Control surface design question

[Chris W]

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the combination of the
horizontal stabilizer and elevator to make a stabilator. I think I have
even heard of the concept being used for a ruder. My question is has
anyone ever made a plane taking the concept all the way and made a
"wingeron"? My guess is no one has, seems to me it would be difficult
to do and maintain the required strength with out adding a lot of weight.

It's probably not practical for a real plane but I thought it might be
an interesting experiment to try on an RC plane.




--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Peter Dohm]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:18:09 -0500, Chris W > wrote:
>
> >I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the combination of the
> >horizontal stabilizer and elevator to make a stabilator. I think I have
> >even heard of the concept being used for a ruder. My question is has
> >anyone ever made a plane taking the concept all the way and made a
> >"wingeron"? My guess is no one has, seems to me it would be difficult
> >to do and maintain the required strength with out adding a lot of weight.
> >
> >It's probably not practical for a real plane but I thought it might be
> >an interesting experiment to try on an RC plane.
>
> The vertical stabs on many of the newer fighters are all flying -
> F-18, F-22, F-35.
>
As did the Folker Triplane.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:18:09 -0500, Chris W > wrote:

> The vertical stabs on many of the newer fighters are all flying -
> F-18, F-22, F-35.
>

You don't have to get NEAR that advanced. The vertical stabilizer on the
601XL I'm building is the rudder.

[Nauga[_2_]]

"Chris W" > wrote in message
...
> My question is has anyone ever made a plane taking the concept
> all the way and made a "wingeron"?
[...]
> It's probably not practical for a real plane but I thought it might be
> an interesting experiment to try on an RC plane.

I have a radio control 'pitcheron' slope glider and bits of several more.
There are two schools of thought: 1) use differential wing pivoting to get
roll control and use a separate elevator on the tail ('wingeron') and 2) use
differential pivot for roll and summetric for pitch with a fixed tail
('pitcheron'). Typically both types roll like crazy. Pitcherons have a
reputation for being a bit sluggish in pitch. Find an R/C site and search
for names like 'Orca', 'Ultron', 'Shrike', 'Pica', or just pitcheron and
wingeron. I have a Pica and most of an Orca.

By the way, the F/A-18 (all models) has separate rudders/verticals.
All-moving rudders have been used as far back as the A-5 ('Vigilante'),
which had NO 'conventional' (for the time) control surfaces. Stabilator for
pitch, all-moving rudder for yaw, and spoilers for roll. The Volksplane
has/had an all-moving vertical, if you want something similar.

Dave 'control allocation' Hyde

[[email protected]]

On Jul 12, 10:18 pm, Chris W > wrote:
> I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the combination of the
> horizontal stabilizer and elevator to make a stabilator. I think I have
> even heard of the concept being used for a ruder. My question is has
> anyone ever made a plane taking the concept all the way and made a
> "wingeron"? My guess is no one has, seems to me it would be difficult
> to do and maintain the required strength with out adding a lot of weight.
>
> It's probably not practical for a real plane but I thought it might be
> an interesting experiment to try on an RC plane.

My Jodel has an all-moving vertical surface. Has awesome
authority in spite of its small size.

The all-moving wing has been done. The Spratt ControlWing
was a homebuilt flying boat built by a number of folks in the 60s-80s
and there might be a few still going together. The tail was a V-shaped
affair that had no movement whatever, with a pusher propeller mounted
between the two surfaces driven by a long shaft from the converted
outboard engine mounted in the hull. The wings pivoted at the spar
attach and strut fittings on the wings, and were controlled bu a
couple of push-pull tubes at their trailing edges. Roll control was
differential wing movement, "pitch" was by moving the wings together
via a lever like a helicopter collective. The tail surfaces just kefp
the thing pointing into the relative wind.
I tried to get some pics but Goggle is acting up this morning.

Dan

[Richard Isakson]

"Chris W" wrote ...
> I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the combination of the
> horizontal stabilizer and elevator to make a stabilator. I think I have
> even heard of the concept being used for a ruder. My question is has
> anyone ever made a plane taking the concept all the way and made a
> "wingeron"? My guess is no one has, seems to me it would be difficult
> to do and maintain the required strength with out adding a lot of weight.
>
> It's probably not practical for a real plane but I thought it might be
> an interesting experiment to try on an RC plane.

The A-7 had variable incidence wings though not for roll control. I believe
this was to change the angle of the fuselage for carrier landings.

Many missiles have full flying "wings". With no takeoff or landing
requirements these lifting surfaces are tiny. While very maneuverable, they
have such small wings that many airplanes can turn inside an attacking
missiles and thus escape it's lock.

Rich

[Nauga]

Richard Isakson wrote...

> The A-7 had variable incidence wings though not for roll control. I
believe
> this was to change the angle of the fuselage for carrier landings.

The F-8 (pre-A-7) had variable incidence wing, but (like you said) it wasn't
for control - it was two position only and was implemented so that the nose
was lower on approach for improved feld of view.

> Many missiles have full flying "wings".

A lot of these missiles don't bank to turn either. They're axisymmetric,
they just pitch or yaw to get the angles and lift or sideforce they need to
turn.

Dave 'rolleron' Hyde

[Montblack]

)
> I tried to get some pics but Goggle is acting up this morning.


http://www.flyingflea.org/docs/SprattControlwing.htm
Here's some pics


Paul-Mont

[Montblack]

("Richard Riley" wrote>
> The Wright Bros had warping wings, and the Freewing airplanes move
> thevwings together, in relationship to the body. There's a lot of research
> into changing the shape of wings to provide differential lift. I don't
> think anyone's actually rotated wings separately for roll controll - it
> would be difficult. The smallest change in
> relative angle of attack would give you huge rolling moments. I think
> controlling it would be a non-trivial problem.


http://www.flyingflea.org/movies/freewing.mov
FreeWing movie ...super interesting! (Watch it ...Fun)

http://www.flyingflea.org/docs/videos.htm
More movies...

http://www.flyingflea.org/docs/SprattControlwing.htm
From this site

Over ten years ago now, I saw a Discovery Channel show where a guy put a PVC
type pipe on top of a small high wing planes' fuselage. He attached two
wings to the pipe - the pipe was sticking out each side of the fuselage. The
wings were free to rock and roll, independent of each other.

The reporter went up and pronounced the ride - smooth as silk. Also, the
plane now had super-STOL abilities. I think it was a story out of OZ.


Paul-Mont

[wright1902glider]

On Jul 13, 11:47 am, "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...
> wrote:
> ("Richard Riley" wrote>
>
> > The Wright Bros had warping wings, and the Freewing airplanes move
> > thevwings together, in relationship to the body.


Wilbur's original idea for roll control was to mount the wings and a
differential type gear (think of a car axle) and have them rotate
opposite one another for control when the pinion gear was turned by
the pilot. Of course, Orville convinced him that there was no way to
make such a device light enough to be lifted and strong enough to
support a man with the available materials and power systems of 1899.
The Eureka moment with the inner-tube box came months later.

You might argue that the idea is even older. Check out Chanute's
multiple surface machine (the katydid). It had an airframe which
allowed small independantly pivoting wings to be added or subtracted
depending on the experiment. Certainly Spratt knew of this design
since he was working with Chanute from time to time in that era.

Harry Frey
Wright Brothers Enterprises

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> )
>> I tried to get some pics but Goggle is acting up this morning.
>
>
> http://www.flyingflea.org/docs/SprattControlwing.htm
> Here's some pics

Ooohh! That looks scary! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[cavelamb himself]

Chris W wrote:

> I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the combination of the
> horizontal stabilizer and elevator to make a stabilator. I think I have
> even heard of the concept being used for a ruder. My question is has
> anyone ever made a plane taking the concept all the way and made a
> "wingeron"? My guess is no one has, seems to me it would be difficult
> to do and maintain the required strength with out adding a lot of weight.
>
> It's probably not practical for a real plane but I thought it might be
> an interesting experiment to try on an RC plane.
>
>
>
>

Only one I ever heard of would be the Spratt "Control Wing"

Lots of links from Google...

Richard

http://www.flyingflea.org/docs/SprattControlwing.htm

http://www.georgespratt.org/docs/PaulsonArticle.htm

http://www.georgespratt.org/Articles/SmithsonianSpratt.htm

http://www.maam.org/aircraft/spratt.htm

members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/selecting/kits/Spratt%20Controlwing.html

http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Wright/history1_1902t64.html

[John Halpenny]

On Jul 13, 12:18 am, Chris W > wrote:
> I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the combination of the
> horizontal stabilizer and elevator to make a stabilator. I think I have
> even heard of the concept being used for a ruder. My question is has
> anyone ever made a plane taking the concept all the way and made a
> "wingeron"? My guess is no one has, seems to me it would be difficult
> to do and maintain the required strength with out adding a lot of weight.
>
> It's probably not practical for a real plane but I thought it might be
> an interesting experiment to try on an RC plane.
>
Have you looked up the "flying flea". The elevator was fixed and the
wing pivoted to provide more or less lift. There were no ailerons but
the wing had so much dihedral it stayed fairly level, even when you
turned with the big rudder. A bunch of them were built in the 1930s,

The first ones had a problem where the wing did not have enough travel
to pull out of a steep dive. It was easy to fix once it was known, but
by that time some people had died and the plane's reputation was not
recoverable.

John Halpenny

[[email protected]]

The Biplum is an ultralight biplane with a lower wing that swivels
in lieu of ailerons. It may even have a mixer arrangement adjust
the angle of attack too, I don't remember.

http://frederic.secchi.free.fr/ULM/PouxAPont2004/pages/Biplum.htm

--

FF

[allan gibson]

On Jul 14, 11:49 am, John Halpenny > wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:18 am, Chris W > wrote:> I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the combination of the
> > horizontal stabilizer and elevator to make a stabilator. I think I have
> > even heard of the concept being used for a ruder. My question is has
> > anyone ever made a plane taking the concept all the way and made a
> > "wingeron"? My guess is no one has, seems to me it would be difficult
> > to do and maintain the required strength with out adding a lot of weight.
>
> > It's probably not practical for a real plane but I thought it might be
> > an interesting experiment to try on an RC plane.
>
> Have you looked up the "flyingflea". The elevator was fixed and the
> wing pivoted to provide more or less lift. There were no ailerons but
> the wing had so much dihedral it stayed fairly level, even when you
> turned with the big rudder. A bunch of them were built in the 1930s,
>
> The first ones had a problem where the wing did not have enough travel
> to pull out of a steep dive. It was easy to fix once it was known, but
> by that time some people had died and the plane's reputation was not
> recoverable.
>
> John Halpenny

The issue with the original flea (the HM-14) was not that it didn't
have enough control travel to get out of a dive but that it had too
much control travel. If you pulled right back on the stick you would
stall the front wing, the back wing would still deliver lift and put
you into a steep dive. Pushing forward too far could put you in the
same position, as can severe turbulence (ie no lift = no tension on
the control cables and the wing slams to the full down position and
stalls).

The earliest Flying Fleas used cables to pull the front wing down and
required the wing to pull up itself. This has problems when the wing
stalled. The fix was to put rigid tubes in place of the cables to the
control column as per the later HM-14e to permit the wing to be pushed
back up to flying position. The original flea (the HM-14) aerofoil
has a sharp leading edge and a consequent vicious stall if pushed this
way.

Recovery required the controls to be centred so the front wing would
start lifting again, once lift was re-established recovery would occur
rapidly and automatically. (This feels very wrong to a pilot trained
on a conventional aircraft, to center the controls in a dive rather
than pull back)

The fleas oversized rudder will put the plane in a 60 degree bank all
by itself.

There are other issues a well with the design regards center of
gravity but this is not the probably forum to discuss them. But the
plans were fixed and the later fleas are quite safe aircraft if you
are aware of the piloting peculiarities.

Regards Allan Gibson