> strong as other parts.
>
> They could be made with no control surfaces or other moving parts.
> You could even select a different airfoil for that section if you
> wanted. No problem plugging composite extensions into an aluminum
> main wing. Of course the main short wing would have to be built to
> allow access to the main spar(s). A hollow rectangular cross section
> spar could accept an insert to mate with removable extensions.
>
> I guess you'd need some sort of plastic overlay for the airspeed
> indicator to remind you of the new critial speeds.
>
> Anyone seen anything like this?

Glasairs have optional wingtip extensions. They add about 5 ft to the
wingspan of the airplane.

http://www.newglasair.com/glasairSIIspecs.html

Rick Pellicciotti

[Ernest Christley]

Rick Pellicciotti wrote:

> Glasairs have optional wingtip extensions. They add about 5 ft to the
> wingspan of the airplane.
>
> http://www.newglasair.com/glasairSIIspecs.html
>
> Rick Pellicciotti
>
>

Granted that this would have been taken into account by the designer,
but wouldn't this play hell with the center of lift and by extension
throw off the CG? That is, it wouldn't modify the CG, just change where
it SHOULD be.

I'm thinking that it isn't a good idea in just any old plane.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (Jay) wrote:

> ...Anyone seen anything like this?

It's been common practice in the soaring world for several years; many
if not most current production machines have wingtip extensions
available as options. So you can choose 15 meter span, 18 meter span,
winglets, and things like that depending on what sort of flying you
think you'll be doing that day. It's also handy to remove the winglet
for stowage and trailering.

My HP-24 project is slated to have a standard 15 meter span, with
extensions to 18 meter, including aileron extensions. The gross
weights will be different, but the speeds will be pretty much the
same.

Bob K.

[Jay]

Chopping the wing will effect the center of lift for swept wing
aircraft, but most homebuilts (e.g RV) have a wing that just goes
straight out, chopping wing just chops lift (and drag). And I'd have
to agree, it ain't a good idea on just any old plane. First of all,
you make the basic wing on the short side for your highest speed
operation, then you have to expose the load bearing elements of the
wing structure for your extensions to be able to couple. The
structure must be able to handle the extra load from whatever longer
wing extension you attach. But in the end, you have a plane with a
wide operating envelope.

The idea dawned on me after looking at the regular structure of an
RV-8A wing I was watching being built up and comparing an aquintances
shaved wing EZ that he says he needs to come over the fence at 100kts
minimum but it goes real fast on a small HP motor.

Ernest Christley > wrote in message
> Granted that this would have been taken into account by the designer,
> but wouldn't this play hell with the center of lift and by extension
> throw off the CG? That is, it wouldn't modify the CG, just change where
> it SHOULD be.
>
> I'm thinking that it isn't a good idea in just any old plane.

[Roger Halstead]

On 18 Jul 2003 11:39:27 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

>Seems like it might be useful to have removable wing extensions for an
>experimental. There are times when you want a fast airplane for cross
>country and you can stand a long runway for the high TO/landing speeds
>and then there are other times you want the low speed handling for
>short field, etc. Flaps do this to some degree depending on how
>exotic you want to get and have the advantage of being adjustable in
>flight but the wing extensions would appear to extend the flight
>envelope (on separate flights) beyond what can be done with typical
>flap configurations.
>
>A solid composite structure, perhaps 2 feet on each side that plugs
>into the main spar(s) would do nicely to allow you to have both a high
>speed clipped wing plane (when removed) and a long wing high lift
>plane, of course not at the same time. The further out you go on the
>wing the less the loads are so these wouldn't have to be built up as
>strong as other parts.

You are describing the Glasair II, Super II, and Glasair III wings.
There is a set of 2 foot extensions available from the factory, and
others of different lengths from other sources.

Down low the short wing loading in nigh onto 30# per square foot..
With tip extensions it's just a tad of 27# ft^2

The aspect ratio is 6.67 and 7.64 with the factory extensions.

>
>They could be made with no control surfaces or other moving parts.
>You could even select a different airfoil for that section if you
>wanted. No problem plugging composite extensions into an aluminum
>main wing. Of course the main short wing would have to be built to
>allow access to the main spar(s). A hollow rectangular cross section
>spar could accept an insert to mate with removable extensions.
>
>I guess you'd need some sort of plastic overlay for the airspeed
>indicator to remind you of the new critial speeds.

They don't change all that much. You leave them set for the shorter
wing. There are no real critical speeds...at least in the G-III. Vne
is listed at 335. They are routinely flown at 350 (mph) doing
aerobatics.

Maneuvering speed, (Va) is listed at 201. I've flown aerobatics at
Vne.
Vno is listed at 280 while 75% gives a POH figure of 282.
I've done letdowns at Vne. and have absolutely no worry about flying
that fast.

The wing tips will hold 5 1/2 gallons each, main tanks 53, and the
header 8...unless you have brake cylinders on the right and that
probably drops it to about 5. Many have additional wing bays turned
into tanks as well.

The Glasair (New Glasair) company recommends using the extensions
until the pilot is thoroughly familiar with the plane and during the
early phases of the flight test program.

With a turbo at high altitude you are looking at a cruise that is well
in excess of the book figure for Vne,

The plane is way over engineered. Book figures are +6, -4 Gs, but
again the plane has been tested wayyyy beyond that.


Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)>
>Anyone seen anything like this?

[Jay]

I think the poster meant that for that particular case the numbers
didn't change much. But in general, there aren't many parts of the
plane that effect performance more than the wing does. Produces
effectively all the lift and most of the drag.

Dave Hyde > wrote in message >...
> Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> > >I guess you'd need some sort of plastic overlay for the airspeed
> > >indicator to remind you of the new critial speeds.
> >
> > They don't change all that much. You leave them set for the shorter
> > wing. ...
>
> I think someone else said this too, and I find it confusing. If they
> don't change that much, why have the extensions? Just for more fuel?
>
> The airpseed indicator could certainly be marked that way
> and inspectors may approve it, but it seems like the long-wing version
> would be more critical for safety numbers. Vne would likely be lower
> for the long wing(*), and maneuvering speed will be lower as well,
> assuming the extensions add any lift at all. Stall speed for *both*
> wings is important.
>
> (*) Assuming it's flutter that sets Vne, which is a
> big assumption.
>
> Dave 'corner speed' Hyde
>

[Peter Dohm]

Jay wrote:
>
> I think the poster meant that for that particular case the numbers
> didn't change much. But in general, there aren't many parts of the
> plane that effect performance more than the wing does. Produces
> effectively all the lift and most of the drag.

I really had planned to stay out of this; but ...

The wing certainly produces most of the lift on a typical (not Rutan)
airplane, although the fuselage, in many common designs, contributes
significant lift as well; especially at low speed and high angle of
attack.

However, the wing does not contribute most of the drag. Typical wings
have L/D of around 100/1 for laminar and ... aarrrgh! ... I can't
find my Dover Edition of "Theory of Wing Sections", but even the
"rough" condition gives more than 30/1 for cruise and is still good
enough to contribute less than half of the total drag at climb speed.

The fuselage and engine cooling are usually the biggest contributors;
with enpenage, undercarriage, antennas, and other "stuff" that sticks
out of the airplane contributing lesser amounts of drag.

Therefore, the probable contribution of wing extensions on most powered
aircraft should be reduced climb and approach speeds and the opportunity
to reduce fuel consumption in a reduced speed cruise. Assuming that the
aircraft was correctly rigged for its cruising speed; then it should be
than the shorter winged slower at its cruising speed version due to the
nose down attitude of the fuselage as well as the related increased trim
drag of the empenage. The increased drag of the larger wing should make
a lesser contribution to the greater drag.

Peter


> Dave Hyde > wrote in message >...
> > Roger Halstead wrote:
> >
> > > >I guess you'd need some sort of plastic overlay for the airspeed
> > > >indicator to remind you of the new critial speeds.
> > >
> > > They don't change all that much. You leave them set for the shorter
> > > wing. ...
> >
> > I think someone else said this too, and I find it confusing. If they
> > don't change that much, why have the extensions? Just for more fuel?
> >
> > The airpseed indicator could certainly be marked that way
> > and inspectors may approve it, but it seems like the long-wing version
> > would be more critical for safety numbers. Vne would likely be lower
> > for the long wing(*), and maneuvering speed will be lower as well,
> > assuming the extensions add any lift at all. Stall speed for *both*
> > wings is important.
> >
> > (*) Assuming it's flutter that sets Vne, which is a
> > big assumption.
> >
> > Dave 'corner speed' Hyde
> >

[Jay]

So if the aircraft is built with particularly short permanent wings
with facilities toi accept extensions from the start, you have the
choice of an aircraft with higher cruise speed but accelerated
takeoff/landing speeds, or as you mentioned in your posting, an
aircraft with reduced speed on takeoff/landing, and a higher
efficiency, albeit slower cruise. And of course with intermediate
size extensions, you could have something in the middle, like most GA
aircraft have these days- not too fast, not too slow.

At a specific speed those L/D numbers may be right, but I doubt they
hold for the entire range that aircraft operate in. Drag- One of the
reasons I say the wing is one of the largest contributers is because
similararly powered side-by-side and tandem 2 seaters have top speeds
in the same range, but the frontal area of the fuselage is quite
different. Gear fairing adds a couple kts.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:43:58 GMT, Dave Hyde > wrote:

>Roger Halstead wrote:
>
>> >I guess you'd need some sort of plastic overlay for the airspeed
>> >indicator to remind you of the new critial speeds.
>>
>> They don't change all that much. You leave them set for the shorter
>> wing. ...
>
>I think someone else said this too, and I find it confusing. If they
>don't change that much, why have the extensions? Just for more fuel?

They can be used for additional fuel and they create a higher aspect
ratio for greater speed at altitude than the short wing.. They also
offer a bit more climb, and a bit slower landing.

OTOH although the landing is slower, fowler flaps and the extended
wing only lower the landing speed a few MPH
>
>The airpseed indicator could certainly be marked that way
>and inspectors may approve it, but it seems like the long-wing version
>would be more critical for safety numbers. Vne would likely be lower

It's not. That depends more on other factors

>for the long wing(*), and maneuvering speed will be lower as well,

It is by a little

>assuming the extensions add any lift at all.

They do.

> Stall speed for *both* wings is important.
>
Stall with the longer wing is only a couple MPH slower.

>(*) Assuming it's flutter that sets Vne, which is a
>big assumption.

Kinda, sorta...flutter is one. Various portions of the structure are
another. As

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>Dave 'corner speed' Hyde

[Jim Phoenix]

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message
> snip
> My HP-24 project is slated to have a standard 15 meter span, with
> extensions to 18 meter, including aileron extensions. The gross
> weights will be different, but the speeds will be pretty much the
> same.
>
> Bob K.


As Bob knows, my Nimbus 3 has 22.9m, 24.5m and 25.5m tips for the
various wing span I wish to fly with. Choice is driven by weather
(lift) conditions and desired wing loading for the day. I also have
positive and negative flaps - as do all or most flapped sailplanes. We
also put hundreds of pounds of water in our wings on good days, but
that would not be recommended for powered aircraft ;-).

Are there any powered aircraft out there with negative flap positions
for faster cruising/lower drag?

There was a sailplane built some years ago with a telescoping wing - I
recall it worked OK, but was not successfull.

Jim

[Jim Phoenix]

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message
> snip
> My HP-24 project is slated to have a standard 15 meter span, with
> extensions to 18 meter, including aileron extensions. The gross
> weights will be different, but the speeds will be pretty much the
> same.
>
> Bob K.


As Bob knows, my Nimbus 3 has 22.9m, 24.5m and 25.5m tips for the
various wing span I wish to fly with. Choice is driven by weather
(lift) conditions and desired wing loading for the day. I also have
positive and negative flaps - as do all or most flapped sailplanes. We
also put hundreds of pounds of water in our wings on good days, but
that would not be recommended for powered aircraft ;-).

Are there any powered aircraft out there with negative flap positions
for faster cruising/lower drag?

There was a sailplane built some years ago with a telescoping wing - I
recall it worked OK, but was not successfull.

Jim

[Bill Daniels]

"Jim Phoenix" > wrote in message
om...
> (Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message
> > snip
> > My HP-24 project is slated to have a standard 15 meter span, with
> > extensions to 18 meter, including aileron extensions. The gross
> > weights will be different, but the speeds will be pretty much the
> > same.
> >
> > Bob K.
>
>
> As Bob knows, my Nimbus 3 has 22.9m, 24.5m and 25.5m tips for the
> various wing span I wish to fly with. Choice is driven by weather
> (lift) conditions and desired wing loading for the day. I also have
> positive and negative flaps - as do all or most flapped sailplanes. We
> also put hundreds of pounds of water in our wings on good days, but
> that would not be recommended for powered aircraft ;-).
>
> Are there any powered aircraft out there with negative flap positions
> for faster cruising/lower drag?
>
> There was a sailplane built some years ago with a telescoping wing - I
> recall it worked OK, but was not successfull.
>
> Jim

One of the Maule variants used 10 degree negative flap for a little extra
cruise speed.

I seem to recall that flapped wings should have an airfoil selected for
negative flap for that option to be really useful. Still, it's a cheap way
to get a little more cruise speed.

Wing extensions could be a seasonal change to cope with the much higher
density altitudes in summer.

Bill Daniels

[Grieg Pedersen, Information Systems Engineer]

Funny you should bring this up. I've been considering a series of very
narrow (high aspect) winglets which would pivot at their roots and be
attached to the end of the wing. These could be arranged to work
together as a very high lift arrangement and be foldable on-the-fly. A
lot like the wingtip feathers of large raptors. Aft winglets might be
shorter than fwd ones, and each "feather" might be only 2-3" in chord.

Jay wrote:
> Seems like it might be useful to have removable wing extensions for an
> experimental. There are times when you want a fast airplane for cross
> country and you can stand a long runway for the high TO/landing speeds
> and then there are other times you want the low speed handling for
> short field, etc. Flaps do this to some degree depending on how
> exotic you want to get and have the advantage of being adjustable in
> flight but the wing extensions would appear to extend the flight
> envelope (on separate flights) beyond what can be done with typical
> flap configurations.
>
> A solid composite structure, perhaps 2 feet on each side that plugs
> into the main spar(s) would do nicely to allow you to have both a high
> speed clipped wing plane (when removed) and a long wing high lift
> plane, of course not at the same time. The further out you go on the
> wing the less the loads are so these wouldn't have to be built up as
> strong as other parts.
>
> They could be made with no control surfaces or other moving parts.
> You could even select a different airfoil for that section if you
> wanted. No problem plugging composite extensions into an aluminum
> main wing. Of course the main short wing would have to be built to
> allow access to the main spar(s). A hollow rectangular cross section
> spar could accept an insert to mate with removable extensions.
>
> I guess you'd need some sort of plastic overlay for the airspeed
> indicator to remind you of the new critial speeds.
>
> Anyone seen anything like this?

[Grieg Pedersen, Information Systems Engineer]

Dave Hyde wrote:
> Roger Halstead wrote:
>
>
> The airpseed indicator could certainly be marked that way
> and inspectors may approve it, but it seems like the long-wing version
> would be more critical for safety numbers. Vne would likely be lower
> for the long wing(*), and maneuvering speed will be lower as well,
> assuming the extensions add any lift at all. Stall speed for *both*
> wings is important.
>

Forget "stall speeds." A given airfoil stalls at a given AOA. Period.
Loading, airspeed, aspect ratio have nothing to do with it.

Get an AOA indicator and fly that.

[Del Rawlins]

On 24 Jul 2003 08:20 PM, Grieg Pedersen, Information Systems Engineer
posted the following:
>
>
> Jim Phoenix wrote:
>> (Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message
>>
>> Are there any powered aircraft out there with negative flap positions
>> for faster cruising/lower drag?
>
> Several. the Seawind comes to mind as one that uses a "reflex"
> position for cruise.

Initial reports indicate that the Barrows Bearhawk can get a lot of
benefit from reflexing the flaps slightly at cruise.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Bart D. Hull]

Bob, Bob, Bob,

You can make a AOA indicator for $50 and a little bit of time to machine
a dual purpose pitot - AOA pylon for the end of your wing.

I do agree that many gauges on the dashes of many kitbuilts are
worth a great deal less than the asking price, but a stall warning
system is worth its weight in gold!!! Just ask the gentleman that
"made it" to Oshkosh in a Glasair got stuck behind a cub on final,
did "s" turns until he fell out of the sky 400 ft short of the runway.
DEAD.

Another Information System Engineer, but without a gold lined wallet.
--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html for my Subaru Engine
Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html for Tango II I'm
building.

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
> "Grieg Pedersen, Information Systems Engineer"
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>The airpseed indicator could certainly be marked that way
>>>and inspectors may approve it, but it seems like the long-wing version
>>>would be more critical for safety numbers. Vne would likely be lower
>>>for the long wing(*), and maneuvering speed will be lower as well,
>>>assuming the extensions add any lift at all. Stall speed for *both*
>>>wings is important.
>>>
>>
>>Forget "stall speeds." A given airfoil stalls at a given AOA. Period.
>> Loading, airspeed, aspect ratio have nothing to do with it.
>>
>>Get an AOA indicator and fly that.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> A rather amusing, although assinine approach....
> Killing a bug with an extravagant $ledge hammer.
>
> Is this what pompous information system injun-eers
> are good at?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- limited resources

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Bob, Bob, Bob,
>
>You can make a AOA indicator for $50 and a little bit of time to machine
>a dual purpose pitot - AOA pylon for the end of your wing.
>
>I do agree that many gauges on the dashes of many kitbuilts are
>worth a great deal less than the asking price, but a stall warning
>system is worth its weight in gold!!! Just ask the gentleman that
>"made it" to Oshkosh in a Glasair got stuck behind a cub on final,
>did "s" turns until he fell out of the sky 400 ft short of the runway.
>DEAD.
>
>Another Information System Engineer, but without a gold lined wallet.
> --
>Bart D. Hull
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jezus...
Just admit you know not how to fly small GA aircraft.
You sound like one of the typical dumb**** cable infomercials.

Gimmee a break and quit insulting my meager intelligence.
Glasairs and Cubs will never mix and starring at a homebrew
AOA on a wingtip instead of where one is going while attempting
to navigate the world's busiest airport at rush hour is...
extremely poor form in my 50 year old book of competent piloting.

You can X, Y, Z or S 'til hell freezes over, but ....
Not even a $5000 AOA indicator can substitute for good judgment
and save your dumb ass when you should be on final at 100 mph
instead of attempting to match wits with a 40 mph Cub....
if what you say has even a grain of truth in it.

I've successfully flown thousands of hours on the ragged edge
of stall crop dusting and I attribute that more to being competent
at stall recognition than some $50 huckster claim of a life saving
device for dummies.

FWIW..
I've been hearing and reading about cheapy AOA indicators
for the better part of 50 years. If they were worth a hoot, you or
somebody would be selling them for $100 and getting rich....
or getting your ass sued into oblivion.

P.S.
Have you installed the $50 AOA on your, yet to fly, Tango?
BE HONEST or you will crash and burn behind a Piper Cub.

P.S.S.
What is it with you Information System Engineers that make
you brag about your credentials in a pilot oriented community?
From what I have seen in the last 24 hours....
It's hardly an asset when garbage in = garbage out.


Barnyard BOb - please don't 'ax' me to talk to dead men

[BRUCE FRANK]

Since there seems to be a thought that we all need an AOA indicator, I have
missed something. Are there planes that give no indication of an impending
stall? Isn't a large part of flight training concentrated on recognizing
that impending stall? The people with whom I have flown who regularly fly
the ragged edge of the bottom end of the airspeed ignore the stall warning
horn and just fly the plane. That isn't flying by the seat of one's pants,
its understanding the what the normally present indicators are telling you.
I will have to agree that no one survives all those years crop dusting by
looking at some kind of gauge. It is flying skill and knowledge. On a much
smaller scale it's like getting to the point as a student when you realize
you are flying approach and discovering you're not having to watch the
airspeed indicator gauge...and you're squeaking it on.

Bruce A. Frank


"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >Bob, Bob, Bob,
> >
> >You can make a AOA indicator for $50 and a little bit of time to machine
> >a dual purpose pitot - AOA pylon for the end of your wing.
> >
> >I do agree that many gauges on the dashes of many kitbuilts are
> >worth a great deal less than the asking price, but a stall warning
> >system is worth its weight in gold!!! Just ask the gentleman that
> >"made it" to Oshkosh in a Glasair got stuck behind a cub on final,
> >did "s" turns until he fell out of the sky 400 ft short of the runway.
> >DEAD.
> >
> >Another Information System Engineer, but without a gold lined wallet.
> > --
> >Bart D. Hull
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Jezus...
> Just admit you know not how to fly small GA aircraft.
> You sound like one of the typical dumb**** cable infomercials.
>
> Gimmee a break and quit insulting my meager intelligence.
> Glasairs and Cubs will never mix and starring at a homebrew
> AOA on a wingtip instead of where one is going while attempting
> to navigate the world's busiest airport at rush hour is...
> extremely poor form in my 50 year old book of competent piloting.
>
> You can X, Y, Z or S 'til hell freezes over, but ....
> Not even a $5000 AOA indicator can substitute for good judgment
> and save your dumb ass when you should be on final at 100 mph
> instead of attempting to match wits with a 40 mph Cub....
> if what you say has even a grain of truth in it.
>
> I've successfully flown thousands of hours on the ragged edge
> of stall crop dusting and I attribute that more to being competent
> at stall recognition than some $50 huckster claim of a life saving
> device for dummies.
>
> FWIW..
> I've been hearing and reading about cheapy AOA indicators
> for the better part of 50 years. If they were worth a hoot, you or
> somebody would be selling them for $100 and getting rich....
> or getting your ass sued into oblivion.
>
> P.S.
> Have you installed the $50 AOA on your, yet to fly, Tango?
> BE HONEST or you will crash and burn behind a Piper Cub.
>
> P.S.S.
> What is it with you Information System Engineers that make
> you brag about your credentials in a pilot oriented community?
> From what I have seen in the last 24 hours....
> It's hardly an asset when garbage in = garbage out.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - please don't 'ax' me to talk to dead men

[Kevin Horton]

In article
>, BRUCE
FRANK > wrote:

> Since there seems to be a thought that we all need an AOA indicator, I have
> missed something. Are there planes that give no indication of an impending
> stall? Isn't a large part of flight training concentrated on recognizing
> that impending stall? The people with whom I have flown who regularly fly
> the ragged edge of the bottom end of the airspeed ignore the stall warning
> horn and just fly the plane. That isn't flying by the seat of one's pants,
> its understanding the what the normally present indicators are telling you.
> I will have to agree that no one survives all those years crop dusting by
> looking at some kind of gauge. It is flying skill and knowledge. On a much
> smaller scale it's like getting to the point as a student when you realize
> you are flying approach and discovering you're not having to watch the
> airspeed indicator gauge...and you're squeaking it on.
>
> Bruce A. Frank
>
>
Type certificated aircraft are required to have some sort of stall
warning that occurs far enough before the stall so the pilot can
respond to the stall warning and avoid the stall (the regs don't use
exactly these words, but that is the intent). Ideally, the stall
warning would be aerodynamic buffet, but some aircraft either don't
have enough buffet, or it occurs too close to the stall, so system is
added to provide stall warning.

The original version of FAR 23 allowed the stall warning to be some
visual device in the cockpit, but FAR 23 amendment 7 in 1969 added
words "However, a visual stall warning device that requires the
attention of the crew within the cockpit is not acceptable by itself. "

I can't find an online copy of CAR 3, which predated FAR 23, and is the
design standard that many popular light aircraft were held to. I
assume it was similar to the first edition of FAR 23.

So, for type certificated aircraft, it is a mixed bag - a visual stall
warning device would be acceptable from a regulatory point of view on
some models, but not others, depending on when it was designed. From a
safety point of view, it is crazy to have a stall warning that is only
effective if you are looking at it. If you have enough situational
awareness to be actively watching the stall warning indicator, you are
probably not in danger of stalling. The dangerous stalls are the ones
that bite you when your head is buried up your a** as you are not
paying attention to the airspeed, or how hard you are pulling at low
speed.

If I was crop dusting, I would sure want an aircraft that "talked" to
you aerodynamically as you approached the stall. Two of the funnest
aircraft I've ever flown had nice progressively increasing buffet as
you approached the stall. You could manoeuvre hard just by feel and
really work the wing.

Homebuilts don't have to meet any stall warning requirements. For
example, the RVs that I have flown have very little aerodynamic stall
warning. Yes, there is a small amount of buffet a couple of mph before
the stall, and it can be noticed if you are looking for it. But if you
were distracted you could easily miss it and inadvertently stall the
aircraft, if you abused it bad enough.

--
Kevin Horton - RV-8
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/

[Blueskies]

AOA - Piece of yarn on a stick?



--
Dan D.



..
"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> >Bob, Bob, Bob,
> >
> >You can make a AOA indicator for $50 and a little bit of time to machine
> >a dual purpose pitot - AOA pylon for the end of your wing.
> >
> >I do agree that many gauges on the dashes of many kitbuilts are
> >worth a great deal less than the asking price, but a stall warning
> >system is worth its weight in gold!!! Just ask the gentleman that
> >"made it" to Oshkosh in a Glasair got stuck behind a cub on final,
> >did "s" turns until he fell out of the sky 400 ft short of the runway.
> >DEAD.
> >
> >Another Information System Engineer, but without a gold lined wallet.
> > --
> >Bart D. Hull
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Jezus...
> Just admit you know not how to fly small GA aircraft.
> You sound like one of the typical dumb**** cable infomercials.
>
> Gimmee a break and quit insulting my meager intelligence.
> Glasairs and Cubs will never mix and starring at a homebrew
> AOA on a wingtip instead of where one is going while attempting
> to navigate the world's busiest airport at rush hour is...
> extremely poor form in my 50 year old book of competent piloting.
>
> You can X, Y, Z or S 'til hell freezes over, but ....
> Not even a $5000 AOA indicator can substitute for good judgment
> and save your dumb ass when you should be on final at 100 mph
> instead of attempting to match wits with a 40 mph Cub....
> if what you say has even a grain of truth in it.
>
> I've successfully flown thousands of hours on the ragged edge
> of stall crop dusting and I attribute that more to being competent
> at stall recognition than some $50 huckster claim of a life saving
> device for dummies.
>
> FWIW..
> I've been hearing and reading about cheapy AOA indicators
> for the better part of 50 years. If they were worth a hoot, you or
> somebody would be selling them for $100 and getting rich....
> or getting your ass sued into oblivion.
>
> P.S.
> Have you installed the $50 AOA on your, yet to fly, Tango?
> BE HONEST or you will crash and burn behind a Piper Cub.
>
> P.S.S.
> What is it with you Information System Engineers that make
> you brag about your credentials in a pilot oriented community?
> From what I have seen in the last 24 hours....
> It's hardly an asset when garbage in = garbage out.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - please don't 'ax' me to talk to dead men

[Barnyard BOb --]

>That's all I was saying. Nothing more. I did not suggest that we *all*
>need one, just that *he* needs one.
>
>And Bob, if he can afford variable-geometry wings he can damned well
>afford an AOA. He'll need it. One thing my experience in IS has taught
>me is that the system that requires the least amount of human discipline
>and/or interpretation is the one that will work best when operated by
>humans. We're inconsistent, forgetful, inattentive things and it's best
>to simplify things for the human as much as possible. Especially when
>lives are on the line.
>
>Grieg
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I stand corrected.

Somehow, I missed the variable-geometry gobbledy gook.
By all means, install a fool proof toilet seat while your at it,
with automatic arse wiper...
being us humans are sooooo absent minded and forgetful.


Barnyard BOb -- dining on salted crow while LM_A_O