limit of trim = limit of travel?

[Mxsmanic]

Are the limits of control surface movements produced by setting trim to its
extremes also usually the absolute limits of travel for those surfaces, or is
it usually possible to move them further with movement of the yoke? Or does
this vary significantly from one aircraft design to another?

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:02:37 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Are the limits of control surface movements produced by setting trim to its
>extremes also usually the absolute limits of travel for those surfaces, or is
>it usually possible to move them further with movement of the yoke? Or does
>this vary significantly from one aircraft design to another?

you are plain and simple a clueless ****wit.
if you had any intelligence you would have gone out in the real world
and looked at an aeroplane.

trim has nothing to do with the movement limits on control surfaces.

control surfaces are limited by things called "stops". essentially
they are adjustable bolts. it is usual for them never to be changed
once the aircraft is initially set up for flight. they are designed to
positively stop further movement of the surface.

here is a question you can research.

what aerodynamic consideration is in the mind of the designer when
they set up the maximum movement of a control surface?

your inability to find an acceptable answer by your own non-internet
research will confirm to you that you are a retard.

oxygen is a valuable resource. please stop wasting it.
Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Robert Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Mxsmanic wrote
>> Are the limits of control surface movements produced by setting trim
>> to its extremes also usually the absolute limits of travel for those
>> surfaces, or is it usually possible to move them further with movement
>> of the yoke? Or does this vary significantly from one aircraft design
>> to another?
>
> I have never flown or seen an airplane where the trim systen could cause
> full control deflection ....not even close.
>

I've flown a few that couldn't even be trimmed for slow flight or approach
( pre war stuff) The trim was apparently only considered to be useful for
cruise.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Robert Moore writes:

> I have never flown or seen an airplane where the trim systen could cause
> full control deflection ....not even close.

Thanks.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> I've flown a few that couldn't even be trimmed for slow flight or approach
> ( pre war stuff) The trim was apparently only considered to be useful for
> cruise.

Interesting. I was flying my simulated Cessna 182 and it didn't seem like the
pitch trim fully deflected the elevators even with the trim all the way over
(that is, I could still move the yoke to get even further deflection). It
sounds like this is true to life.

Specifically, I've been trying to practice slow flight, but it seems to be
really hard to get the aircraft anywhere near its minimum speed. During the
course of this practice I noticed that even trimming for full nose up didn't
seem to actually get the aircraft down towards the bottom of the green band,
so I was wondering if it were really possible to trim it that far. It doesn't
sound like it is. I'll have to try holding the yoke to fly really slowly.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Specifically, I've been trying to practice slow flight, but it seems to be
> really hard to get the aircraft anywhere near its minimum speed. During
> the
> course of this practice I noticed that even trimming for full nose up
> didn't
> seem to actually get the aircraft down towards the bottom of the green
> band,
> so I was wondering if it were really possible to trim it that far. It
> doesn't
> sound like it is. I'll have to try holding the yoke to fly really slowly.

That's a limitation of the sim. Even in our "Penguin" (see it here:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm ) which comes as close to
simulating real flight as you can get without spending an absurd amount of
money, slow flight is difficult even for experienced pilots.

When doing slow flight in a real airplane you have many sensory cues that
are missing in the sim. The peculiar feeling of hanging on the prop, the
increased angle of attack, the different sounds -- they're missing from the
sim.

With practice slow flight can be done in MSFS (and, yes, the trim is
important) but it's all got to be done on the gauges. If you have a second
screen for the instrument panel, that helps.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> With practice slow flight can be done in MSFS (and, yes, the trim is
> important) but it's all got to be done on the gauges. If you have a second
> screen for the instrument panel, that helps.

I'm not sure I understand: Are you saying that you can do slow flight in the
sim as in the real aircraft, except that you have to do it by instruments, or
are you saying that the sim doesn't correctly simulate slow flight at all
(i.e., it can't be done)?

Also, are you using the default aircraft or have you installed add-on
aircraft? For the Cessna I'm flying, I use Carenado's Cessna 182RG II
simulation, which is supposedly pretty good (vastly better than the default
Cessna, of course).

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Are the limits of control surface movements produced by setting trim to its
> extremes also usually the absolute limits of travel for those surfaces, or is
> it usually possible to move them further with movement of the yoke? Or does
> this vary significantly from one aircraft design to another?
I don't have any actual figures handy, but my answer would be no. You
should have movement on the major control surface available beyond the
max trim limits.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> I've flown a few that couldn't even be trimmed for slow flight or
>> approach ( pre war stuff) The trim was apparently only considered to
>> be useful for cruise.
>
> Interesting. I was flying my simulated Cessna 182 and it didn't seem
> like the pitch trim fully deflected the elevators even with the trim
> all the way over (that is, I could still move the yoke to get even
> further deflection). It sounds like this is true to life.

Nothing about a sim is true to life. It's a toy. Different airplanes have
different authorits. i can loop my Citabira with the pitch trim.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 12:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > I've flown a few that couldn't even be trimmed for slow flight or approach
> > ( pre war stuff) The trim was apparently only considered to be useful for
> > cruise.
>
> Interesting. *I was flying my simulated Cessna 182 and it didn't seem like the
> pitch trim fully deflected the elevators even with the trim all the way over
> (that is, I could still move the yoke to get even further deflection). *It
> sounds like this is true to life.
>

Look at the size of a trim surface and the size of the elevator. Think
about which one is more powerful. You can't stall a 182 with full
trim, but you can with the yoke. OK?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 12:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Interesting. *I was flying my simulated Cessna 182

> Specifically, I've been trying to practice slow flight, but it seems to be
> really hard to get the aircraft anywhere near its minimum speed. *During the
> course of this practice I noticed that even trimming for full nose up didn't
> seem to actually get the aircraft down towards the bottom of the green band,
> so I was wondering if it were really possible to trim it that far. *

Did you close the throttle? If you did and it won't trim to 65 knots
it's a crap simulation.

Cheers

[Scott Skylane]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
/snip/
> trim has nothing to do with the movement limits on control surfaces.
>
/snip/

Stealth,

This is not universally true. On the Douglas DC-6, for instance,
elevator "up" travel is limited by the elevator trim position. Dialing
in the last 5 degrees of nose up trim allows an extra 3 degrees of
elevator "up" travel. This was done to limit elevator "up" movement
with aft CG loading conditions.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 7:58 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay Honeck writes:
> > With practice slow flight can be done in MSFS (and, yes, the trim is
> > important) but it's all got to be done on the gauges. If you have a second
> > screen for the instrument panel, that helps.
>
> I'm not sure I understand: Are you saying that you can do slow flight in the
> sim as in the real aircraft, except that you have to do it by instruments, or
> are you saying that the sim doesn't correctly simulate slow flight at all
> (i.e., it can't be done)?
>
> Also, are you using the default aircraft or have you installed add-on
> aircraft? For the Cessna I'm flying, I use Carenado's Cessna 182RG II
> simulation, which is supposedly pretty good (vastly better than the default
> Cessna, of course).

The 182RG, the REAL airplane, has enough pitch trim to maintain slow
flight just above the stall.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 11:33 am, WingFlaps > wrote:

> Look at the size of a trim surface and the size of the elevator. Think
> about which one is more powerful. You can't stall a 182 with full
> trim, but you can with the yoke. OK?
>
> Cheers


Don't give the impression that the trim tab is doing the flying. It's
not. Trim tab down moves the elevator up, and the elevator controls
the pitch. With some power applied the airplane could stall. Power
off, not likely; just a slow glide. The 182 has one of the most
powerful trims I've come across, apart from the 180/185 stabilizer
trim system that will keep you very busy in an overshoot.

Dan

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The 182RG, the REAL airplane, has enough pitch trim to maintain slow
> flight just above the stall.

I'll continue to experiment.

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> Did you close the throttle? If you did and it won't trim to 65 knots
> it's a crap simulation.

I haven't practiced much so far, but I've set the throttle fairly low. Maybe
I'll try some experiments this afternoon (SoCal time).

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 6:14*am, wrote:
> On Apr 26, 11:33 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > Look at the size of a trim surface and the size of the elevator. Think
> > about which one is more powerful. You can't stall a 182 with full
> > trim, but you can with the yoke. OK?
>
> > Cheers
>
> *Don't give the impression that the trim tab is doing the flying. It's
> not. Trim tab down moves the elevator up, and the elevator controls
> the pitch.

The idea was that if he looked at the area of the trim tab he would
realize it cannot generate full surface deflection. I've not tried
winding in full trim with power on to see if a stall results. I would
have guessed that Mr Cessna would not make the trim that powerful...

Cheers

>With some power applied the airplane could stall. Power
> off, not likely; just a slow glide. The 182 has one of the most
> powerful trims I've come across, apart from the 180/185 stabilizer
> trim system that will keep you very busy in an overshoot.
>
> * * *Dan

[Mxsmanic]

I just tried a few experiments.

Wind zero, clear skies, at 6000 feet MSL, engine idle, trim full nose up.
With 20 gallons in the tanks and no payload (something that would be
impossible to try in real life), as I pull back on the yoke, the stall horn
sounds at 43 KIAS, just like the book says, and a stall begins as soon as the
speed falls any further. With full tanks, 480 lbs payload, and idle throttle,
the horn sounds at 50 KIAS, using the same method. At full throttle, same
full tanks and 480 lbs of payload, again carefully pulling the yoke back, the
horn won't sound until about 45 KIAS.

Does that sound right?

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 7:03*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I just tried a few experiments.
>
> Wind zero, clear skies, at 6000 feet MSL, engine idle, trim full nose up.
> With 20 gallons in the tanks and no payload (something that would be
> impossible to try in real life)

Not impossible, you could jump out...

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 7:03*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I just tried a few experiments

No, that doesn't sound right.
The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is reached.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> The 182RG, the REAL airplane, has enough pitch trim to maintain slow
>> flight just above the stall.
>
> I'll continue to experiment.
>

The trim on sims behaves nothing like it does in the real airplane almost
to the point of having a different purpose.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:3296b365-96bd-4b26-a9ba-
:

> On Apr 26, 11:33 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>> Look at the size of a trim surface and the size of the elevator. Think
>> about which one is more powerful. You can't stall a 182 with full
>> trim, but you can with the yoke. OK?
>>
>> Cheers
>
>
> Don't give the impression that the trim tab is doing the flying. It's
> not. Trim tab down moves the elevator up, and the elevator controls
> the pitch. With some power applied the airplane could stall. Power
> off, not likely; just a slow glide. The 182 has one of the most
> powerful trims I've come across, apart from the 180/185 stabilizer
> trim system that will keep you very busy in an overshoot.
>

Actually, there are plenty of airplanes with tabs not much bigger than trim
tabs that use them to fly the airplane. There is no connection whatsoever
between the surface and the stick. All done by the tab. I don;'t think
anyone is making any of them these days. Last new design I can think of is
the DC-8.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> No, that doesn't sound right.
> The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is reached.

It does, but only a second or two before (assuming that airspeed is still
falling). If I take remedial action instantly the stall does not occur.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> No, that doesn't sound right.
>> The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is reached.
>
> It does, but only a second or two before (assuming that airspeed is still
> falling). If I take remedial action instantly the stall does not occur.
>

A stall will never occur. Computers don;'t stal.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Buttman > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps wrote:
>
>> On Apr 27, 7:03Â*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> I just tried a few experiments
>>
>> No, that doesn't sound right.
>> The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is
>> reached.
>>
>> Cheers
>
> "supposed to", but doesn't always. I've flown planes (especially
> cessnas with their crappy cereal-box-toy-quality plastic stall horns)
> that don't go off at all, but will test fine on the ground.
>

What, you didn't stick chewing gum in them to fail them so your students
would learn what it was like when they failed?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Buttman > wrote in news:4813a805$0$30167
:

> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> oxygen is a valuable resource. please stop wasting it.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
> someones grumpy...
>

There you go again. There's a deserving cockroach not getting his fair
share.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Buttman > wrote in news:4813aa40$0$30228
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Buttman > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 27, 7:03Â*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>> I just tried a few experiments
>>>>
>>>> No, that doesn't sound right.
>>>> The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is
>>>> reached.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> "supposed to", but doesn't always. I've flown planes (especially
>>> cessnas with their crappy cereal-box-toy-quality plastic stall horns)
>>> that don't go off at all, but will test fine on the ground.
>>>
>>
>> What, you didn't stick chewing gum in them to fail them so your students
>> would learn what it was like when they failed?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Oh bertie, you're such a card
>
I know. And you're such an idiot.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 1:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Actually, there are plenty of airplanes with tabs not much bigger than trim
> tabs that use them to fly the airplane. There is no connection whatsoever
> between the surface and the stick. All done by the tab. I don;'t think
> anyone is making any of them these days. Last new design I can think of is
> the DC-8.
>
> Bertie

Servo tabs. Sometimes with a spring onto the surface itself, for
low-speed control, and sometimes with no connection other than the
tab's hinge to the surface. But it does move the control surface,
which is what controls the airplane. The tab itself doesn't fly the
airplane. It actually moves in the opposite direction to the surface.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 12:37 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:

> The idea was that if he looked at the area of the trim tab he would
> realize it cannot generate full surface deflection. I've not tried
> winding in full trim with power on to see if a stall results. I would
> have guessed that Mr Cessna would not make the trim that powerful...

It's that powerful. With the trim centered, at full power, you're in
a climb. Rolling in full up trim will make the climb steep enough to
stall the airplane.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Apr 26, 1:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Actually, there are plenty of airplanes with tabs not much bigger
>> than trim tabs that use them to fly the airplane. There is no
>> connection whatsoever between the surface and the stick. All done by
>> the tab. I don;'t think anyone is making any of them these days. Last
>> new design I can think of is the DC-8.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Servo tabs. Sometimes with a spring onto the surface itself, for
> low-speed control, and sometimes with no connection other than the
> tab's hinge to the surface. But it does move the control surface,
> which is what controls the airplane. The tab itself doesn't fly the
> airplane. It actually moves in the opposite direction to the surface.
>

That's right. Lots of biggies used them in the old days. There are also
balance which just aid a conventionally controlled surface in a similar
way. Those I have flown. Generally htey also have a spring tab which is
adjacent and gears down the action of the servo or balance tab. Without the
spring tab the servo or balance tab would make the control surface more
sensitive at higher speeds, so the spring tab acts as a kind of artificial
feel.


Bertie

[Mike Isaksen]

> wrote ...
> WingFlaps wrote:
>> I've not tried winding in full trim with power on to see
>> if a stall results. I would have guessed that Mr Cessna
>> would not make the trim that powerful...
>
> It's that powerful. With the trim centered, at full power,
> you're in a climb. Rolling in full up trim will make the climb
> steep enough to stall the airplane.

Looked at another way, if I trim on base and again on final, I will need two
hands pushing the yoke forward if I mosh the throttle for a go-around (until
I retrim for climbout). My guess is I would stall quite dramatically if I
didn't.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 11:42*am, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> > wrote ...
>
> > *WingFlaps *wrote:
> >> I've not tried winding in full trim with power on to see
> >> if a stall results. I would have guessed that Mr Cessna
> >> would not make the trim that powerful...
>
> > *It's that powerful. With the trim centered, at full power,
> > you're in a climb. Rolling in full up trim will make the climb
> > steep enough to stall the airplane.
>
> Looked at another way, if I trim on base and again on final, I will need two
> hands pushing the yoke forward if I mosh the throttle for a go-around (until
> I retrim for climbout). My guess is I would stall quite dramatically if I
> didn't.

OK I wasn't thinking about full power, just cruise where I was
thinking a nose high mush developing and air speed about 50 knots.

Cheers

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:42:12 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
> wrote:

>
>Looked at another way, if I trim on base and again on final, I will need two
>hands pushing the yoke forward if I mosh the throttle for a go-around (until
>I retrim for climbout). My guess is I would stall quite dramatically if I
>didn't.


My Beech is no different.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> With the trim centered, at full power, you're in
> a climb. Rolling in full up trim will make the climb steep enough to
> stall the airplane.

That's what I see in the sim. Full power and trim set at the take-off notch
takes me into a a steep climb after take-off. With just me and full tanks it
seems to do better than 1500 fpm, at least for a while. Some sources say that
MSFS exaggerates initial climb rates; I don't know if that is true here
(add-on aircraft are usually more rigorous). Seems like a lot for a small
piston single.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> With the trim centered, at full power, you're in
>> a climb. Rolling in full up trim will make the climb steep enough to
>> stall the airplane.
>
> That's what I see in the sim. Full power and trim set at the take-off
> notch takes me into a a steep climb after take-off. With just me and
> full tanks it seems to do better than 1500 fpm, at least for a while.
> Some sources say that MSFS exaggerates initial climb rates; I don't
> know if that is true here (add-on aircraft are usually more rigorous).
> Seems like a lot for a small piston single.
>

You are dumber than **** Anthony. Try reading what the poster put in
before fantasizing about your sim. Try flying a small single before
pontificating about its capabilities. YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA.

[Tina]

If you show significant climb rate with a single piston your sim is
smoking tobacco substitute.

On Apr 26, 9:53*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > With the trim centered, at full power, you're in
> > a climb. Rolling in full up trim will make the climb steep enough to
> > stall the airplane.
>
> That's what I see in the sim. *Full power and trim set at the take-off notch
> takes me into a a steep climb after take-off. *With just me and full tanks it
> seems to do better than 1500 fpm, at least for a while. *Some sources say that
> MSFS exaggerates initial climb rates; I don't know if that is true here
> (add-on aircraft are usually more rigorous). *Seems like a lot for a small
> piston single.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 3:56 pm, Buttman > wrote:

> "supposed to", but doesn't always. I've flown planes (especially cessnas
> with their crappy cereal-box-toy-quality plastic stall horns) that don't go
> off at all, but will test fine on the ground.

That's not hard to fix. The plastic fitting inside the leading
edge cracks and leaks. Sometimes the sun's heat warps and shrinks the
fitting so that it no longer seals against the LE and leaks at that
point, too. Any leakage will kill the horn. The horn itself has a
little replaceable reed in it, costs something like 79 cents from
Cessna. And I think that leaky cabin doors sometimes have something to
do with it; the horn uses suction to drive it, and a leaky door (among
other things) can drop the cabin pressure a little, reducing the
differential so that the horn doesn't sound well. The older and better
system (still used on more expensive Cessnas and other airplanes) has
the vane that works a $300 microswitch assembly to fire an electric
horn. The microswitch gets dust in it and doesn't contact properly, so
you soak it in some brake cleaner or isopropyl and blow it out,
clicking it all the while.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 5:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 1:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Actually, there are plenty of airplanes with tabs not much bigger
> >> than trim tabs that use them to fly the airplane. There is no
> >> connection whatsoever between the surface and the stick. All done by
> >> the tab. I don;'t think anyone is making any of them these days. Last
> >> new design I can think of is the DC-8.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Servo tabs. Sometimes with a spring onto the surface itself, for
> > low-speed control, and sometimes with no connection other than the
> > tab's hinge to the surface. But it does move the control surface,
> > which is what controls the airplane. The tab itself doesn't fly the
> > airplane. It actually moves in the opposite direction to the surface.
>
> That's right. Lots of biggies used them in the old days. There are also
> balance which just aid a conventionally controlled surface in a similar
> way. Those I have flown. Generally htey also have a spring tab which is
> adjacent and gears down the action of the servo or balance tab. Without the
> spring tab the servo or balance tab would make the control surface more
> sensitive at higher speeds, so the spring tab acts as a kind of artificial
> feel.
>
> Bertie

A good description of servo tabs:
http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch6.htm
Click on figure 6.2 to get a decent picture.

Balance tab:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/control/TH28G6.jpg

Antiservo tab:
http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/aeml/airframeimages/antiservotab.jpg

Bar tab:
http://www.geographia.com/antiguanews/messages/7/5609.jpg

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > WingFlaps writes:
>
> >> No, that doesn't sound right.
> >> The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is reached.
>
> > It does, but only a second or two before (assuming that airspeed is still
> > falling). If I take remedial action instantly the stall does not occur.
>
> A stall will never occur. Computers don;'t stal.
>
> Bertie

Pretty close, though. Microsoft stuff has a reputation for slowing
down, and crashing. That could be a stall simulation....

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Apr 26, 5:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:130b251b-ab31-48e8-aa1d-

>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 26, 1:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> Actually, there are plenty of airplanes with tabs not much bigger
>> >> than trim tabs that use them to fly the airplane. There is no
>> >> connection whatsoever between the surface and the stick. All done
>> >> by the tab. I don;'t think anyone is making any of them these
>> >> days. Last new design I can think of is the DC-8.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Servo tabs. Sometimes with a spring onto the surface itself,
>> > for
>> > low-speed control, and sometimes with no connection other than the
>> > tab's hinge to the surface. But it does move the control surface,
>> > which is what controls the airplane. The tab itself doesn't fly the
>> > airplane. It actually moves in the opposite direction to the
>> > surface.
>>
>> That's right. Lots of biggies used them in the old days. There are
>> also balance which just aid a conventionally controlled surface in a
>> similar way. Those I have flown. Generally htey also have a spring
>> tab which is adjacent and gears down the action of the servo or
>> balance tab. Without the spring tab the servo or balance tab would
>> make the control surface more sensitive at higher speeds, so the
>> spring tab acts as a kind of artificial feel.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> A good description of servo tabs:
> http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch6.htm
> Click on figure 6.2 to get a decent picture.
>
> Balance tab:
> http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/control/TH2
8
> G6.jpg
>
> Antiservo tab:
> http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/aeml/airframeimages/antiservota
b
> .jpg
>
> Bar tab:
> http://www.geographia.com/antiguanews/messages/7/5609.jpg
>


Heh heh.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Apr 26, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > WingFlaps writes:
>>
>> >> No, that doesn't sound right.
>> >> The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is
>> >> reached.
>>
>> > It does, but only a second or two before (assuming that airspeed is
>> > still falling). If I take remedial action instantly the stall does
>> > not occur.
>>
>> A stall will never occur. Computers don;'t stal.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Pretty close, though. Microsoft stuff has a reputation for slowing
> down, and crashing. That could be a stall simulation....
>

Groan!


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> If you show significant climb rate with a single piston your sim is
> smoking tobacco substitute.

How much is significant, and which single pistons?

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 28, 1:16*am, Clark > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:1cd20dfa-3cfb-489a-9fee-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 6:14*am, wrote:
> >> On Apr 26, 11:33 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >> > Look at the size of a trim surface and the size of the elevator. Think
> >> > about which one is more powerful. You can't stall a 182 with full
> >> > trim, but you can with the yoke. OK?
>
> >> > Cheers
>
> >> *Don't give the impression that the trim tab is doing the flying. It's
> >> not. Trim tab down moves the elevator up, and the elevator controls
> >> the pitch.
>
> > The idea was that if he looked at the area of the trim tab he would
> > realize it cannot generate full surface deflection. I've not tried
> > winding in full trim with power on to see if a stall results. I would
> > have guessed that Mr Cessna would not make the trim that powerful...
>
> The trim stall is on the Jeppesen syllabus to be demonstrated as part of PPL
> training...
>

Yes that's for full power which is not what I was thinking MX was
talking about.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> If you show significant climb rate with a single piston your sim is
>> smoking tobacco substitute.
>
> How much is significant,

However many you are smoking, it's obviously too much.


Bertie

[Dave[_19_]]

Umm..

A guy here is bulding a plane called a "Rocket" (similar to an RV,
single engine piston).

Specs indicate it has an ROC of 3000 fpm..

With the freakin engine they are shoehorning in it, it will be
ballistic.

That's not "significant"?

:)

Dave





Thats not On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:07:56 -0700 (PDT), Tina
> wrote:

>If you show significant climb rate with a single piston your sim is
>smoking tobacco substitute.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 27, 6:58 pm, Dave > wrote:
> Umm..
>
> A guy here is bulding a plane called a "Rocket" (similar to an RV,
> single engine piston).
>
> Specs indicate it has an ROC of 3000 fpm..
>
> With the freakin engine they are shoehorning in it, it will be
> ballistic.
>
> That's not "significant"?
>
> :)
>
> Dave
>
> Thats not On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:07:56 -0700 (PDT), Tina
>
> > wrote:
> >If you show significant climb rate with a single piston your sim is
> >smoking tobacco substitute.

Harmon Rocket. I've seen one fly. Makes almost any other
piston single look anemic.
http://www.harmonrocket.com/specsprofnew.htm

Dan

[Dave[_19_]]

That's the one, and this one is getting ALL the toys... nothing being
spared, and the the engine is being "breathed upon" as well :)

Actually, I find there are several (SEL, piston) that will do 2000
FPM +.

Dave


On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:23:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>
> Harmon Rocket. I've seen one fly. Makes almost any other
>piston single look anemic.
>http://www.harmonrocket.com/specsprofnew.htm
>
> Dan

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> writes:
>>
>>> The 182RG, the REAL airplane, has enough pitch trim to maintain slow
>>> flight just above the stall.
>>
>> I'll continue to experiment.
>>
>
> The trim on sims behaves nothing like it does in the real airplane almost
> to the point of having a different purpose.
>
>
> Bertie

Coaching your little brother a bit. How nice! Did you two kiss and make up?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>
>>> I've flown a few that couldn't even be trimmed for slow flight or
>>> approach ( pre war stuff) The trim was apparently only considered to
>>> be useful for cruise.
>>
>> Interesting. I was flying my simulated Cessna 182 and it didn't seem
>> like the pitch trim fully deflected the elevators even with the trim
>> all the way over (that is, I could still move the yoke to get even
>> further deflection). It sounds like this is true to life.
>
> Nothing about a sim is true to life. It's a toy. Different airplanes have
> different authorits. i can loop my Citabira with the pitch trim.
>
>
> Bertie

YEAH!!!! Sure ya can lamer.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Buttman" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Buttman > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 27, 7:03 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>> I just tried a few experiments
>>>>
>>>> No, that doesn't sound right.
>>>> The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is
>>>> reached.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> "supposed to", but doesn't always. I've flown planes (especially
>>> cessnas with their crappy cereal-box-toy-quality plastic stall horns)
>>> that don't go off at all, but will test fine on the ground.
>>>
>>
>> What, you didn't stick chewing gum in them to fail them so your students
>> would learn what it was like when they failed?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Oh bertie, you're such a card

Na, not really. Just a self made prick.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Buttman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Buttman > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 27, 7:03 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>> I just tried a few experiments
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that doesn't sound right.
>>>>> The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is
>>>>> reached.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> "supposed to", but doesn't always. I've flown planes (especially
>>>> cessnas with their crappy cereal-box-toy-quality plastic stall
>>>> horns) that don't go off at all, but will test fine on the ground.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What, you didn't stick chewing gum in them to fail them so your
>>> students would learn what it was like when they failed?
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Oh bertie, you're such a card
>
> Na, not really. Just a self made prick.
>

Moi? never. Nope. I just treat people exactly as the expect to be
treated.


Fjukktard.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> The 182RG, the REAL airplane, has enough pitch trim to maintain
>>>> slow flight just above the stall.
>>>
>>> I'll continue to experiment.
>>>
>>
>> The trim on sims behaves nothing like it does in the real airplane
>> almost to the point of having a different purpose.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Coaching your little brother a bit. How nice! Did you two kiss and
> make up?
>

Oh ouch.

You really know how to get to me, don;t you?

Oh wait..


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>
>>>> I've flown a few that couldn't even be trimmed for slow flight or
>>>> approach ( pre war stuff) The trim was apparently only considered
>>>> to be useful for cruise.
>>>
>>> Interesting. I was flying my simulated Cessna 182 and it didn't
>>> seem like the pitch trim fully deflected the elevators even with the
>>> trim all the way over (that is, I could still move the yoke to get
>>> even further deflection). It sounds like this is true to life.
>>
>> Nothing about a sim is true to life. It's a toy. Different airplanes
>> have different authorits. i can loop my Citabira with the pitch trim.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> YEAH!!!! Sure ya can lamer.


As if your belief one way or another makes a difference.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:HncRj.58645$QC.35221
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've flown a few that couldn't even be trimmed for slow flight or
>>>>>> approach ( pre war stuff) The trim was apparently only considered
>>>>>> to be useful for cruise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. I was flying my simulated Cessna 182 and it didn't
>>>>> seem like the pitch trim fully deflected the elevators even with
the
>>>>> trim all the way over (that is, I could still move the yoke to get
>>>>> even further deflection). It sounds like this is true to life.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing about a sim is true to life. It's a toy. Different
airplanes
>>>> have different authorits. i can loop my Citabira with the pitch
trim.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> YEAH!!!! Sure ya can lamer.
>>
>>
>> As if your belief one way or another makes a difference.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Yeah, no ****. As if yours does either wannabe.
>
>

Mine? mine doesn't matter at all...Only your performance matters...


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I've flown a few that couldn't even be trimmed for slow flight or
>>>>> approach ( pre war stuff) The trim was apparently only considered
>>>>> to be useful for cruise.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. I was flying my simulated Cessna 182 and it didn't
>>>> seem like the pitch trim fully deflected the elevators even with the
>>>> trim all the way over (that is, I could still move the yoke to get
>>>> even further deflection). It sounds like this is true to life.
>>>
>>> Nothing about a sim is true to life. It's a toy. Different airplanes
>>> have different authorits. i can loop my Citabira with the pitch trim.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> YEAH!!!! Sure ya can lamer.
>
>
> As if your belief one way or another makes a difference.
>
> Bertie
>

Yeah, no ****. As if yours does either wannabe.

[Peter Dohm]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've flown a few that couldn't even be trimmed for slow flight or
>>>>>> approach ( pre war stuff) The trim was apparently only considered
>>>>>> to be useful for cruise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. I was flying my simulated Cessna 182 and it didn't
>>>>> seem like the pitch trim fully deflected the elevators even with the
>>>>> trim all the way over (that is, I could still move the yoke to get
>>>>> even further deflection). It sounds like this is true to life.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing about a sim is true to life. It's a toy. Different airplanes
>>>> have different authorits. i can loop my Citabira with the pitch trim.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> YEAH!!!! Sure ya can lamer.
>>
>>
>> As if your belief one way or another makes a difference.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Yeah, no ****. As if yours does either wannabe.
>
Well, Max, in addition to my other doubts, I now doubt that you ever even
flew a "thrown" model as a kid!

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've flown a few that couldn't even be trimmed for slow flight
>>>>>>> or approach ( pre war stuff) The trim was apparently only
>>>>>>> considered to be useful for cruise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. I was flying my simulated Cessna 182 and it didn't
>>>>>> seem like the pitch trim fully deflected the elevators even with
>>>>>> the trim all the way over (that is, I could still move the yoke
>>>>>> to get even further deflection). It sounds like this is true to
>>>>>> life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing about a sim is true to life. It's a toy. Different
>>>>> airplanes have different authorits. i can loop my Citabira with
>>>>> the pitch trim.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> YEAH!!!! Sure ya can lamer.
>>>
>>>
>>> As if your belief one way or another makes a difference.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, no ****. As if yours does either wannabe.
>>
> Well, Max, in addition to my other doubts, I now doubt that you ever
> even flew a "thrown" model as a kid!

They're properly called a Hand Launched Glider, or HLG or "chuck"
glider.


Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:09:16 -0800, Scott Skylane
> wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>/snip/
>> trim has nothing to do with the movement limits on control surfaces.
>>
>/snip/
>
>Stealth,
>
>This is not universally true. On the Douglas DC-6, for instance,
>elevator "up" travel is limited by the elevator trim position. Dialing
>in the last 5 degrees of nose up trim allows an extra 3 degrees of
>elevator "up" travel. This was done to limit elevator "up" movement
>with aft CG loading conditions.
>
>Happy Flying!
>Scott Skylane

ok you successfully cite the one instance possibly :-) I defer to your
knowledge of the obscure.

stops of the type I mentioned are a mandated requirement in my country
for the environment I play in.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:39:26 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Apr 26, 3:56 pm, Buttman > wrote:
>
>> "supposed to", but doesn't always. I've flown planes (especially cessnas
>> with their crappy cereal-box-toy-quality plastic stall horns) that don't go
>> off at all, but will test fine on the ground.
>
> That's not hard to fix. The plastic fitting inside the leading
>edge cracks and leaks. Sometimes the sun's heat warps and shrinks the
>fitting so that it no longer seals against the LE and leaks at that
>point, too. Any leakage will kill the horn. The horn itself has a
>little replaceable reed in it, costs something like 79 cents from
>Cessna. And I think that leaky cabin doors sometimes have something to
>do with it; the horn uses suction to drive it, and a leaky door (among
>other things) can drop the cabin pressure a little, reducing the
>differential so that the horn doesn't sound well. The older and better
>system (still used on more expensive Cessnas and other airplanes) has
>the vane that works a $300 microswitch assembly to fire an electric
>horn. The microswitch gets dust in it and doesn't contact properly, so
>you soak it in some brake cleaner or isopropyl and blow it out,
>clicking it all the while.
>
> Dan

$300 ????????????

the microswitch in my Tailwind cost $1.25 from Tandy. it is held in
with tape to make a jamb fit.
been working perfectly for 300 hours flying.

Stealth Pilot

[Peter Dohm]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:09:16 -0800, Scott Skylane
> > wrote:
>
>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>/snip/
>>> trim has nothing to do with the movement limits on control surfaces.
>>>
>>/snip/
>>
>>Stealth,
>>
>>This is not universally true. On the Douglas DC-6, for instance,
>>elevator "up" travel is limited by the elevator trim position. Dialing
>>in the last 5 degrees of nose up trim allows an extra 3 degrees of
>>elevator "up" travel. This was done to limit elevator "up" movement
>>with aft CG loading conditions.
>>
>>Happy Flying!
>>Scott Skylane
>
> ok you successfully cite the one instance possibly :-) I defer to your
> knowledge of the obscure.
>
> stops of the type I mentioned are a mandated requirement in my country
> for the environment I play in.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Not nearly so obscure as you sugest. Aircraft with a fully trimming
stabilizer have a result result of adding to the effective elevator
authority--examples are the Piper Cub and all of the "straight tail"
Mooneys.

Peter

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-28, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
> $300 ????????????
>
> the microswitch in my Tailwind cost $1.25 from Tandy. it is held in
> with tape to make a jamb fit.
> been working perfectly for 300 hours flying.

That's the difference between a certified aircraft (the Cessna) and an
experimental/amateur built (where you don't have to use approved parts,
just a part fit for purpose).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 28, 9:36 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

> $300 ????????????
>
> the microswitch in my Tailwind cost $1.25 from Tandy. it is held in
> with tape to make a jamb fit.
> been working perfectly for 300 hours flying.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Works for a Tailwind, a homebuilt. Ain't legal in a certified
airplane, since the regs demand that the parts as listed in the
manufacturer's parts manual be used, and they know that, so they
charge lots for them.
So that's why my own airplane is a homebuilt.

Dan

[Peter Dohm]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-04-28, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>> $300 ????????????
>>
>> the microswitch in my Tailwind cost $1.25 from Tandy. it is held in
>> with tape to make a jamb fit.
>> been working perfectly for 300 hours flying.
>
> That's the difference between a certified aircraft (the Cessna) and an
> experimental/amateur built (where you don't have to use approved parts,
> just a part fit for purpose).
>
> --
> From the sunny Isle of Man.
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

This is an interesting issue, and the real answer is not necessarily
intuitive. In a type certified aircraft, the switch would need to be have
appropriate paperwork with a chain of custody attesting that it meets the
appropriate standards; and may need to be installed by an airframe mechanic.

I have been away from that industry for about twenty years, so some of the
regulations have changed, and was a radio repairman (rather than a mechanic)
at the time. However, for anyone operating a type certified aircraft, who
really wants to know the "straight and skinny" on this sort of issue, the
place to start in the USA is your local FSDO--before you do anything to the
aircraft. Ask for the Safety Program Manager for Airworthiness and he
should be able to point you to the correct office and/or litterature.

The point is that a common electrical part probably does not need to come
from the airframe manufacturer; but it is not "free stock" either. However,
don't be surprised if the airframe manufacturer turns out to be the best and
most economical source--when I was a radio repairman, the avionics
manufacturers were frequently the best and most economical sources of
standard parts for their equipment.

Peter

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:43:49 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:09:16 -0800, Scott Skylane
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>/snip/
>>>> trim has nothing to do with the movement limits on control surfaces.
>>>>
>>>/snip/
>>>
>>>Stealth,
>>>
>>>This is not universally true. On the Douglas DC-6, for instance,
>>>elevator "up" travel is limited by the elevator trim position. Dialing
>>>in the last 5 degrees of nose up trim allows an extra 3 degrees of
>>>elevator "up" travel. This was done to limit elevator "up" movement
>>>with aft CG loading conditions.
>>>
>>>Happy Flying!
>>>Scott Skylane
>>
>> ok you successfully cite the one instance possibly :-) I defer to your
>> knowledge of the obscure.
>>
>> stops of the type I mentioned are a mandated requirement in my country
>> for the environment I play in.
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>Not nearly so obscure as you sugest. Aircraft with a fully trimming
>stabilizer have a result result of adding to the effective elevator
>authority--examples are the Piper Cub and all of the "straight tail"
>Mooneys.
>
>Peter
>
>
ermmmm. trim has nothing to do with the control surface stops. they
are fixed to the airframe and work as their name suggests.

Stealth Pilot

[Peter Dohm]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:43:49 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:09:16 -0800, Scott Skylane
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>>/snip/
>>>>> trim has nothing to do with the movement limits on control surfaces.
>>>>>
>>>>/snip/
>>>>
>>>>Stealth,
>>>>
>>>>This is not universally true. On the Douglas DC-6, for instance,
>>>>elevator "up" travel is limited by the elevator trim position. Dialing
>>>>in the last 5 degrees of nose up trim allows an extra 3 degrees of
>>>>elevator "up" travel. This was done to limit elevator "up" movement
>>>>with aft CG loading conditions.
>>>>
>>>>Happy Flying!
>>>>Scott Skylane
>>>
>>> ok you successfully cite the one instance possibly :-) I defer to your
>>> knowledge of the obscure.
>>>
>>> stops of the type I mentioned are a mandated requirement in my country
>>> for the environment I play in.
>>>
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>>Not nearly so obscure as you sugest. Aircraft with a fully trimming
>>stabilizer have a result result of adding to the effective elevator
>>authority--examples are the Piper Cub and all of the "straight tail"
>>Mooneys.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
> ermmmm. trim has nothing to do with the control surface stops. they
> are fixed to the airframe and work as their name suggests.
>
> Stealth Pilot

OK, I was thinking of the effect rather than the mechanism of changing the
limit of travel relative to a fixed stabilizer.

Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> ... when I was a radio repairman, the avionics
> manufacturers were frequently the best and most economical sources of
> standard parts for their equipment.

So how did the other sources (if there were any) stay in business?

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 30, 12:44*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:43:49 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:09:16 -0800, Scott Skylane
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
> >>>>/snip/
> >>>>> trim has nothing to do with the movement limits on control surfaces.
>
> >>>>/snip/
>
> >>>>Stealth,
>
> >>>>This is not universally true. *On the Douglas DC-6, for instance,
> >>>>elevator "up" travel is limited by the elevator trim position. *Dialing
> >>>>in the last 5 degrees of nose up trim allows an extra 3 degrees of
> >>>>elevator "up" travel. *This was done to limit elevator "up" movement
> >>>>with aft CG loading conditions.
>
> >>>>Happy Flying!
> >>>>Scott Skylane
>
> >>> ok you successfully cite the one instance possibly :-) I defer to your
> >>> knowledge of the obscure.
>
> >>> stops of the type I mentioned are a mandated requirement in my country
> >>> for the environment I play in.
>
> >>> Stealth Pilot
>
> >>Not nearly so obscure as you sugest. *Aircraft with a fully trimming
> >>stabilizer have a result result of adding to the effective elevator
> >>authority--examples are the Piper Cub and all of the "straight tail"
> >>Mooneys.
>
> >>Peter
>
> > ermmmm. trim has nothing to do with the control surface stops. they
> > are fixed to the airframe and work as their name suggests.
>
> > Stealth Pilot
>
> OK, I was thinking of the effect rather than the mechanism of changing the
> limit of travel relative to a fixed stabilizer.
>

I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it. Explain
please?

Cheers

[Peter Dohm]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 12:44 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:43:49 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:09:16 -0800, Scott Skylane
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
> >>>>/snip/
> >>>>> trim has nothing to do with the movement limits on control surfaces.
>
> >>>>/snip/
>
> >>>>Stealth,
>
> >>>>This is not universally true. On the Douglas DC-6, for instance,
> >>>>elevator "up" travel is limited by the elevator trim position. Dialing
> >>>>in the last 5 degrees of nose up trim allows an extra 3 degrees of
> >>>>elevator "up" travel. This was done to limit elevator "up" movement
> >>>>with aft CG loading conditions.
>
> >>>>Happy Flying!
> >>>>Scott Skylane
>
> >>> ok you successfully cite the one instance possibly :-) I defer to your
> >>> knowledge of the obscure.
>
> >>> stops of the type I mentioned are a mandated requirement in my country
> >>> for the environment I play in.
>
> >>> Stealth Pilot
>
> >>Not nearly so obscure as you sugest. Aircraft with a fully trimming
> >>stabilizer have a result result of adding to the effective elevator
> >>authority--examples are the Piper Cub and all of the "straight tail"
> >>Mooneys.
>
> >>Peter
>
> > ermmmm. trim has nothing to do with the control surface stops. they
> > are fixed to the airframe and work as their name suggests.
>
> > Stealth Pilot
>
> OK, I was thinking of the effect rather than the mechanism of changing the
> limit of travel relative to a fixed stabilizer.
>

I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it. Explain
please?

Cheers

There was a brief discussion of elevator trim systems, the such that the
elevator trim setting also modified the stop/limit setting of the elevator.
I mentioned the case of the fully trimmng stabilizer, which also has
aerodynamic the effect of modifying the effective limit of the
elevator--even though the mechanical limit relative to the horizontal
stabilizer would typically remain unchanged. However that is a different
type of control system, just as a fully flying stabilizer (a/k/a stabilator)
is a third type.

I presume that there are other aircraft, beside the DC-6/DC-7 already
mentioned, on which the trim setting directly modifies the mechanical limits
of the elevator control; but the issue appears to be beyond the research
that my present curiosity can justify--and, in that regard, it appears that
I am not alone.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:

> I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
> direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it. Explain
> please?
>
> Cheers

The trim tab generates a force that moves the trailing edge of
the control surface. So if you trim nose-up, you'll be moving the tab
downward, where it forces the elevator up. Next time you fly an
airplane with an elevator trim tab, like a Cessna, hold the yoke back
so you can see the trim tab, and roll in nose-up trim and see which
direction the tab moves.
See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trim_tab

An excerpt:
"When a trim tab is employed, it is moved into the slipstream
opposite to the control surface's desired deflection. For example, in
order to trim an elevator to hold the nose down, the elevator's trim
tab will actually rise up into the slipstream. The increased pressure
on top of the trim tab surface caused by raising it will then deflect
the entire elevator slab down slightly, causing the tail to rise and
the aircraft's nose to move down."

Or page 169 of this:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=C8ZUBjtLXjEC&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=elevator+trim+tab&source=web&ots=x-CMg6i_Yn&sig=5CFS1273AHHn4olFYnx1vTlVZUY&hl=en

Dan

[Peter Dohm]

> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
> direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it. Explain
> please?
>
> Cheers
>
Sorry, I misread the question and answered mainly based upon the location in
the thread.

You are correct that some effective area is taken away, but the amount of
"lost" area is small and easily taken into account in the design--whereas
the reduction of pilot workload is great. Also, under normal conditions,
the limitation on elevator authority is the setting of the mechanical stop
rather than the area.

Peter

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it. Explain
> > please?
>
> > Cheers
>
> * * * *The trim tab generates a force that moves the trailing edge of
> the control surface. So if you trim nose-up, you'll be moving the tab
> downward, where it forces the elevator up.

Yes that is exactly what I said. So, does the trim actually improve
control responsiveness or not?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
:

> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
>> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.
Explain
>> > please?
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> * * * *The trim tab generates a force that moves the trailing edge
> of
>> the control surface. So if you trim nose-up, you'll be moving the tab
>> downward, where it forces the elevator up.
>
> Yes that is exactly what I said. So, does the trim actually improve
> control responsiveness or not?

Do you mean if oyu move the trim tab in the same direction as the
elevator? IN general, yes, it will.


Bertie
>
> Cheers
>
>
>

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 30, 11:05*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it. Explain
> > please?
>
> > Cheers
>
> Sorry, I misread the question and answered mainly based upon the location in
> the thread.
>
> You are correct that some effective area is taken away, but the amount of
> "lost" area is small and easily taken into account in the design--whereas
> the reduction of pilot workload is great. *Also, under normal conditions,
> the limitation on elevator authority is the setting of the mechanical stop
> rather than the area.
>

Ah, OK thanks.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 30, 12:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
> >> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
> >> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.
> Explain
> >> > please?
>
> >> > Cheers
>
> >> * * * *The trim tab generates a force that moves the trailing edge
> > *of
> >> the control surface. So if you trim nose-up, you'll be moving the tab
> >> downward, where it forces the elevator up.
>
> > Yes that is exactly what I said. So, does the trim actually improve
> > control responsiveness or not?
>
> Do you mean if oyu move the trim tab in the same direction as the
> elevator? IN general, yes, it will.
>
> Bertie
>

Thanks, I guess it adds a bit of camber in that direction and takes it
away in the opposite direction...

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:8107e6ea-0c5c-460c-8b38-
:

> On Apr 30, 12:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote in news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-
9e97-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
>> >> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> >> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
>> >> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.
>> Explain
>> >> > please?
>>
>> >> > Cheers
>>
>> >> * * * *The trim tab generates a force that moves the trailing e
> dge
>> > *of
>> >> the control surface. So if you trim nose-up, you'll be moving the
tab
>> >> downward, where it forces the elevator up.
>>
>> > Yes that is exactly what I said. So, does the trim actually improve
>> > control responsiveness or not?
>>
>> Do you mean if oyu move the trim tab in the same direction as the
>> elevator? IN general, yes, it will.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Thanks, I guess it adds a bit of camber in that direction and takes it
> away in the opposite direction...

Yes, but of course there would be exceptions. Lots of lightplanes with
stabilators have an anti balance tabe ( more commonly known,
incorrectly, as an anti servo tab) which increases authority and adds
feel to the control stick. I once flew a homebuilt Pitts that had no
tabs on the elevators at all. The pitch control was indescribably light.
Scarily light. I and others found the airplane such a handful that the
owner added a trim/anti-balance tab.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 6:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Do you mean if oyu move the trim tab in the same direction as the
> elevator? IN general, yes, it will.

In general. Control surface deflections are part of the type
certificate data, and it's to make sure there's enough control
authority without stalling the control surface. Too much travel would
do that, and I think that having an elevator tab full-up, say, and
then using full-up elevator, could start the tab stalling a little,
maybe enough to stall the elevator itself. Never seen it though.
I remember a story by some guy who found that his elevator was
jammed somehow and he couldn't get full up travel while in flight. He
was able to get enough authority to flare using some power and full
nose-down trim, which raised the tab and helped raise the nose, though
he had to pull pretty hard against that trim.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:96353123-74d2-46a1-a81a-
:

> On Apr 29, 6:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Do you mean if oyu move the trim tab in the same direction as the
>> elevator? IN general, yes, it will.
>
> In general. Control surface deflections are part of the type
> certificate data, and it's to make sure there's enough control
> authority without stalling the control surface. Too much travel would
> do that, and I think that having an elevator tab full-up, say, and
> then using full-up elevator, could start the tab stalling a little,
> maybe enough to stall the elevator itself. Never seen it though.
> I remember a story by some guy who found that his elevator was
> jammed somehow and he couldn't get full up travel while in flight. He
> was able to get enough authority to flare using some power and full
> nose-down trim, which raised the tab and helped raise the nose, though
> he had to pull pretty hard against that trim.
>


I know someone who had an elevator jam (no up) after doing aerobatics in
a glider. A Blanik. The rear seat cushion had come loose and jammed the
stick slightly forward. He managed to land using the elevator trim in
it's reverse sense. I'm sure it happened fairly often in combat in WW2.
After that it would have been all boosted controls anyway..

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> wrote in news:96353123-74d2-46a1-a81a-
> :
>
>> On Apr 29, 6:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>> Do you mean if oyu move the trim tab in the same direction as the
>>> elevator? IN general, yes, it will.
>>
>> In general. Control surface deflections are part of the type
>> certificate data, and it's to make sure there's enough control
>> authority without stalling the control surface. Too much travel would
>> do that, and I think that having an elevator tab full-up, say, and
>> then using full-up elevator, could start the tab stalling a little,
>> maybe enough to stall the elevator itself. Never seen it though.
>> I remember a story by some guy who found that his elevator was
>> jammed somehow and he couldn't get full up travel while in flight. He
>> was able to get enough authority to flare using some power and full
>> nose-down trim, which raised the tab and helped raise the nose, though
>> he had to pull pretty hard against that trim.
>>
>
>
> I know someone who had an elevator jam (no up) after doing aerobatics in
> a glider. A Blanik. The rear seat cushion had come loose and jammed the
> stick slightly forward. He managed to land using the elevator trim in
> it's reverse sense. I'm sure it happened fairly often in combat in WW2.
> After that it would have been all boosted controls anyway..
>
> Bertie
>

Sure you did Bertie, you know everyone, have done everything, have seen
everything,,,,, except the way we see you.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Buttman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> Buttman > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 27, 7:03 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>>> I just tried a few experiments
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that doesn't sound right.
>>>>>> The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is
>>>>>> reached.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> "supposed to", but doesn't always. I've flown planes (especially
>>>>> cessnas with their crappy cereal-box-toy-quality plastic stall
>>>>> horns) that don't go off at all, but will test fine on the ground.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What, you didn't stick chewing gum in them to fail them so your
>>>> students would learn what it was like when they failed?
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Oh bertie, you're such a card
>>
>> Na, not really. Just a self made prick.
>>
>
> Moi? never. Nope. I just treat people exactly as the expect to be
> treated.
>
>
> Fjukktard.
>
>
> Bertie

So you want people to follow you around and call you a Fjukktard?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:rG8Sj.111613$Ft5.59820
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Buttman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Buttman > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 7:03 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>>>> I just tried a few experiments
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, that doesn't sound right.
>>>>>>> The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is
>>>>>>> reached.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "supposed to", but doesn't always. I've flown planes (especially
>>>>>> cessnas with their crappy cereal-box-toy-quality plastic stall
>>>>>> horns) that don't go off at all, but will test fine on the
ground.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What, you didn't stick chewing gum in them to fail them so your
>>>>> students would learn what it was like when they failed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> Oh bertie, you're such a card
>>>
>>> Na, not really. Just a self made prick.
>>>
>>
>> Moi? never. Nope. I just treat people exactly as the expect to be
>> treated.
>>
>>
>> Fjukktard.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> So you want people to follow you around and call you a Fjukktard?
>


I don;t want them to, but they can if they like.

You recommend it do you, heroin boi?



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:rG8Sj.111613$Ft5.59820
> @newsfe15.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Buttman" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Buttman > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 7:03 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I just tried a few experiments
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, that doesn't sound right.
>>>>>>>> The stall horn is supposed to sound before the stall speed is
>>>>>>>> reached.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "supposed to", but doesn't always. I've flown planes (especially
>>>>>>> cessnas with their crappy cereal-box-toy-quality plastic stall
>>>>>>> horns) that don't go off at all, but will test fine on the
> ground.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What, you didn't stick chewing gum in them to fail them so your
>>>>>> students would learn what it was like when they failed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh bertie, you're such a card
>>>>
>>>> Na, not really. Just a self made prick.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Moi? never. Nope. I just treat people exactly as the expect to be
>>> treated.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fjukktard.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> So you want people to follow you around and call you a Fjukktard?
>>
>
>
> I don;t want them to, but they can if they like.
>
> You recommend it do you, heroin boi?
>
>
>
> Bertie

That's what you said dip ****. Try to keep up, uh?

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I'm not sure I understand: Are you saying that you can do slow flight in
> the
> sim as in the real aircraft, except that you have to do it by instruments,
> or
> are you saying that the sim doesn't correctly simulate slow flight at all
> (i.e., it can't be done)?

Sorry, I lost this thread beneath the avalanche of Bertie/Maxwell crap.
It's amazing the depths to which so-called "real" aviators can sink.

Anyway, the former is correct. Other than engine sound there is no "feel"
in the sim, so everything in slow flight mus be done on instruments.
Interestingly, we were trying to spin one of the Mustangs (that comes with
the Acceleration package), and were unable to do so. It just would not
break, even fully cross-controlled at the stall. Perhaps Dudley can comment
on this, as I was under the impression that Mustangs would spin pretty
easily.

> Also, are you using the default aircraft or have you installed add-on
> aircraft? For the Cessna I'm flying, I use Carenado's Cessna 182RG II
> simulation, which is supposedly pretty good (vastly better than the
> default
> Cessna, of course).

Nope, I was referring to default aircraft.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>>Looked at another way, if I trim on base and again on final, I will need
>>two
>>hands pushing the yoke forward if I mosh the throttle for a go-around
>>(until
>>I retrim for climbout). My guess is I would stall quite dramatically if I
>>didn't.
>
>
> My Beech is no different.

Same with my Piper -- and every other plane I've flown, with the exception
of the Ercoupe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>If you show significant climb rate with a single piston your sim is
>smoking tobacco substitute.

1500 fpm climb isn't unreasonable in a lightly loaded 182 on a cold day.

Our Pathfinder (basically a "Piper 182", with the wing on the proper side)
easily hits 1500 fpm with just Mary and me on board in the winter.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-05-01, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>If you show significant climb rate with a single piston your sim is
>>smoking tobacco substitute.
>
> 1500 fpm climb isn't unreasonable in a lightly loaded 182 on a cold day.

Unfortunately, "significant" is one of those weasel words: you can argue
that 1500 fpm is 'not a significant climb rate', but someone else can
argue that 500 fpm is significant :-)

Many light singles can do 1500 fpm or better, not even on a cold day.
The S-35 Bonanza we used to have in the club would do 1800 fpm with two
on board. Our 160 hp Auster will happily do 1600 fpm... at 60 mph
(leading to a pretty decent climb angle). I bet a Super Cub with a
similar engine could do that too.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand: Are you saying that you can do slow flight
>> in the
>> sim as in the real aircraft, except that you have to do it by
>> instruments, or
>> are you saying that the sim doesn't correctly simulate slow flight at all
>> (i.e., it can't be done)?
>
> Sorry, I lost this thread beneath the avalanche of Bertie/Maxwell crap.
> It's amazing the depths to which so-called "real" aviators can sink.
>
> Anyway, the former is correct. Other than engine sound there is no
> "feel" in the sim, so everything in slow flight mus be done on
> instruments. Interestingly, we were trying to spin one of the Mustangs
> (that comes with the Acceleration package), and were unable to do so.
> It just would not break, even fully cross-controlled at the stall.
> Perhaps Dudley can comment on this, as I was under the impression that
> Mustangs would spin pretty easily.
>
>> Also, are you using the default aircraft or have you installed add-on
>> aircraft? For the Cessna I'm flying, I use Carenado's Cessna 182RG II
>> simulation, which is supposedly pretty good (vastly better than the
>> default
>> Cessna, of course).
>
> Nope, I was referring to default aircraft.

Power off erect spin mode in a P51 is normal and recovery is normal;
similar to the T6.

Power on spins can be unrecoverable in the Mustang and you can lose
tremendous amounts of altitude. Not recommended!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:y3jSj.144815$yE1.73334@attbi_s21...
-----------some snipped---------------
>
> Sorry, I lost this thread beneath the avalanche of Bertie/Maxwell crap.
----------remainder snipped-------------
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
Jay,

Please observe the "path" which is really quite illuminating...

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:y3jSj.144815$yE1.73334@attbi_s21:

>> I'm not sure I understand: Are you saying that you can do slow
>> flight in the
>> sim as in the real aircraft, except that you have to do it by
>> instruments, or
>> are you saying that the sim doesn't correctly simulate slow flight at
>> all (i.e., it can't be done)?
>
> Sorry, I lost this thread beneath the avalanche of Bertie/Maxwell
> crap. It's amazing the depths to which so-called "real" aviators can
> sink.
>
> Anyway, the former is correct. Other than engine sound there is no
> "feel" in the sim, so everything in slow flight mus be done on
> instruments. Interestingly, we were trying to spin one of the Mustangs
> (that comes with the Acceleration package), and were unable to do so.
> It just would not break, even fully cross-controlled at the stall.
> Perhaps Dudley can comment on this, as I was under the impression that
> Mustangs would spin pretty easily.


it's a toy, not an airplane, dip****.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:y3jSj.144815$yE1.73334@attbi_s21:

>> I'm not sure I understand: Are you saying that you can do slow
>> flight in the
>> sim as in the real aircraft, except that you have to do it by
>> instruments, or
>> are you saying that the sim doesn't correctly simulate slow flight at
>> all (i.e., it can't be done)?
>
> Sorry, I lost this thread beneath the avalanche of Bertie/Maxwell
> crap.


IOW you were lying through your teeth about your killfile.

Not to mention the big lie....


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

>
> Bertie
>

Certainly not stupid. He reads your nonsense in my replies.

[Tina]

You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with a
significant climb rate using a single piston.



On Apr 27, 3:29 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > If you show significant climb rate with a single piston your sim is
> > smoking tobacco substitute.
>
> How much is significant, and which single pistons?

[[email protected]]

On May 1, 3:15 pm, Tina > wrote:
> You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with a
> significant climb rate using a single piston.

Here's one. Just one piston, too.
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?hl=en&q=Model%20Airplane&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:e3qSj.59204$QC.6038
@newsfe20.lga:

>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Certainly not stupid. He reads your nonsense in my replies.
>
>
>



Of course he does.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On May 2, 9:15*am, Tina > wrote:
> You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with a
> significant climb rate using a single piston.
>

A Cri-cri has two single piston engines.

Cheers

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On May 1, 3:15 pm, Tina > wrote:
>> You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with a
>> significant climb rate using a single piston.
>
> Here's one. Just one piston, too.
>
> http://video.google.ca/videosearch?hl=en&q=Model%20Airplane&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv
>
> Dan
>
>
>

Now there is a man with Honeck's money and Bertie's brains.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with a
> significant climb rate using a single piston.

Single-engine Otto cycle reciprocating internal combustion engine.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Anyway, the former is correct. Other than engine sound there is no "feel"
> in the sim, so everything in slow flight mus be done on instruments.

Well, I find that slightly reassuring, as it implies that the flight model is
okay. Obviously, without motion and a large field of view, flying by feel is
going to be difficult with the sim. I'm sure a full-motion simulator could be
driven by MSFS, but I don't know if anyone has tried to do it (I've seen some
homebuilt sims with limited motion driven by MSFS). Some simmers use multiple
screens.

I fly mostly on instruments, so motion and vision deficits are not huge
problems. I do find visual flight in the C182 challenging, since there isn't
much in the way of instruments or autopilot. Just maintaining a constant
altitude is a pain.

> Interestingly, we were trying to spin one of the Mustangs (that comes with
> the Acceleration package), and were unable to do so. It just would not
> break, even fully cross-controlled at the stall. Perhaps Dudley can comment
> on this, as I was under the impression that Mustangs would spin pretty
> easily.

With spins being substantially out of the envelope for aircraft not certified
for them, it would not surprise me if there were anomalies in the simulations
with respect to spins. Even the largest simulators often have that problem,
if they are simulating aircraft that one normally doesn't spin (such as large
transport aircraft).

> Nope, I was referring to default aircraft.

With all the time and money you've invested in the sim, you should install a
few add-on aircraft. The difference is dramatic, often very much like using a
whole new simulator. The default aircraft don't fully exploit the
possibilities of the sim. I never fly default aircraft these days.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
> I fly mostly on instruments, so motion and vision deficits are not
> huge problems. I do find visual flight in the C182 challenging, since
> there isn't much in the way of instruments or autopilot. Just
> maintaining a constant altitude is a pain.

LIAR! LIAR! PANTS ON FIRE!

You don't fly, yet here you go again claiming you do. Liar!

YOU DO NOT FLY.

Only a non-flying asshole with an overinflated sense of self importance
would make the claim, as you do, that visual flight in a C182 is
challenging. You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in visual
conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing incompetent to fly
on instruments.

ANTHONY, YOU DON't KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA ABOUT AVIATION. POSER. MORON.

[Peter Dohm]

Just in case anyone is reading this who is just planning to learn to fly,
and is not part of the ongoing flame war or this topic:

I do not presently fly, but plan to do so in the future. Therefore, please
do not start out with a PC simulator--especially with a single monitor--as a
starting point for learning to fly in visual conditions. Doing so will
teach you to fixate on exactly the wrong things, you will rarely look at the
right things, and the thought of subsequently having to share the sky with
anyone who is doing that really SCARES THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF ME!!!!!

Thanks,
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
> typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in visual
> conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing incompetent to fly
> on instruments.

Motion cues are absent and visual cues are limited in the sim, which may be a
factor. However, I'm sure I'll get better with practice. I may try to
install Reality XP instruments, which are smoother in motion and better for
detecting small changes.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> I do not presently fly, but plan to do so in the future. Therefore, please
> do not start out with a PC simulator--especially with a single monitor--as a
> starting point for learning to fly in visual conditions. Doing so will
> teach you to fixate on exactly the wrong things, you will rarely look at the
> right things, and the thought of subsequently having to share the sky with
> anyone who is doing that really SCARES THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF ME!!!!!

The jury is still out on whether prior sim experience is good or bad, and it
may depend to some extent on the individual, the instructor's preferred
methods, etc. I believe a prospective pilot can learn a lot more from a book
and a sim than from a book alone.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm writes:
>
>> I do not presently fly, but plan to do so in the future. Therefore,
>> please
>> do not start out with a PC simulator--especially with a single
>> monitor--as a
>> starting point for learning to fly in visual conditions. Doing so will
>> teach you to fixate on exactly the wrong things, you will rarely look at
>> the
>> right things, and the thought of subsequently having to share the sky
>> with
>> anyone who is doing that really SCARES THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF ME!!!!!
>
> The jury is still out on whether prior sim experience is good or bad, and
> it
> may depend to some extent on the individual, the instructor's preferred
> methods, etc. I believe a prospective pilot can learn a lot more from a
> book
> and a sim than from a book alone.

Yeah, but you believe a lot of stupid ****.

Absent any actually experience, your opinion means nothing.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
>> typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in
>> visual
>> conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing incompetent to fly
>> on instruments.
>
> Motion cues are absent and visual cues are limited in the sim, which may
> be a
> factor. However, I'm sure I'll get better with practice. I may try to
> install Reality XP instruments, which are smoother in motion and better
> for
> detecting small changes.

Try one of the sim groups. Maybe they give a ****.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>WingFlaps > wrote in news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
:
>
>> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
>>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>
>>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
>>> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.
>Explain
>>> > please?
>>>
>>> > Cheers
>>>
>>> * * * *The trim tab generates a force that moves the trailing edge
>> of
>>> the control surface. So if you trim nose-up, you'll be moving the tab
>>> downward, where it forces the elevator up.
>>
>> Yes that is exactly what I said. So, does the trim actually improve
>> control responsiveness or not?
>
>Do you mean if oyu move the trim tab in the same direction as the
>elevator? IN general, yes, it will.
>
>
>Bertie
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>

control responsiveness? no absolutely not.
trim will change where the apparent zero force neutral position is as
sensed from the control column.

responsiveness in elevator is only changed by cg position.
responsiveness in rudder doesnt change nor does aileron.

btw this area stuff wingflaps talks about is clueless.

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>WingFlaps > wrote in news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
:
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
>>>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
>>>> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.
>>Explain
>>>> > please?
>>>>
>>>> > Cheers
>>>>
>>>> * * * *The trim tab generates a force that moves the trailing edge
>>> of
>>>> the control surface. So if you trim nose-up, you'll be moving the
tab
>>>> downward, where it forces the elevator up.
>>>
>>> Yes that is exactly what I said. So, does the trim actually improve
>>> control responsiveness or not?
>>
>>Do you mean if oyu move the trim tab in the same direction as the
>>elevator? IN general, yes, it will.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> control responsiveness? no absolutely not.


Sure it will. Authority will be increased if the tab is moved in the
same direction as the surface, especially at low speeds. You're reaching
a more ideal camber.

> trim will change where the apparent zero force neutral position is as
> sensed from the control column.


Yes, of course, but I'm not talking about feel, I'm talking about the
actual power of the surfaces.

>
> responsiveness in elevator is only changed by cg position.
> responsiveness in rudder doesnt change nor does aileron.
>
> btw this area stuff wingflaps talks about is clueless.

Area?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Peter Dohm writes:
>>
>>> I do not presently fly, but plan to do so in the future. Therefore,
>>> please
>>> do not start out with a PC simulator--especially with a single
>>> monitor--as a
>>> starting point for learning to fly in visual conditions. Doing so
>>> will teach you to fixate on exactly the wrong things, you will
>>> rarely look at the
>>> right things, and the thought of subsequently having to share the
>>> sky with
>>> anyone who is doing that really SCARES THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF
>>> ME!!!!!
>>
>> The jury is still out on whether prior sim experience is good or bad,
>> and it
>> may depend to some extent on the individual, the instructor's
>> preferred methods, etc. I believe a prospective pilot can learn a
>> lot more from a book
>> and a sim than from a book alone.
>
> Yeah, but you believe a lot of stupid ****.
>
> Absent any actually experience, your opinion means nothing.


Way to go stabilised boi.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Benjamin Dover writes:
>>
>>> You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
>>> typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in
>>> visual
>>> conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing incompetent
>>> to fly on instruments.
>>
>> Motion cues are absent and visual cues are limited in the sim, which
>> may be a
>> factor. However, I'm sure I'll get better with practice. I may try
>> to install Reality XP instruments, which are smoother in motion and
>> better for
>> detecting small changes.
>
> Try one of the sim groups. Maybe they give a ****.


What do they give you?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with a
>> significant climb rate using a single piston.
>
> Single-engine Otto cycle reciprocating internal combustion engine.
>

Why not two strokes?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> > wrote in message
> news:dd3d76f7-4d65-41de-afa8-c89dcf2651e6
@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> On May 1, 3:15 pm, Tina > wrote:
>>> You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with
>>> a significant climb rate using a single piston.
>>
>> Here's one. Just one piston, too.
>>
>> http://video.google.ca/videosearch?hl=en&q=Model%20Airplane&um=1
&ie=UT
>> F-8&sa=N&tab=wv
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>
> Now there is a man with Honeck's money and Bertie's brains.

Awww, you're just being hurtful now.

BTW, Jay still has more money than the chattels he's ensnared.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
>> typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in
>> visual conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing
>> incompetent to fly on instruments.
>
> Motion cues are absent and visual cues are limited in the sim, which
> may be a factor. However, I'm sure I'll get better with practice.


Who cares? Go buy a Maro brothers game. You can see your score rise on
those!

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Why not two strokes?

I took for granted that I'd forget _something_.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Why not two strokes?
>
> I took for granted that I'd forget _something_.

We all take that for granted. you always forget something. Mostly what
reality is.


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
>> typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in
>> visual conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing
>> incompetent to fly on instruments.
>
> Motion cues are absent and visual cues are limited in the sim, which
> may be a factor. However, I'm sure I'll get better with practice. I
> may try to install Reality XP instruments, which are smoother in
> motion and better for detecting small changes.

Nope. You WILL NOT get better. You're just playing a game, you moron.
You are NOT learning anything about the basics of flying. Lying about it
won't fix it. You're not only lying to this group when you tell us about
how you "fly", but you're lying to yourself. You don't know **** from
shinola about flying and you haven't learned anything in all the time
you've been following this newsgroup. You made up your mind about how to
fly based on a game and think you know all the answers. You don't know
**** from shinola.

[WingFlaps]

On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >WingFlaps > wrote in news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
> :
>
> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
> >>> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.
> >Explain
> >>> > please?
>
> >>> > Cheers
>
> >>> * * * *The trim tab generates a force that moves the trailing edge
> >> *of
> >>> the control surface. So if you trim nose-up, you'll be moving the tab
> >>> downward, where it forces the elevator up.
>
> >> Yes that is exactly what I said. So, does the trim actually improve
> >> control responsiveness or not?
>
> >Do you mean if oyu move the trim tab in the same direction as the
> >elevator? IN general, yes, it will.
>
> >Bertie
>
> >> Cheers
>
> control responsiveness? no absolutely not.
> trim will change where the apparent zero force neutral position is as
> sensed from the control column.
>
> responsiveness in elevator is only changed by cg position.
> responsiveness in rudder doesnt change nor does aileron.
>
> btw this area stuff wingflaps talks about is clueless.
>

What area stuff?

Cheers

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote:

>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >WingFlaps > wrote in news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
>> :
>>
>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
>> >>> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------^^^^
>> >Explain
>> >>> > please?
>>

>
>What area stuff?
>
>Cheers

that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
understanding.

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > wrote:
>
>>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot >
>>wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
>>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
>>> :
>>>
>>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
>>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
>>> >>> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------^^^^
>>> >Explain
>>> >>> > please?
>>>
>
>>
>>What area stuff?
>>
>>Cheers
>
> that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
> understanding.
>


Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that thread has
spooled off my main server now..

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
>> understanding.
>>
>
>
> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that thread has
> spooled off my main server now..
>
> Bertie
>

God you're stupid.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:yflTj.691$hJ1.358
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>
>>> that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
>>> understanding.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that thread has
>> spooled off my main server now..
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> God you're stupid.
>


Oh yeah. Me reeel stooopid.



Bertie
>
>

[WingFlaps]

On May 5, 3:12*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot >
> >wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >WingFlaps > wrote in news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
> >> :
>
> >> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
> >> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
> >> >>> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------^^^^
>
> >> >Explain
> >> >>> > please?
>
> >What area stuff?
>
> >Cheers
>
> that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
> understanding.
>

You mean this:

> I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.

If you think that's wrong then it's your understanding at fault... LOL

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Stealth Pilot > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > > wrote:
>
> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot >
> >>wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
> >>> :
>
> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
> >>> >>> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------^^^^
> >>> >Explain
> >>> >>> > please?
>
> >>What area stuff?
>
> >>Cheers
>
> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
> > understanding.
>
> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that thread has
> spooled off my main server now..
>

He's trolling.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On May 5, 3:12*am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot >
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>> >>
> u>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >WingFlaps > wrote in
>> >> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
>
>> >> :
>>
>> >> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
>> >> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the
>> >> >>> > opposite direction to the trimmed surface and takes area
>> >> >>> > away from it.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------^^^^
>>
>> >> >Explain
>> >> >>> > please?
>>
>> >What area stuff?
>>
>> >Cheers
>>
>> that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
>> understanding.
>>
>
> You mean this:
>
> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the opposite
>> > direction to the trimmed surface and takes area away from it.
>
> If you think that's wrong then it's your understanding at fault... LOL
>
> Cheers


Ah, OK. I see what he means. The area is still there, it's just doing
something else if the trim is going in the opposite direction. Teh only
way you take area away is be retracting it, really.


Bertie
>

[WingFlaps]

On May 5, 8:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Stealth Pilot > wrote
> >> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
> > :
>
> >> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot >
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> >> >>> > wrote:
>
> >> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
> >> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
> >> >>> :
>
> >> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
> >> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the
> >> >>> >>> > opposite direction to the trimmed surface and takes area
> >> >>> >>> > away from it.
> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^
> >> > ^
> >> >>> >Explain
> >> >>> >>> > please?
>
> >> >>What area stuff?
>
> >> >>Cheers
>
> >> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
> >> > understanding.
>
> >> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that thread has
> >> spooled off my main server now..
>
> > He's trolling.
>
> > Cheers
>
> He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie direction doesn't
> remove area.
>
It reduces effective area.

Cheers

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 4 May 2008 21:06:16 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote:

>On May 5, 8:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Stealth Pilot > wrote
>> >> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot >
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>> >> >>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
>> >> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
>> >> >>> :
>>
>> >> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
>> >> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the
>> >> >>> >>> > opposite direction to the trimmed surface and takes area
>> >> >>> >>> > away from it.
>> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ^^^
>> >> > ^
>> >> >>> >Explain
>> >> >>> >>> > please?
>>
>> >> >>What area stuff?
>>
>> >> >>Cheers
>>
>> >> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
>> >> > understanding.
>>
>> >> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that thread has
>> >> spooled off my main server now..
>>
>> > He's trolling.
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie direction doesn't
>> remove area.
>>
>It reduces effective area.
>
>Cheers

bloody nonsense!!! there is no change in area at all.

the only thing on the average aircraft that ever adds or subtracts
area is a fowler flap and they certainly arent trim tabs.

wingflaps telling you that you have an incompetent appreciation of
aerodynamics is a statement of fact not a trolling comment.

bertie is actually the sensible one here.

for heavens sake "wingflaps" as a nom de plume?????
real pilots have nome de plumes like "bertie the bunyip" or my all
time favourite "buster hyman". wingflaps is the monika of a rank
novice. headears would be just as sensible.

what bloody perspective are you using when claiming a change in area
for a trim tab???? you have no idea...

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On May 5, 6:06*am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On May 5, 8:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > WingFlaps > wrote :
>
> > > On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> Stealth Pilot > wrote
> > >> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
> > > :
>
> > >> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > >> > > wrote:
>
> > >> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot >
> > >> >>wrote:
> > >> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> > >> >>> > wrote:
>
> > >> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
> > >> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
> > >> >>> :
>
> > >> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
> > >> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > >> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the
> > >> >>> >>> > opposite direction to the trimmed surface and takes area
> > >> >>> >>> > away from it.
> > >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > ^^^
> > >> > ^
> > >> >>> >Explain
> > >> >>> >>> > please?
>
> > >> >>What area stuff?
>
> > >> >>Cheers
>
> > >> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
> > >> > understanding.
>
> > >> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that thread has
> > >> spooled off my main server now..
>
> > > He's trolling.
>
> > > Cheers
>
> > He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie direction doesn't
> > remove area.
>
> It reduces effective area.
>

No, it doesn´t. The area is stil there. The tab isn´t "hiding" because
it´s going the other way, it´s just doing something different. it may
be reducing the effectiveness of the surface, but that isn´t the same
thing as reducing the area. You may feel that that is a handy way for
you to look at it, but it is, in fact, an incorrect way to look at it
and doing so will impede your understanding of what´s actually going
on around a surface.



Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On May 6, 2:18*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 21:06:16 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 5, 8:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
> >> > On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> Stealth Pilot > wrote
> >> >> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
> >> > :
>
> >> >> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> >> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> >> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot >
> >> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> >> >> >>> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
> >> >> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
> >> >> >>> :
>
> >> >> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
> >> >> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the
> >> >> >>> >>> > opposite direction to the trimmed surface and takes area
> >> >> >>> >>> > away from it.
> >> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ^^^
> >> >> > ^
> >> >> >>> >Explain
> >> >> >>> >>> > please?
>
> >> >> >>What area stuff?
>
> >> >> >>Cheers
>
> >> >> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
> >> >> > understanding.
>
> >> >> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that thread has
> >> >> spooled off my main server now..
>
> >> > He's trolling.
>
> >> > Cheers
>
> >> He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie direction doesn't
> >> remove area.
>
> >It reduces effective area.
>
> >Cheers
>
> bloody nonsense!!! there is no change in area at all.
>

On every elevator I've looked at the trim tab is cut out of the
elevator area. It does not ADD area.. When it is deflected it creates
a force that may oppose that produced by the main elevator. In that
way it reduces EFFECTIVE elevator area. (It is not the same as horn).

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On May 6, 2:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
> On May 5, 6:06*am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 8:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > WingFlaps > wrote :
>
> > > > On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > > >> Stealth Pilot > wrote
> > > >> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
> > > > :
>
> > > >> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > > >> > > wrote:
>
> > > >> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot >
> > > >> >>wrote:
> > > >> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> > > >> >>> > wrote:
>
> > > >> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
> > > >> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
> > > >> >>> :
>
> > > >> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
> > > >> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > >> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the
> > > >> >>> >>> > opposite direction to the trimmed surface and takes area
> > > >> >>> >>> > away from it.
> > > >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ^^^
> > > >> > ^
> > > >> >>> >Explain
> > > >> >>> >>> > please?
>
> > > >> >>What area stuff?
>
> > > >> >>Cheers
>
> > > >> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
> > > >> > understanding.
>
> > > >> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that thread has
> > > >> spooled off my main server now..
>
> > > > He's trolling.
>
> > > > Cheers
>
> > > He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie direction doesn't
> > > remove area.
>
> > It reduces effective area.
>
> No, it doesn´t. The area is stil there. The tab isn´t "hiding" because
> it´s going the other way, it´s just doing something different. it may
> be reducing the effectiveness of the surface, but that isn´t the same
> thing as reducing the area.

Nope. Effectiveness is proportional to area -from the old lift
equation.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On May 6, 2:18*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

> for heavens sake "wingflaps" as a nom de plume?????
> real pilots have nome de plumes like "bertie the bunyip" or my all
> time favourite "buster hyman". wingflaps is the monika of a rank
> novice.

I guess that makes me an unreal pilot? Oh, I'm sorry was that an
adhominem?

LOL


Cheers

[[email protected]]

On May 5, 9:51 am, WingFlaps > wrote:

> On every elevator I've looked at the trim tab is cut out of the
> elevator area. It does not ADD area.. When it is deflected it creates
> a force that may oppose that produced by the main elevator. In that
> way it reduces EFFECTIVE elevator area. (It is not the same as horn).
>
> Cheers

And every airplane that has a trim tab has an elevator that
was designed to be big enough to give all the authority needed even if
the trim tab was deflected all the way in the "wrong" direction. The
engineer's don't figure out the smallest elevator they can get away
with and then chop a trim tab out of that, reducing its effectiveness.
I haven't yet run into an airplane that didn't have considerably more
elevator than I needed.
Furthermore, the elevator does not act on its own. It is part
of the stabilizer, and the whole assembly works to adjust pitch, just
like the whole section of wing of which an aileron is a part adjusts
lift. A deflected control surface changes camber and angle of
incidence, and therefore AOA, and so the _entire surface_ generates
more or less lift. Some elevators are rather smaller than you'd
anticipate, but they're part of a larger stabilizer that only needs a
small camber/AOA change to get the forces necessary. Good example is
the Zenair 701/801 series, where the stab is quite visibly an inverted
airfoil.

http://www.verviers-aviation.be/Photos/Galerie/00-D82_01.jpg
http://www.ultraleggero.it/Annunci/Pg8/26-09-05zenair701-g.jpg
http://www.aerofiles.com/zenith-ch701.jpg
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/design.html

Dan

[WingFlaps]

On May 6, 4:44*am, wrote:
> On May 5, 9:51 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > On every elevator I've looked at the trim tab is cut out of the
> > elevator area. It does not ADD area.. When it is deflected it creates
> > a force that may oppose that produced by the main elevator. In that
> > way it reduces EFFECTIVE elevator area. (It is not the same as horn).
>
> > Cheers
>
> * * * * *And every airplane that has a trim tab has an elevator that
> was designed to be big enough to give all the authority needed even if
> the trim tab was deflected all the way in the "wrong" direction.

While I suspect that may be true, you have a reference for that
statemeant? What happens when the elevator runs out of authority and
stalls (as in a badly loaded plane)? Does the elevator lift force and
stall angle reflect trim setting at all?

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On May 5, 1:38 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On May 6, 4:44 am, wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 9:51 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > On every elevator I've looked at the trim tab is cut out of the
> > > elevator area. It does not ADD area.. When it is deflected it creates
> > > a force that may oppose that produced by the main elevator. In that
> > > way it reduces EFFECTIVE elevator area. (It is not the same as horn).
>
> > > Cheers
>
> > And every airplane that has a trim tab has an elevator that
> > was designed to be big enough to give all the authority needed even if
> > the trim tab was deflected all the way in the "wrong" direction.
>
> While I suspect that may be true, you have a reference for that
> statemeant? What happens when the elevator runs out of authority and
> stalls (as in a badly loaded plane)? Does the elevator lift force and
> stall angle reflect trim setting at all?
>
> Cheers

If the elevator runs out of authority and stalls "in a badly
loaded airplane" then there were factors outside the certification
criteria that caused the accident. Outside the forward CG, for
instance. Same stupidity as overloading the airplane and mushing into
the trees.

FAR 23.145 deals with elevator authority in the trimmed
condition: (see paragraph 5):
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF/0/700B40DD74FC7B4E85256687006C4BBC?OpenDocument

FAR 23.161 deals with trim:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF/0/822484F1A6308FA985256687006C50D2?OpenDocument

FAR 23.407 deals with trim tabs deflected in the normal
direction:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF/0/623EB86071BB3F4885256687006CC0A1?OpenDocument

FAR 23.677 deals with runaway trim and the need for adequate
controllability in any trim tab position:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF/0/F8859F9D55BE444685256687006EF699?OpenDocument

Dan

[WingFlaps]

On May 6, 10:52*am, wrote:
> On May 5, 1:38 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 4:44 am, wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 9:51 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > > On every elevator I've looked at the trim tab is cut out of the
> > > > elevator area. It does not ADD area.. When it is deflected it creates
> > > > a force that may oppose that produced by the main elevator. In that
> > > > way it reduces EFFECTIVE elevator area. (It is not the same as horn)..
>
> > > > Cheers
>
> > > * * * * *And every airplane that has a trim tab has an elevator that
> > > was designed to be big enough to give all the authority needed even if
> > > the trim tab was deflected all the way in the "wrong" direction.
>
> > While I suspect that may be true, you have a reference for that
> > statemeant? What happens when the elevator runs out of authority and
> > stalls (as in a badly loaded plane)? Does the elevator lift force and
> > stall angle reflect trim setting at all?
>
> > Cheers
>
> * * * * If the elevator runs out of authority and stalls "in a badly
> loaded airplane" then there were factors outside the certification
> criteria that caused the accident. Outside the forward CG, for
> instance. Same stupidity as overloading the airplane and mushing into
> the trees.
>
> * * * *FAR 23.145 deals with elevator authority in the trimmed
> condition: (see paragraph 5):http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF...
>
> * * * FAR 23.161 deals with trim:http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF...
>
> * * * *FAR 23.407 deals with trim tabs deflected in the normal
> direction:http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF...
>
> * * * *FAR 23.677 deals with runaway trim and the need for adequate
> controllability in any trim tab position:http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF...
>

Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim setting at
all?
Cheers

[[email protected]]

On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:

> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim setting at
> all?
> Cheers

Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just demands
that the airplane behave in certain ways in various configurations and
maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the wing,
for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back. The
rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get very
nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the wing
stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing stall
and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the '40s
and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but because
the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily have
been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there. Only
problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into the
ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
necessarily need to stall to get killed.
The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the stabilator
stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on pretty
hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of the
stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the stab
stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in the
'68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On May 5, 8:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:49efc4b4-8ede-40cd-9ad3-52701
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Stealth Pilot > wrote
>> >> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot
>> >> >
>
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>> >> >>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
>> >> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
>> >> >>> :
>>
>> >> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
>> >> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the
>> >> >>> >>> > opposite direction to the trimmed surface and takes area
>> >> >>> >>> > away from it.
>> >> >
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ^^^
>> >> > ^
>> >> >>> >Explain
>> >> >>> >>> > please?
>>
>> >> >>What area stuff?
>>
>> >> >>Cheers
>>
>> >> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
>> >> > understanding.
>>
>> >> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that thread
>> >> has spooled off my main server now..
>>
>> > He's trolling.
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie direction
>> doesn't remove area.
>>
> It reduces effective area.

No, it doesn't. it influences the airflow in a different way. I know wha
you're saying, but you're just wrong here.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:d67eeb73-982b-4030-a9bc-
:

> On May 6, 4:44*am, wrote:
>> On May 5, 9:51 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> > On every elevator I've looked at the trim tab is cut out of the
>> > elevator area. It does not ADD area.. When it is deflected it
creates
>> > a force that may oppose that produced by the main elevator. In that
>> > way it reduces EFFECTIVE elevator area. (It is not the same as
horn).
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> * * * * *And every airplane that has a trim tab has an elevator
> that
>> was designed to be big enough to give all the authority needed even
if
>> the trim tab was deflected all the way in the "wrong" direction.
>
> While I suspect that may be true, you have a reference for that
> statemeant? What happens when the elevator runs out of authority and
> stalls (as in a badly loaded plane)? Does the elevator lift force and
> stall angle reflect trim setting at all?
>

Of course it's affected, but that doesn't mean that the area changes, it
does not. The flow is affected and the forces are affected but the area
doesn't change. You can look at it that way if you like, but it will
mean that you won't grow to have a deeper understanding of the way the
surfaces work. IOW, you'll be like Ken.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On May 6, 2:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>> On May 5, 6:06*am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 5, 8:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > > WingFlaps > wrote
>> > > innews:49efc4b4-8ede-40cd-9ad3-5
> :
>>
>> > > > On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > > >> Stealth Pilot > wrote
>> > > >> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
>> > > > :
>>
>> > > >> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>> > > >> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot
>> > > >>
> .au>
>> > > >> >>wrote:
>> > > >> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the
>> > > >> >>> Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
>> > > >> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
>> > > >> >>> :
>>
>> > > >> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
>> > > >> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps >
>> > > >> >>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in
>> > > >> >>> >>> > the opposite direction to the trimmed surface and
>> > > >> >>> >>> > takes area away from it.
>> > > >> >
-------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> > ----
>
>> > > ^^^
>> > > >> > ^
>> > > >> >>> >Explain
>> > > >> >>> >>> > please?
>>
>> > > >> >>What area stuff?
>>
>> > > >> >>Cheers
>>
>> > > >> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
>> > > >> > understanding.
>>
>> > > >> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that
>> > > >> thread has
>
>> > > >> spooled off my main server now..
>>
>> > > > He's trolling.
>>
>> > > > Cheers
>>
>> > > He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie direction
>> > > doesn
> 't
>> > > remove area.
>>
>> > It reduces effective area.
>>
>> No, it doesn´t. The area is stil there. The tab isn´t "hiding"
>> because
>
>> it´s going the other way, it´s just doing something different. it may
>> be reducing the effectiveness of the surface, but that isn´t the same
>> thing as reducing the area.
>
> Nope. Effectiveness is proportional to area -from the old lift
> equation.
>


Sure, but the area hasn't changed.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On May 6, 3:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 2:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip >
> > wrote:
> >> On May 5, 6:06*am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >> > On May 5, 8:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> > > WingFlaps > wrote
> >> > > innews:49efc4b4-8ede-40cd-9ad3-5
> > :
>
> >> > > > On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> > > >> Stealth Pilot > wrote
> >> > > >> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
> >> > > > :
>
> >> > > >> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> >> > > >> > > wrote:
>
> >> > > >> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot
> >> > > >>
> > .au>
> >> > > >> >>wrote:
> >> > > >> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the
> >> > > >> >>> Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> > > >> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
> >> > > >> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
> >> > > >> >>> :
>
> >> > > >> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
> >> > > >> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps >
> >> > > >> >>> >>> wrote:
>
> >> > > >> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in
> >> > > >> >>> >>> > the opposite direction to the trimmed surface and
> >> > > >> >>> >>> > takes area away from it.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > > >> > ----
>
> >> > > ^^^
> >> > > >> > ^
> >> > > >> >>> >Explain
> >> > > >> >>> >>> > please?
>
> >> > > >> >>What area stuff?
>
> >> > > >> >>Cheers
>
> >> > > >> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
> >> > > >> > understanding.
>
> >> > > >> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that
> >> > > >> thread has
>
> >> > > >> spooled off my main server now..
>
> >> > > > He's trolling.
>
> >> > > > Cheers
>
> >> > > He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie direction
> >> > > doesn
> > 't
> >> > > remove area.
>
> >> > It reduces effective area.
>
> >> No, it doesn´t. The area is stil there. The tab isn´t "hiding"
> >> because
>
> >> it´s going the other way, it´s just doing something different. it may
> >> be reducing the effectiveness of the surface, but that isn´t the same
> >> thing as reducing the area.
>
> > Nope. Effectiveness is proportional to area -from the old lift
> > equation.
>
> Sure, but the area hasn't changed.
>

Don't be so literal, how could the actual sq feet chnage? BUT it's as
if the effective area at the AOA of the stabilator is reduced -right?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On May 6, 3:34*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
IOW, you'll be like Ken.
>

OY! there's no need to get nasty!

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On May 6, 3:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 2:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip >
> > wrote:
> >> On May 5, 6:06*am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >> > On May 5, 8:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> > > WingFlaps > wrote
> >> > > innews:49efc4b4-8ede-40cd-9ad3-5
> > :
>
> >> > > > On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> > > >> Stealth Pilot > wrote
> >> > > >> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
> >> > > > :
>
> >> > > >> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> >> > > >> > > wrote:
>
> >> > > >> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot
> >> > > >>
> > .au>
> >> > > >> >>wrote:
> >> > > >> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the
> >> > > >> >>> Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> > > >> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
> >> > > >> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
> >> > > >> >>> :
>
> >> > > >> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am, wrote:
> >> > > >> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps >
> >> > > >> >>> >>> wrote:
>
> >> > > >> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in
> >> > > >> >>> >>> > the opposite direction to the trimmed surface and
> >> > > >> >>> >>> > takes area away from it.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > > >> > ----
>
> >> > > ^^^
> >> > > >> > ^
> >> > > >> >>> >Explain
> >> > > >> >>> >>> > please?
>
> >> > > >> >>What area stuff?
>
> >> > > >> >>Cheers
>
> >> > > >> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
> >> > > >> > understanding.
>
> >> > > >> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that
> >> > > >> thread has
>
> >> > > >> spooled off my main server now..
>
> >> > > > He's trolling.
>
> >> > > > Cheers
>
> >> > > He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie direction
> >> > > doesn
> > 't
> >> > > remove area.
>
> >> > It reduces effective area.
>
> >> No, it doesn´t. The area is stil there. The tab isn´t "hiding"
> >> because
>
> >> it´s going the other way, it´s just doing something different. it may
> >> be reducing the effectiveness of the surface, but that isn´t the same
> >> thing as reducing the area.
>
> > Nope. Effectiveness is proportional to area -from the old lift
> > equation.
>
> Sure, but the area hasn't changed.
>

OK, then if the AOA of the stabilator is constant, and the elevator
angle is constant, why does the lift reduce when the trim tab is
deflected in the opposite direction? It's as I said, the effect is as
if the _effective_ area is reduced. You could say that CL is altered
but then it gets more messy as you have to consider different CL's and
areas for each section of the stabilator. It's much simpler to just
subtract the area taken by the trim from the calculation and that will
give a very good first order approximation for longitudinal stability
calculations.

Cheers

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:59:36 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote:

>On May 6, 2:18*am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>
>> for heavens sake "wingflaps" as a nom de plume?????
>> real pilots have nome de plumes like "bertie the bunyip" or my all
>> time favourite "buster hyman". wingflaps is the monika of a rank
>> novice.
>
>I guess that makes me an unreal pilot? Oh, I'm sorry was that an
>adhominem?
>
>LOL
>
>
>Cheers

you cannot possibly be a pilot. you may have some ultralight
experience but you certainly arent a pilot.

how can I say this?
easy.
pilots learn or get taught a subject called 'basic aeronautical
knowledge' which they pass an exam on.
you do not have sufficient understanding to get even a third of the
pass mark required.

if you had studied and passed the BAK you wouldnt be so perpetually
stupid regarding the questions you ask.

if you want to progress go and do some reading of the pilot study
materials.

even now after 100 posts in this thread you have not a shred of
understanding on the questions you ask.

why do pilots have nom de plumes unrelated to aircraft parts, that's
easy, they understand how they work because they get effective
training in the theory.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 May 2008 16:55:37 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote:

>On May 6, 10:52*am, wrote:
>> On May 5, 1:38 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>>

>>
>
>Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim setting at
>all?
>Cheers

absolutely not!

the trim setting is what sets the neutral position of the control
surface. ie the position where the least or no stick force is required
to maintain the amount of lift required from the surface for stable
flight.

this may surprise you but an elevator is never stalled in flight.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 May 2008 23:54:37 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote:

>On May 6, 3:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote :
>>
>>

>OK, then if the AOA of the stabilator is constant, and the elevator
>angle is constant, why does the lift reduce when the trim tab is
>deflected in the opposite direction?

because the elevator angle isnt bloody constant. what is constant is
the stick force which you maintain at the same pressure by
unconsciously moving the stick as you change the trim tab position.




> It's as I said, the effect is as
>if the _effective_ area is reduced.

no it bloody isnt. the area remains the same the lift force is what
varies and guess what, that's why the tailfeathers have the hinges in
the middle.

>You could say that CL is altered
>but then it gets more messy as you have to consider different CL's and
>areas for each section of the stabilator. It's much simpler to just
>subtract the area taken by the trim from the calculation and that will
>give a very good first order approximation for longitudinal stability
>calculations.
>

you have basically started out with a faulty understanding and for the
last 100 posts have misinterpreted everything written because you keep
relating the information to the original faulty premise.

Stealth Pilot

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 12:49*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 16:55:37 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 6, 10:52*am, wrote:
> >> On May 5, 1:38 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >Does the elevator lift force and *stall angle reflect trim setting at
> >all?
> >Cheers
>

> this may surprise you but an elevator is never stalled in flight.
>

Incorrect, any flying surface can be stalled.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 12:49*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 16:55:37 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 6, 10:52*am, wrote:
> >> On May 5, 1:38 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >Does the elevator lift force and *stall angle reflect trim setting at
> >all?
> >Cheers
>
> absolutely not!
>

Sorry you are wrong and let me try to explain why. Let's say you've
trimmed nose up, the elevator is deflected up but the trim surface is
deflected down. Where is the chord line of the tail? The chordline
where the trim tab is absent has a negative AOA so the tail lift is
downward. In the region of the trim tab, the angle made by the
chordline (and therefore AOA) is _reduced_ and the lift is reduced
also. -sketch it on paper and you will see it (remember the chord
runs from the trailing edge to the leading edge). Now imagine the
pilot wants to go into a fast dive. Now the elevator points down and
in this case the AOA in the region of the trim tab is increased over
that of the rest of the elevator. In this case, the trim has increased
tail effectiveness (albeit at a higher stick force) by increasing
local camber and that was correctly seen by Bertie.

I hope you can see it now.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 12:56*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 23:54:37 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 6, 3:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
> >OK, then if the AOA of the stabilator is constant, and the elevator
> >angle is constant, why does the lift reduce when the trim tab is
> >deflected in the opposite direction?
>
> because the elevator angle isnt bloody constant. what is constant is
> the stick force which you maintain at the same pressure by
> unconsciously moving the stick as you change the trim tab position.
>
> > It's as I said, the effect is as
> >if the _effective_ area is reduced.
>
> no it bloody isnt. the area remains the same the lift force is what
> varies and guess what, that's why the tailfeathers have the hinges in
> the middle.
>
> >You could say that CL is altered
> >but then it gets more messy as you have to consider different CL's and
> >areas for each section of the stabilator. It's much simpler to just
> >subtract the area taken by the trim from the calculation and that will
> >give a very good first order approximation for longitudinal stability
> >calculations.
>
> you have basically started out with a faulty understanding and for the
> last 100 posts have misinterpreted everything written because you keep
> relating the information to the original faulty premise.
>

Nope. I understand it perfectly. As defined in any good book on
aeronautical design, stabilator effectiveness is _defined_ by the
horizontal tail volume coefficient which is the product of tail moment
and area divided by the wing area and it's mean chord.

From the style of you reply I can see you will have a hard time
understanding this this it really is correct -look it up.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 12:45*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:59:36 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 6, 2:18*am, Stealth Pilot >
> >wrote:
>
> >> for heavens sake "wingflaps" as a nom de plume?????
> >> real pilots have nome de plumes like "bertie the bunyip" or my all
> >> time favourite "buster hyman". wingflaps is the monika of a rank
> >> novice.
>
> >I guess that makes me an unreal pilot? *Oh, I'm sorry was that an
> >adhominem?
>
> >LOL
>
> >Cheers
>
> you cannot possibly be a pilot. you may have some ultralight
> experience but you certainly arent a pilot.
>
> how can I say this?
> easy.
> pilots learn or get taught a subject called 'basic aeronautical
> knowledge' which they pass an exam on.
> you do not have sufficient understanding to get even a third of the
> pass mark required.
>
> if you had studied and passed the BAK you wouldnt be so perpetually
> stupid regarding the questions you ask.
>

Perhaps it is you who does not understand the depth of the questions I
ask? But I'm sure you must be right, I can't possibly have any
understanding of the interplay of trim and trimmed surface with the
airflow over them because I'm not a pilot in your world.

Cheers.

[[email protected]]

On May 6, 7:16 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On May 7, 12:49 am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:

> > this may surprise you but an elevator is never stalled in flight.
>
> Incorrect, any flying surface can be stalled.
>
> Cheers

Can be, but can't be under normal conditions. Ice will do it, as
could unlimited aerobatics, but the average FAR 23 airplane is
certified for neither. The key here involves what the airplane is
certified for, and the FAR 23 airplane meets the requirements of that
Part. You can postulate endlessly about decreased effectiveness of the
elevator with the tab deflected, but believe me, the engineers (and
some of the others lurking here) are way ahead of you on this and any
other item you care to mention. If those engineers didn't take this
stuff into account the airplane simply wouldn't get certified and you
would never get a chance to fly it.
Rather than arguing from ignorance, you should find some good
books on aeronautical engineering and bone up on some basics first.

Dan

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 2:52*am, wrote:
> On May 6, 7:16 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 12:49 am, Stealth Pilot >
> > wrote:
> > > this may surprise you but an elevator is never stalled in flight.
>
> > Incorrect, any flying surface can be stalled.
>
> > Cheers
>
> * *Can be, but can't be under normal conditions. Ice will do it, as
> could unlimited aerobatics, but the average FAR 23 airplane is
> certified for neither. The key here involves what the airplane is
> certified for, and the FAR 23 airplane meets the requirements of that
> Part. You can postulate endlessly about decreased effectiveness of the
> elevator with the tab deflected, but believe me, the engineers (and
> some of the others lurking here) are way ahead of you on this and any
> other item you care to mention.

Yes they lurk well.

If those engineers didn't take this
> stuff into account the airplane simply wouldn't get certified and you
> would never get a chance to fly it.

This has nothing to do with certification.

> * * Rather than arguing from ignorance, you should find some good
> books on aeronautical engineering and bone up on some basics first.
>

LOL!!!! Been there done that. What about you? I've only detected
deep insight in Bertie so far , but I'm comforted by the deep knowlege
that your lurkers must have.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 2:52*am, wrote:
> On May 6, 7:16 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 12:49 am, Stealth Pilot >
> > wrote:
> > > this may surprise you but an elevator is never stalled in flight.
>
> > Incorrect, any flying surface can be stalled.
>
> > Cheers
>
> * *Can be, but can't be under normal conditions. Ice will do it, as
> could unlimited aerobatics, but the average FAR 23 airplane is
> certified for neither.

As you agreed earlier COG out of limits can lead to it too. The key
here is that the statement "never" is incorrect. Any plane can have
it's elevator stalled, I agree that may be bad thing to happen but it
can happen none the less. I would not put much faith in FARs
preventing such things if I were you :-P

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On May 6, 9:13 am, WingFlaps > wrote:

> If those engineers didn't take this
>
> > stuff into account the airplane simply wouldn't get certified and you
> > would never get a chance to fly it.
>
> This has nothing to do with certification.

Oh, it doesn't? Then, tell me, what items DO have to do with
certification, if elevator effectiveness at any trim tab position
isn't one of them? Find and quote the references to support your
claim.

Dan

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 3:28*am, wrote:
> On May 6, 9:13 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > If those engineers didn't take this
>
> > > stuff into account the airplane simply wouldn't get certified and you
> > > would never get a chance to fly it.
>
> > This has nothing to do with certification.
>
> * * * * *Oh, it doesn't? Then, tell me, what items DO have to do with
> certification, if elevator effectiveness at any trim tab position
> isn't one of them? Find and quote the references to support your
> claim.
>

Dan, you keep trying to pick up the wrong end of the stick.
I'm not talking about certification. For example, in the FARs does it
describe how the stabilator chord changes with trim positions?
Certification results from practical demonstrations of plane handling
and flying not theoretical aeronautical discussions -or is that not
so?

Cheers

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim setting at
>> all?
>> Cheers
>
> Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just demands
> that the airplane behave in certain ways in various configurations and
> maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
> within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the wing,
> for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back. The
> rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
> experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get very
> nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the wing
> stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
> airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing stall
> and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the '40s
> and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but because
> the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily have
> been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there. Only
> problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into the
> ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
> necessarily need to stall to get killed.


Actually, the more powerfull tail was eventually added, as the Cadet, after
Mooney bought the type design rights and type certificate. IIRC, it was
then touted as a solution to the perceived shortcommings in pilot training,
in much the same way as the Tomahawk--which arrived a few years later. My
recollection is that sales were poor, and the Cadet is now all but
forgotten...

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
Dan, you keep trying to pick up the wrong end of the stick.
I'm not talking about certification. For example, in the FARs does it
describe how the stabilator chord changes with trim positions?
Certification results from practical demonstrations of plane handling
and flying not theoretical aeronautical discussions -or is that not
so?

Cheers

Please forgive my for seeming to nit pick, but...

How does one talk about presumed abnormalities in the operation of type
certified aircraft, within the certified parameters, and then appear to
separate that discussion from the engineering and testing which must have
resulted in the certification?

Peter
(Starving for enlightenment)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On May 6, 3:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:4c947801-0112-4fa1-92e7-09f00
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 6, 2:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip
>> > > wrote:
>> >> On May 5, 6:06*am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 5, 8:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > WingFlaps > wrote
>> >> > > innews:49efc4b4-8ede-40cd-9ad3-5
>> > :
>>
>> >> > > > On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> > > >> Stealth Pilot > wrote
>> >> > > >> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
>> >> > > > :
>>
>> >> > > >> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>> >> > > >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot
>> >> > > >>
>> > .au>
>> >> > > >> >>wrote:
>> >> > > >> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the
>> >> > > >> >>> Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
>> >> > > >> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
>> >> > > >> >>> :
>>
>> >> > > >> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am,
>> >> > > >> >>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps >
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> > the opposite direction to the trimmed surface and
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> > takes area away from it.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > > >> > ----
>>
>> >> > > ^^^
>> >> > > >> > ^
>> >> > > >> >>> >Explain
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> > please?
>>
>> >> > > >> >>What area stuff?
>>
>> >> > > >> >>Cheers
>>
>> >> > > >> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of
>> >> > > >> > aerodynamic understanding.
>>
>> >> > > >> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that
>> >> > > >> thread has
>>
>> >> > > >> spooled off my main server now..
>>
>> >> > > > He's trolling.
>>
>> >> > > > Cheers
>>
>> >> > > He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie
>> >> > > direction doesn
>> > 't
>> >> > > remove area.
>>
>> >> > It reduces effective area.
>>
>> >> No, it doesn´t. The area is stil there. The tab isn´t "hiding"
>> >> because
>>
>> >> it´s going the other way, it´s just doing something different. it
>> >> m
> ay
>> >> be reducing the effectiveness of the surface, but that isn´t the
>> >> same
>
>> >> thing as reducing the area.
>>
>> > Nope. Effectiveness is proportional to area -from the old lift
>> > equation.
>>
>> Sure, but the area hasn't changed.
>>
>
> Don't be so literal, how could the actual sq feet chnage? BUT it's as
> if the effective area at the AOA of the stabilator is reduced -right?


No.



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On May 6, 3:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:4c947801-0112-4fa1-92e7-09f00
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 6, 2:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip
>> > > wrote:
>> >> On May 5, 6:06*am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 5, 8:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > WingFlaps > wrote
>> >> > > innews:49efc4b4-8ede-40cd-9ad3-5
>> > :
>>
>> >> > > > On May 5, 3:19*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> > > >> Stealth Pilot > wrote
>> >> > > >> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
>> >> > > > :
>>
>> >> > > >> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>> >> > > >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> >>On May 3, 12:40*am, Stealth Pilot
>> >> > > >>
>> > .au>
>> >> > > >> >>wrote:
>> >> > > >> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the
>> >> > > >> >>> Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> >>> >WingFlaps > wrote in
>> >> > > >> >>> >news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
>> >> > > >> >>> :
>>
>> >> > > >> >>> >> On Apr 30, 9:37*am,
>> >> > > >> >>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps >
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> > I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> > the opposite direction to the trimmed surface and
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> > takes area away from it.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > > >> > ----
>>
>> >> > > ^^^
>> >> > > >> > ^
>> >> > > >> >>> >Explain
>> >> > > >> >>> >>> > please?
>>
>> >> > > >> >>What area stuff?
>>
>> >> > > >> >>Cheers
>>
>> >> > > >> > that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of
>> >> > > >> > aerodynamic understanding.
>>
>> >> > > >> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that
>> >> > > >> thread has
>>
>> >> > > >> spooled off my main server now..
>>
>> >> > > > He's trolling.
>>
>> >> > > > Cheers
>>
>> >> > > He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie
>> >> > > direction doesn
>> > 't
>> >> > > remove area.
>>
>> >> > It reduces effective area.
>>
>> >> No, it doesn´t. The area is stil there. The tab isn´t "hiding"
>> >> because
>>
>> >> it´s going the other way, it´s just doing something different. it
>> >> m
> ay
>> >> be reducing the effectiveness of the surface, but that isn´t the
>> >> same
>
>> >> thing as reducing the area.
>>
>> > Nope. Effectiveness is proportional to area -from the old lift
>> > equation.
>>
>> Sure, but the area hasn't changed.
>>
>
> OK, then if the AOA of the stabilator is constant, and the elevator
> angle is constant, why does the lift reduce when the trim tab is
> deflected in the opposite direction? It's as I said, the effect is as
> if the _effective_ area is reduced. You could say that CL is altered
> but then it gets more messy as you have to consider different CL's and
> areas for each section of the stabilator. It's much simpler to just
> subtract the area taken by the trim from the calculation and that will
> give a very good first order approximation for longitudinal stability
> calculations.


It's not correct to do it that way, and if you're actuasly talking about
calculations, then you're going to be way off the mark.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On May 7, 12:56*am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 May 2008 23:54:37 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On May 6, 3:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps > wrote
>> >> innews:4c947801-0112-4fa1-92e7-09
> :
>>
>> >OK, then if the AOA of the stabilator is constant, and the elevator
>> >angle is constant, why does the lift reduce when the trim tab is
>> >deflected in the opposite direction?
>>
>> because the elevator angle isnt bloody constant. what is constant is
>> the stick force which you maintain at the same pressure by
>> unconsciously moving the stick as you change the trim tab position.
>>
>> > It's as I said, the effect is as
>> >if the _effective_ area is reduced.
>>
>> no it bloody isnt. the area remains the same the lift force is what
>> varies and guess what, that's why the tailfeathers have the hinges in
>> the middle.
>>
>> >You could say that CL is altered
>> >but then it gets more messy as you have to consider different CL's
>> >and areas for each section of the stabilator. It's much simpler to
>> >just subtract the area taken by the trim from the calculation and
>> >that will give a very good first order approximation for
>> >longitudinal stability calculations.
>>
>> you have basically started out with a faulty understanding and for
>> the last 100 posts have misinterpreted everything written because you
>> keep relating the information to the original faulty premise.
>>
>
> Nope. I understand it perfectly. As defined in any good book on
> aeronautical design, stabilator effectiveness is _defined_ by the
> horizontal tail volume coefficient which is the product of tail moment
> and area divided by the wing area and it's mean chord.
>
> From the style of you reply I can see you will have a hard time
> understanding this this it really is correct -look it up.


I understand what you are saying perfectly. You might think it's a handy
way to look at the problem, but it's simpoistic and incorrect..
End of story.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:c3b67541-3843-4745-855d-
:

> On May 7, 12:49*am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 May 2008 16:55:37 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On May 6, 10:52*am, wrote:
>> >> On May 5, 1:38 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> >Does the elevator lift force and *stall angle reflect trim setting
at
>> >all?
>> >Cheers
>>
>> absolutely not!
>>
>
> Sorry you are wrong and let me try to explain why. Let's say you've
> trimmed nose up, the elevator is deflected up but the trim surface is
> deflected down. Where is the chord line of the tail? The chordline
> where the trim tab is absent



The trim tab is not absent. It's still there. it's not providing a
vector in the same direction, but it's not doing what you think it's
doing.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

On May 6, 9:40 am, WingFlaps > wrote:

> Dan, you keep trying to pick up the wrong end of the stick.
> I'm not talking about certification. For example, in the FARs does it
> describe how the stabilator chord changes with trim positions?
> Certification results from practical demonstrations of plane handling
> and flying not theoretical aeronautical discussions -or is that not
> so?

The FARs don't care how the chord changes. They don't care
how the engineer achieves the flying qualities and strength they
demand for certification. They just set certain parameters that must
be met, and the engineers design an airplane that complies with those
parameters.
If the trim tab damaged the effectiveness of the elevator so
that the control surface stalled, or lost authority to the point that
the parameters could not be met, certification would not take place.
Period. Your arguments are specious.
Neither the FAA nor any foreign national governing body is
going to get into the minutiae of design specifics. There's no time
and no need. Or did you want to pay more taxes and user fees and a
higher price to buy or rent an airplane, just to achieve through
endless detail what is already achieved through mandated performance
and strength limits?

Dan

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 6:01*am, wrote:
> On May 6, 9:40 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > Dan, you keep trying to pick up the wrong end of the stick.
> > I'm not talking about certification. For example, *in the FARs does it
> > describe how the stabilator chord changes with trim positions?
> > Certification results from practical demonstrations of plane handling
> > and flying not theoretical aeronautical discussions -or is that not
> > so?
>
> * * * * * * The FARs don't care how the chord changes. They don't care
> how the engineer achieves the flying qualities and strength they
> demand for certification. They just set certain parameters that must
> be met, and the engineers design an airplane that complies with those
> parameters.
> * * * *If the trim tab damaged the effectiveness of the elevator so
> that the control surface stalled, or lost authority to the point that
> the parameters could not be met, certification would not take place.
> Period. Your arguments are specious.

There are lots of factors that may _promote_ a surface stall (e.g.
rivet heads) but that doesn't mean the surface is not going to do it's
jub well enough to let the plane fly and pass the certification test.
It's similar to the (better known) idea that rivet heads may promote
flow separation -but that does not mean that riveted planes can't pass
certification does it? Understanding the effect of the trim tab on
the elevator may prevent the mistake of thinking it ihas _no_ effect
on elevator performance. It may be a philosophical discussion but
that does not mean it's specious.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On May 6, 2:15 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
Understanding the effect of the trim tab on
> the elevator may prevent the mistake of thinking it ihas _no_ effect
> on elevator performance. It may be a philosophical discussion but
> that does not mean it's specious.

Oh, _well,_ then, let's just say that the trim tab deletes a
little of the elevator's effectiveness, but not enough to matter, and
leave it at that.

Dan

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 11:43*am, wrote:
> On May 6, 2:15 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> *Understanding the effect of the trim tab on
>
> > the elevator may prevent the mistake of thinking it ihas _no_ effect
> > on elevator performance. *It may be a philosophical discussion but
> > that does not mean it's specious.
>
> * * Oh, _well,_ then, let's just say that the trim tab deletes a
> little of the elevator's effectiveness, but not enough to matter, and
> leave it at that.
>

Yea, it may, under the conditions I specified. Yes, let's end this fun
discussion as there's not much left to be said.

Cheers

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 07:16:07 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote:

>On May 7, 12:56*am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 May 2008 23:54:37 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On May 6, 3:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps > wrote :
>>
>> >OK, then if the AOA of the stabilator is constant, and the elevator
>> >angle is constant, why does the lift reduce when the trim tab is
>> >deflected in the opposite direction?
>>
>> because the elevator angle isnt bloody constant. what is constant is
>> the stick force which you maintain at the same pressure by
>> unconsciously moving the stick as you change the trim tab position.
>>
>> > It's as I said, the effect is as
>> >if the _effective_ area is reduced.
>>
>> no it bloody isnt. the area remains the same the lift force is what
>> varies and guess what, that's why the tailfeathers have the hinges in
>> the middle.
>>
>> >You could say that CL is altered
>> >but then it gets more messy as you have to consider different CL's and
>> >areas for each section of the stabilator. It's much simpler to just
>> >subtract the area taken by the trim from the calculation and that will
>> >give a very good first order approximation for longitudinal stability
>> >calculations.
>>
>> you have basically started out with a faulty understanding and for the
>> last 100 posts have misinterpreted everything written because you keep
>> relating the information to the original faulty premise.
>>
>
>Nope. I understand it perfectly. As defined in any good book on
>aeronautical design, stabilator effectiveness is _defined_ by the
>horizontal tail volume coefficient which is the product of tail moment
>and area divided by the wing area and it's mean chord.
>
>From the style of you reply I can see you will have a hard time
>understanding this this it really is correct -look it up.
>
>Cheers

no I'm afraid that it is you who do not understand it.
you take a rule of thumb approximation and then try to apply it as a
hard and fast aerodynamic concept.

brother have you got it wrong.
Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 07:29:10 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote:


>>
>> if you had studied and passed the BAK you wouldnt be so perpetually
>> stupid regarding the questions you ask.
>>
>
>Perhaps it is you who does not understand the depth of the questions I
>ask? But I'm sure you must be right, I can't possibly have any
>understanding of the interplay of trim and trimmed surface with the
>airflow over them because I'm not a pilot in your world.
>

no genuinely you do not understand how this works in practise.

if you are designing an aircraft forget the trim tab in the
calculations. the pilot will set it to where ever he needs it.

your questions dont have that much depth btw.
just a lot of misunderstood aerodynamics.

Stealth Pilot

[WingFlaps]

On May 8, 12:17*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

>
> your questions dont have that much depth btw.
> just a lot of misunderstood aerodynamics.
>

Naysaying is the mark of a troll wihen no facts are given to back it
up.

Cheers

[nospam[_2_]]

wrote:
> On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim setting at
>> all?
>> Cheers
>
> Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just demands
> that the airplane behave in certain ways in various configurations and
> maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
> within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the wing,
> for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back. The
> rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
> experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get very
> nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the wing
> stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
> airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing stall
> and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the '40s
> and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but because
> the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily have
> been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there. Only
> problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into the
> ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
> necessarily need to stall to get killed.
> The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the stabilator
> stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on pretty
> hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of the
> stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the stab
> stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in the
> '68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.
>
> Dan

Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a download.
When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall, there
is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall, without
special instrumentation, is beyond me.
Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

nospam > wrote in
news:DbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:

> wrote:
>> On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>>> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim setting
at
>>> all?
>>> Cheers
>>
>> Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just demands
>> that the airplane behave in certain ways in various configurations
and
>> maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
>> within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the wing,
>> for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back. The
>> rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
>> experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get very
>> nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the
wing
>> stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
>> airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing
stall
>> and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the '40s
>> and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but because
>> the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily have
>> been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there. Only
>> problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into the
>> ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
>> necessarily need to stall to get killed.
>> The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the stabilator
>> stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on pretty
>> hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of the
>> stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the stab
>> stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in the
>> '68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a download.
> When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall, there
> is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
> determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall, without
> special instrumentation, is beyond me.
> Cheers
>

You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.

Bertie

[nospam[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On May 6, 2:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>> On May 5, 6:06 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 5, 8:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> WingFlaps > wrote :
>>>>> On May 5, 3:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> Stealth Pilot > wrote
>>>>>> innews:u8kr141dp0o1e
>>>>> :
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 3, 12:40 am, Stealth Pilot >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:12:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:ad8fc9c9-57cb-4733-9e97-
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 9:37 am, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2:24 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't follow this. The trim surface operates in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite direction to the trimmed surface and takes area
>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from it.
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ^^^
>>>>>>> ^
>>>>>>>>>> Explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> please?
>>>>>>>> What area stuff?
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> that area stuff. ...which shows a total lack of aerodynamic
>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>> Still don't know what you're talking about! Most of that thread has
>>>>>> spooled off my main server now..
>>>>> He's trolling.
>>>>> Cheers
>>>> He's not, he's right. Deflecting a tab in the oppostie direction doesn't
>>>> remove area.
>>> It reduces effective area.
>> No, it doesn´t. The area is stil there. The tab isn´t "hiding" because
>> it´s going the other way, it´s just doing something different. it may
>> be reducing the effectiveness of the surface, but that isn´t the same
>> thing as reducing the area.
>
> Nope. Effectiveness is proportional to area -from the old lift
> equation.
>
> Cheers
Oh I get it, if I am flying along and select an AOA which gives the
aircraft zero total lift, I have effectively reduced the wing plus tail
area to zero.
Don't know why you don't just say that the tail coefficient of lift is
affected by tab angle (any tab).
Cheers

[nospam[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> nospam > wrote in
> news:DbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim setting
> at
>>>> all?
>>>> Cheers
>>> Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just demands
>>> that the airplane behave in certain ways in various configurations
> and
>>> maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
>>> within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the wing,
>>> for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back. The
>>> rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
>>> experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get very
>>> nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the
> wing
>>> stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
>>> airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing
> stall
>>> and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the '40s
>>> and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but because
>>> the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily have
>>> been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there. Only
>>> problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into the
>>> ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
>>> necessarily need to stall to get killed.
>>> The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the stabilator
>>> stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on pretty
>>> hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of the
>>> stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the stab
>>> stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in the
>>> '68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.
>>>
>>> Dan
>> Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a download.
>> When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall, there
>> is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
>> determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall, without
>> special instrumentation, is beyond me.
>> Cheers
>>
>
> You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
> There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.
>
> Bertie
Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the elevator
power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs minus 5kts at
forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method of increasing
elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator and tailplane as one
unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
(algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability measurement.
Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

nospam > wrote in
news:bYydndxV96btLr_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@internode:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> nospam > wrote in
>> news:DbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim setting
>> at
>>>>> all?
>>>>> Cheers
>>>> Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just demands
>>>> that the airplane behave in certain ways in various configurations
>> and
>>>> maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
>>>> within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the wing,
>>>> for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back.
The
>>>> rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
>>>> experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get very
>>>> nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the
>> wing
>>>> stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
>>>> airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing
>> stall
>>>> and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the
'40s
>>>> and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but because
>>>> the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily
have
>>>> been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there.
Only
>>>> problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into the
>>>> ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
>>>> necessarily need to stall to get killed.
>>>> The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the
stabilator
>>>> stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on pretty
>>>> hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of the
>>>> stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the
stab
>>>> stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in the
>>>> '68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>> Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a
download.
>>> When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall,
there
>>> is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
>>> determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall,
without
>>> special instrumentation, is beyond me.
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>
>> You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
>> There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.
>>
>> Bertie
> Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the elevator
> power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs minus 5kts at
> forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method of increasing
> elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator and tailplane as
one
> unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
> (algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability
measurement.
> Cheers



Sure you can, one without the other is notreally much of anything. they
work together.

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> nospam > wrote in
> news:bYydndxV96btLr_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@internode:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> nospam > wrote in
>>> news:DbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim setting
>>> at
>>>>>> all?
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just demands
>>>>> that the airplane behave in certain ways in various configurations
>>> and
>>>>> maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
>>>>> within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the wing,
>>>>> for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back.
> The
>>>>> rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
>>>>> experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get very
>>>>> nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the
>>> wing
>>>>> stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
>>>>> airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing
>>> stall
>>>>> and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the
> '40s
>>>>> and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but because
>>>>> the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily
> have
>>>>> been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there.
> Only
>>>>> problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into the
>>>>> ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
>>>>> necessarily need to stall to get killed.
>>>>> The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the
> stabilator
>>>>> stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on pretty
>>>>> hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of the
>>>>> stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the
> stab
>>>>> stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in the
>>>>> '68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>> Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a
> download.
>>>> When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall,
> there
>>>> is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
>>>> determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall,
> without
>>>> special instrumentation, is beyond me.
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
>>> There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the elevator
>> power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs minus 5kts at
>> forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method of increasing
>> elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator and tailplane as
> one
>> unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
>> (algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability
> measurement.
>> Cheers
>
>
>
> Sure you can, one without the other is notreally much of anything. they
> work together.
>
> Bertie

Of coarse you can Bertie Buttlipp, you know everything, you know everyone,
you've done everything. Gotta link?

[nospam[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> nospam > wrote in
> news:bYydndxV96btLr_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@internode:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> nospam > wrote in
>>> news:DbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim setting
>>> at
>>>>>> all?
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just demands
>>>>> that the airplane behave in certain ways in various configurations
>>> and
>>>>> maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
>>>>> within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the wing,
>>>>> for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back.
> The
>>>>> rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
>>>>> experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get very
>>>>> nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the
>>> wing
>>>>> stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
>>>>> airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing
>>> stall
>>>>> and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the
> '40s
>>>>> and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but because
>>>>> the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily
> have
>>>>> been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there.
> Only
>>>>> problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into the
>>>>> ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
>>>>> necessarily need to stall to get killed.
>>>>> The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the
> stabilator
>>>>> stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on pretty
>>>>> hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of the
>>>>> stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the
> stab
>>>>> stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in the
>>>>> '68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>> Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a
> download.
>>>> When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall,
> there
>>>> is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
>>>> determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall,
> without
>>>> special instrumentation, is beyond me.
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>> You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
>>> There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the elevator
>> power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs minus 5kts at
>> forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method of increasing
>> elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator and tailplane as
> one
>> unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
>> (algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability
> measurement.
>> Cheers
>
>
>
> Sure you can, one without the other is notreally much of anything. they
> work together.
>
> Bertie
They only work "together", as you put, after a lot of careful
engineering of the individual components and the interaction between
them. Even then, testing often shows that further refinements are
necessary.

Take, for example 4 tails all of the same planform and aerofoil section.

1. An all flying tail hydraulically operated.
The pivot point can be almost anywhere, hinge moments don't matter much
if sufficient hydraulic power is available. No tabs are required and
control feel can be as simple as a set of springs.

2. An all flying tail manually operated.
The pivot point position has to be placed to achieve correct control
feel throughout the tail range of motion at all angles of attack the
tail will "see" in service. A anti-balance tab will be required - this
will affect the tail lift curve. A trim tab will be required, depending
on the aerodynamic problems this may or may not be incorporated in the
anti-balance tab operation.

3. A fixed tail with an elevator.
The hinge positions can be comparatively easily calculated to achieve
the correct hinge moments for feel and stick fixed stability. To have
the same power as the two above more area is required. A trim tab is
required and an elevator down spring may be necessary to achieve the
same stable CG range as the above 2.

4 A fixed tail with an elevator which requires a geared balance tab to
either increase or decrease elevator hinge moments and therefore control
feel.

Similar to above but will be more or less powerful depending on the
direction of operation of the geared balance tab.


Sure it all works together but has to be designed to do it.

For those who were wondering about tab effect, or indeed elevator effect
on total tail lift the following may help;
Each item can be considered separately.
There will be a basic tail camber lift component which in many cases is
zero.
Then find the tailplane AOA and from the lift curve slope find tail Cl -
put that into the normal lift equation.
At that particular tailplane AOA, select the elevator AOA and again find
the Cl from the lift curve.
Then do the same for the tab.
Add the 3 solutions to get total tail lift.
Do this for the complete range of angle of attack for each component and
you will know the total range (and direction) of tail lift.
Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> nospam > wrote in
>> news:bYydndxV96btLr_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@internode:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> nospam > wrote in
>>>> news:DbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim
>>>>>>> setting
>>>> at
>>>>>>> all?
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just
>>>>>> demands
>>>>>> that the airplane behave in certain ways in various
>>>>>> configurations
>>>> and
>>>>>> maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
>>>>>> within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the
>>>>>> wing, for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its
>>>>>> back.
>> The
>>>>>> rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
>>>>>> experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get
>>>>>> very nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently
>>>>>> as the
>>>> wing
>>>>>> stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
>>>>>> airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing
>>>> stall
>>>>>> and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the
>> '40s
>>>>>> and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but
>>>>>> because the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could
>>>>>> easily
>> have
>>>>>> been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there.
>> Only
>>>>>> problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into
>>>>>> the ground and break their backs with compression fractures.
>>>>>> Don't necessarily need to stall to get killed.
>>>>>> The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the
>> stabilator
>>>>>> stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on
>>>>>> pretty hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge
>>>>>> of the stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do
>>>>>> with the
>> stab
>>>>>> stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in
>>>>>> the '68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>> Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a
>> download.
>>>>> When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall,
>> there
>>>>> is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
>>>>> determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall,
>> without
>>>>> special instrumentation, is beyond me.
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
>>>> There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the
>>> elevator power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs
>>> minus 5kts at forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method
>>> of increasing elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator
>>> and tailplane as
>> one
>>> unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
>>> (algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability
>> measurement.
>>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure you can, one without the other is notreally much of anything.
>> they work together.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Of coarse you can Bertie Buttlipp, you know everything, you know
> everyone, you've done everything. Gotta link?
>


Don;'t need one, wannabe boi.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

nospam > wrote in
node:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> nospam > wrote in
>> news:bYydndxV96btLr_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@internode:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> nospam > wrote in
>>>> news:DbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim
setting
>>>> at
>>>>>>> all?
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just
demands
>>>>>> that the airplane behave in certain ways in various
configurations
>>>> and
>>>>>> maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
>>>>>> within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the
wing,
>>>>>> for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back.
>> The
>>>>>> rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
>>>>>> experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get
very
>>>>>> nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the
>>>> wing
>>>>>> stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
>>>>>> airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing
>>>> stall
>>>>>> and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the
>> '40s
>>>>>> and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but
because
>>>>>> the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily
>> have
>>>>>> been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there.
>> Only
>>>>>> problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into
the
>>>>>> ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
>>>>>> necessarily need to stall to get killed.
>>>>>> The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the
>> stabilator
>>>>>> stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on
pretty
>>>>>> hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of the
>>>>>> stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the
>> stab
>>>>>> stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in
the
>>>>>> '68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>> Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a
>> download.
>>>>> When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall,
>> there
>>>>> is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
>>>>> determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall,
>> without
>>>>> special instrumentation, is beyond me.
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>> You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
>>>> There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the
elevator
>>> power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs minus 5kts
at
>>> forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method of increasing
>>> elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator and tailplane as
>> one
>>> unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
>>> (algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability
>> measurement.
>>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure you can, one without the other is notreally much of anything.
they
>> work together.
>>
>> Bertie
> They only work "together", as you put, after a lot of careful
> engineering of the individual components and the interaction between
> them. Even then, testing often shows that further refinements are
> necessary.
>
> Take, for example 4 tails all of the same planform and aerofoil
section.
>
> 1. An all flying tail hydraulically operated.
> The pivot point can be almost anywhere, hinge moments don't matter
much
> if sufficient hydraulic power is available. No tabs are required and
> control feel can be as simple as a set of springs.
>
> 2. An all flying tail manually operated.
> The pivot point position has to be placed to achieve correct control
> feel throughout the tail range of motion at all angles of attack the
> tail will "see" in service. A anti-balance tab will be required - this
> will affect the tail lift curve. A trim tab will be required,
depending
> on the aerodynamic problems this may or may not be incorporated in the
> anti-balance tab operation.
>
> 3. A fixed tail with an elevator.
> The hinge positions can be comparatively easily calculated to achieve
> the correct hinge moments for feel and stick fixed stability. To have
> the same power as the two above more area is required. A trim tab is
> required and an elevator down spring may be necessary to achieve the
> same stable CG range as the above 2.
>
> 4 A fixed tail with an elevator which requires a geared balance tab
to
> either increase or decrease elevator hinge moments and therefore
control
> feel.
>
> Similar to above but will be more or less powerful depending on the
> direction of operation of the geared balance tab.
>
>
> Sure it all works together but has to be designed to do it.
>
> For those who were wondering about tab effect, or indeed elevator
effect
> on total tail lift the following may help;
> Each item can be considered separately.
> There will be a basic tail camber lift component which in many cases
is
> zero.
> Then find the tailplane AOA and from the lift curve slope find tail Cl
-
> put that into the normal lift equation.
> At that particular tailplane AOA, select the elevator AOA and again
find
> the Cl from the lift curve.
> Then do the same for the tab.
> Add the 3 solutions to get total tail lift.
> Do this for the complete range of angle of attack for each component
and
> you will know the total range (and direction) of tail lift.
> Cheers
>

none of which contradicts what I said.


And BTW, you've read all this and you still don't get that the area
remains the same when the tab is deflected?


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>
> none of which contradicts what I said.
>
>
> And BTW, you've read all this and you still don't get that the area
> remains the same when the tab is deflected?
>
>
> Bertie
>

There ya go MXII, start changing your story.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:L1HUj.31937$KJ1.1375
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>
>>
>> none of which contradicts what I said.
>>
>>
>> And BTW, you've read all this and you still don't get that the area
>> remains the same when the tab is deflected?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> There ya go MXII, start changing your story.
>
>
>

Uh, yeh.


Can't read won't read.


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhha!


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On May 8, 6:22 am, nospam > wrote:

> For those who were wondering about tab effect, or indeed elevator effect
> on total tail lift the following may help;
> Each item can be considered separately.
> There will be a basic tail camber lift component which in many cases is
> zero.
> Then find the tailplane AOA and from the lift curve slope find tail Cl -
> put that into the normal lift equation.
> At that particular tailplane AOA, select the elevator AOA and again find
> the Cl from the lift curve.
> Then do the same for the tab.
> Add the 3 solutions to get total tail lift.
> Do this for the complete range of angle of attack for each component and
> you will know the total range (and direction) of tail lift.
> Cheers

Sorry, but each item can't be considered separately, any more
than an aileron can be designed or its effect determined without the
wing ahead of it. Removing the elevator from the stab, physically,
would make the stab almost useless, especially if it has an airfoil
shape and/or has aerodynamic balance. Working out numbers for an
elevator without considering the stab's effect on the camber and AOA
for the whole assembly is also useless. The air doesn't decide what
bits it will react to or ignore; it only sees an airfoil of some sort,
having at any given instant a particular camber and AOA, and the tab
is part of that assembly, whether deflected or not. The tab doesn't
contribute much, if any, to tail downforce, but does affect elevator
float position, and that elevator position sure does affect downforce.
Airplanes are not the sum of their parts. I wish it was that
simple.

Dan

[nospam[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> nospam > wrote in
> node:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> nospam > wrote in
>>> news:bYydndxV96btLr_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@internode:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> nospam > wrote in
>>>>> news:DbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim
> setting
>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> all?
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just
> demands
>>>>>>> that the airplane behave in certain ways in various
> configurations
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
>>>>>>> within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the
> wing,
>>>>>>> for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back.
>>> The
>>>>>>> rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
>>>>>>> experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get
> very
>>>>>>> nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the
>>>>> wing
>>>>>>> stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
>>>>>>> airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing
>>>>> stall
>>>>>>> and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the
>>> '40s
>>>>>>> and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but
> because
>>>>>>> the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily
>>> have
>>>>>>> been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there.
>>> Only
>>>>>>> problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into
> the
>>>>>>> ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
>>>>>>> necessarily need to stall to get killed.
>>>>>>> The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the
>>> stabilator
>>>>>>> stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on
> pretty
>>>>>>> hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of the
>>>>>>> stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the
>>> stab
>>>>>>> stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in
> the
>>>>>>> '68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>> Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a
>>> download.
>>>>>> When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall,
>>> there
>>>>>> is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
>>>>>> determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall,
>>> without
>>>>>> special instrumentation, is beyond me.
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>> You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
>>>>> There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the
> elevator
>>>> power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs minus 5kts
> at
>>>> forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method of increasing
>>>> elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator and tailplane as
>>> one
>>>> unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
>>>> (algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability
>>> measurement.
>>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure you can, one without the other is notreally much of anything.
> they
>>> work together.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> They only work "together", as you put, after a lot of careful
>> engineering of the individual components and the interaction between
>> them. Even then, testing often shows that further refinements are
>> necessary.
>>
>> Take, for example 4 tails all of the same planform and aerofoil
> section.
>> 1. An all flying tail hydraulically operated.
>> The pivot point can be almost anywhere, hinge moments don't matter
> much
>> if sufficient hydraulic power is available. No tabs are required and
>> control feel can be as simple as a set of springs.
>>
>> 2. An all flying tail manually operated.
>> The pivot point position has to be placed to achieve correct control
>> feel throughout the tail range of motion at all angles of attack the
>> tail will "see" in service. A anti-balance tab will be required - this
>> will affect the tail lift curve. A trim tab will be required,
> depending
>> on the aerodynamic problems this may or may not be incorporated in the
>> anti-balance tab operation.
>>
>> 3. A fixed tail with an elevator.
>> The hinge positions can be comparatively easily calculated to achieve
>> the correct hinge moments for feel and stick fixed stability. To have
>> the same power as the two above more area is required. A trim tab is
>> required and an elevator down spring may be necessary to achieve the
>> same stable CG range as the above 2.
>>
>> 4 A fixed tail with an elevator which requires a geared balance tab
> to
>> either increase or decrease elevator hinge moments and therefore
> control
>> feel.
>>
>> Similar to above but will be more or less powerful depending on the
>> direction of operation of the geared balance tab.
>>
>>
>> Sure it all works together but has to be designed to do it.
>>
>> For those who were wondering about tab effect, or indeed elevator
> effect
>> on total tail lift the following may help;
>> Each item can be considered separately.
>> There will be a basic tail camber lift component which in many cases
> is
>> zero.
>> Then find the tailplane AOA and from the lift curve slope find tail Cl
> -
>> put that into the normal lift equation.
>> At that particular tailplane AOA, select the elevator AOA and again
> find
>> the Cl from the lift curve.
>> Then do the same for the tab.
>> Add the 3 solutions to get total tail lift.
>> Do this for the complete range of angle of attack for each component
> and
>> you will know the total range (and direction) of tail lift.
>> Cheers
>>
>
> none of which contradicts what I said.
>
>
> And BTW, you've read all this and you still don't get that the area
> remains the same when the tab is deflected?
>
>
> Bertie
>
And exactly where did I state that tab area changes with deflection?
If you understood what I wrote it is quite clear that the full tab area
is included in the lift equation I mentioned above.

What I wrote totally contradicts your claim that the functions of the
components of an aircraft tail cannot be separated. They are separated,
and must be, for any effective analysis of the contribution of the tail
to the aircraft stability and control.

Anyway, I will leave it to other readers of this thread to come to their
own conclusions on the validity of the claims your posts, other than the
accurate claim concerning tab area.

Go ahead and have the last word - I know it will be written with the
supreme confidence of the totally ignorant.

I won't be lurking to read it.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

nospam > wrote in
node:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> nospam > wrote in
>> node:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> nospam > wrote in
>>>> news:bYydndxV96btLr_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@internode:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> nospam > wrote in
>>>>>> news:DbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim
>> setting
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> all?
>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just
>> demands
>>>>>>>> that the airplane behave in certain ways in various
>> configurations
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to
fit
>>>>>>>> within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the
>> wing,
>>>>>>>> for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its
back.
>>>> The
>>>>>>>> rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
>>>>>>>> experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get
>> very
>>>>>>>> nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as
the
>>>>>> wing
>>>>>>>> stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
>>>>>>>> airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent
wing
>>>>>> stall
>>>>>>>> and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in
the
>>>> '40s
>>>>>>>> and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but
>> because
>>>>>>>> the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily
>>>> have
>>>>>>>> been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there.
>>>> Only
>>>>>>>> problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into
>> the
>>>>>>>> ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
>>>>>>>> necessarily need to stall to get killed.
>>>>>>>> The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the
>>>> stabilator
>>>>>>>> stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on
>> pretty
>>>>>>>> hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of
the
>>>>>>>> stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the
>>>> stab
>>>>>>>> stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in
>> the
>>>>>>>> '68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>> Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a
>>>> download.
>>>>>>> When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall,
>>>> there
>>>>>>> is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How
you
>>>>>>> determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall,
>>>> without
>>>>>>> special instrumentation, is beyond me.
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
>>>>>> There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the
>> elevator
>>>>> power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs minus 5kts
>> at
>>>>> forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method of
increasing
>>>>> elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator and tailplane
as
>>>> one
>>>>> unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
>>>>> (algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability
>>>> measurement.
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure you can, one without the other is notreally much of anything.
>> they
>>>> work together.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> They only work "together", as you put, after a lot of careful
>>> engineering of the individual components and the interaction between
>>> them. Even then, testing often shows that further refinements are
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> Take, for example 4 tails all of the same planform and aerofoil
>> section.
>>> 1. An all flying tail hydraulically operated.
>>> The pivot point can be almost anywhere, hinge moments don't matter
>> much
>>> if sufficient hydraulic power is available. No tabs are required and
>>> control feel can be as simple as a set of springs.
>>>
>>> 2. An all flying tail manually operated.
>>> The pivot point position has to be placed to achieve correct control
>>> feel throughout the tail range of motion at all angles of attack the
>>> tail will "see" in service. A anti-balance tab will be required -
this
>>> will affect the tail lift curve. A trim tab will be required,
>> depending
>>> on the aerodynamic problems this may or may not be incorporated in
the
>>> anti-balance tab operation.
>>>
>>> 3. A fixed tail with an elevator.
>>> The hinge positions can be comparatively easily calculated to
achieve
>>> the correct hinge moments for feel and stick fixed stability. To
have
>>> the same power as the two above more area is required. A trim tab
is
>>> required and an elevator down spring may be necessary to achieve the
>>> same stable CG range as the above 2.
>>>
>>> 4 A fixed tail with an elevator which requires a geared balance tab
>> to
>>> either increase or decrease elevator hinge moments and therefore
>> control
>>> feel.
>>>
>>> Similar to above but will be more or less powerful depending on the
>>> direction of operation of the geared balance tab.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure it all works together but has to be designed to do it.
>>>
>>> For those who were wondering about tab effect, or indeed elevator
>> effect
>>> on total tail lift the following may help;
>>> Each item can be considered separately.
>>> There will be a basic tail camber lift component which in many cases
>> is
>>> zero.
>>> Then find the tailplane AOA and from the lift curve slope find tail
Cl
>> -
>>> put that into the normal lift equation.
>>> At that particular tailplane AOA, select the elevator AOA and again
>> find
>>> the Cl from the lift curve.
>>> Then do the same for the tab.
>>> Add the 3 solutions to get total tail lift.
>>> Do this for the complete range of angle of attack for each component
>> and
>>> you will know the total range (and direction) of tail lift.
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>
>> none of which contradicts what I said.
>>
>>
>> And BTW, you've read all this and you still don't get that the area
>> remains the same when the tab is deflected?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> And exactly where did I state that tab area changes with deflection?
> If you understood what I wrote it is quite clear that the full tab
area
> is included in the lift equation I mentioned above.
>
> What I wrote totally contradicts your claim that the functions of the
> components of an aircraft tail cannot be separated. They are
separated,
> and must be, for any effective analysis of the contribution of the
tail
> to the aircraft stability and control.
>
> Anyway, I will leave it to other readers of this thread to come to
their
> own conclusions on the validity of the claims your posts, other than
the
> accurate claim concerning tab area.
>
> Go ahead and have the last word - I know it will be written with the
> supreme confidence of the totally ignorant.
>
> I won't be lurking to read it.

Kay, see ya.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On May 8, 4:44 pm, nospam > wrote:

> What I wrote totally contradicts your claim that the functions of the
> components of an aircraft tail cannot be separated. They are separated,
> and must be, for any effective analysis of the contribution of the tail
> to the aircraft stability and control.


What you wrote contradicted someone's claim. And that's all it
did. It's easy to contradict anyone.
Maybe you could provide some references that say that the
effectiveness of each piece can be calculated as a separate item,
disregarding the effects of the other, adjacent parts, and then
arriving at an accurate overall lift simply by summing them. We'd be
very interested to see such proof.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:13c4f3ca-ac69-4672-a6a0-
:

> On May 8, 4:44 pm, nospam > wrote:
>
>> What I wrote totally contradicts your claim that the functions of the
>> components of an aircraft tail cannot be separated. They are
separated,
>> and must be, for any effective analysis of the contribution of the
tail
>> to the aircraft stability and control.
>
>
> What you wrote contradicted someone's claim. And that's all it
> did. It's easy to contradict anyone.
> Maybe you could provide some references that say that the
> effectiveness of each piece can be calculated as a separate item,
> disregarding the effects of the other, adjacent parts, and then
> arriving at an accurate overall lift simply by summing them. We'd be
> very interested to see such proof.

I'd buy a lottery ticket and vote for Pat Paulson immediatly afterwards.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>> I won't be lurking to read it.
>
> Kay, see ya.
>
>
> Bertie


Squirt, squirt there Squirty ****drip.

[nospam[_2_]]

wrote:
> On May 8, 6:22 am, nospam > wrote:
>
>> For those who were wondering about tab effect, or indeed elevator effect
>> on total tail lift the following may help;
>> Each item can be considered separately.
>> There will be a basic tail camber lift component which in many cases is
>> zero.
>> Then find the tailplane AOA and from the lift curve slope find tail Cl -
>> put that into the normal lift equation.
>> At that particular tailplane AOA, select the elevator AOA and again find
>> the Cl from the lift curve.
>> Then do the same for the tab.
>> Add the 3 solutions to get total tail lift.
>> Do this for the complete range of angle of attack for each component and
>> you will know the total range (and direction) of tail lift.
>> Cheers
>
> Sorry, but each item can't be considered separately, any more
> than an aileron can be designed or its effect determined without the
> wing ahead of it. Removing the elevator from the stab, physically,
> would make the stab almost useless, especially if it has an airfoil
> shape and/or has aerodynamic balance. Working out numbers for an
> elevator without considering the stab's effect on the camber and AOA
> for the whole assembly is also useless. The air doesn't decide what
> bits it will react to or ignore; it only sees an airfoil of some sort,
> having at any given instant a particular camber and AOA, and the tab
> is part of that assembly, whether deflected or not. The tab doesn't
> contribute much, if any, to tail downforce, but does affect elevator
> float position, and that elevator position sure does affect downforce.
> Airplanes are not the sum of their parts. I wish it was that
> simple.
>
> Dan

Geeez I hadn't realized how thick you guys are.
Of course the tail, elevator and tab are taken into account - AOA tail
is wing AOA plus downwash, elevator AOA is wing AOA plus tail downwash
plus elevator angle, tab AOA is wing AOA plus wing downwash plus
tailplane wash plus elevator wash (at a particular elevator angle).
Your comments on elevator float position are irrelevant when one decides
to do calculations at a particular elevator angle. Float position is
nice to know for stick free stability measurements, but both the pilot
and the engineer can set the elevator angle at any they wish
irrespective of float.
If you really believe that aircraft are not the sum of the parts I would
suggest that any study of serious aerodynamic theory is probably beyond you.

References:
Duncan W. J. Control and Stability of Aircraft
Babister A. W. Aircraft Stability and Control
Perkins and Hage Airplane Performance Stability and Control

Get these out of your library you might actually learn something!
and
Course Notes Empire Test Pilot School.

The top 3 are widely used texts for aeronautical engineering degree courses.
I know I wrote I would not be back and I now realize that this group is
not one where serious informed discussion can be had.
I really won't be back.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:55:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote:

>On May 8, 12:17*am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>
>>
>> your questions dont have that much depth btw.
>> just a lot of misunderstood aerodynamics.
>>
>
>Naysaying is the mark of a troll wihen no facts are given to back it
>up.
>
>Cheers

accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a troll is so lame.

ok lets get this in proper perspective.

the average GA tailplane has a span of about 8ft.
the trim tab sits on only one side and it is about a foot span and
maybe 2 inches chord.

just considering the tailplane chord through the trim tab for the time
being. you are looking at a chord of about 2 ft.
wound to it's full extent it would have maybe 5% effective change in
the aerofoil characteristics. bear in mind that it lives down near the
trailing edge where the contribution to lift is minimal.

so the overall effect is perhaps 5% of 1/8th of the tailplane.
calculate that out and the change of the characteristics overall is
something like 0.000625 or 0.06% change.

take into account the fact that trim tabs exist for all their life
near the centre of travel and so have minimal effect anyway and you
have wasted a huge amount of design time on the most trivial of red
herrings.

you dont need to consider the size of the trim tab in the early part
of a design at all.

in the interesting discussion you had with bertie all of his posts
were correct in pure theory terms but in overall actual effect you are
talking about a variation between an original 100% and 99.937% or
100.06% of the rest of the tailplane. ...which I why I think the
direction these discussions are heading is nonsense.

if you want to be at the top of the dog pile thats fine by me.
if you want to design good aeroplanes put the ego in the back pocket
and try building on the hundred years of knowledge built up by your
predecessors. you'll never learn until you accept that you need to
learn.

Stealth ( been studying and learning aviation for 37 years now ) Pilot

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"nospam" > wrote in message
news:PNydnSQ4QbdIurnVnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@internode...

>
> Geeez I hadn't realized how thick you guys are.
> Of course the tail, elevator and tab are taken into account - AOA tail is
> wing AOA plus downwash, elevator AOA is wing AOA plus tail downwash plus
> elevator angle, tab AOA is wing AOA plus wing downwash plus tailplane wash
> plus elevator wash (at a particular elevator angle). Your comments on
> elevator float position are irrelevant when one decides to do calculations
> at a particular elevator angle. Float position is nice to know for stick
> free stability measurements, but both the pilot and the engineer can set
> the elevator angle at any they wish irrespective of float.
> If you really believe that aircraft are not the sum of the parts I would
> suggest that any study of serious aerodynamic theory is probably beyond
> you.
>
> References:
> Duncan W. J. Control and Stability of Aircraft
> Babister A. W. Aircraft Stability and Control
> Perkins and Hage Airplane Performance Stability and Control
>
> Get these out of your library you might actually learn something!
> and
> Course Notes Empire Test Pilot School.
>
> The top 3 are widely used texts for aeronautical engineering degree
> courses.
> I know I wrote I would not be back and I now realize that this group is
> not one where serious informed discussion can be had.
> I really won't be back.
>
>

Hey, don't let these to assholes run you off. There are a lot of good and
reasonable people around here. You just have to learn who to ignore, and you
just met two of the three most troubled children.

Stick around. Just don't answer these two from now on.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:55:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > wrote:
>
>>On May 8, 12:17 am, Stealth Pilot >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> your questions dont have that much depth btw.
>>> just a lot of misunderstood aerodynamics.
>>>
>>
>>Naysaying is the mark of a troll wihen no facts are given to back it
>>up.
>>
>>Cheers
>
> accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a troll is so lame.
>

It's also the first thing a wanna be troll does.

[[email protected]]

On May 9, 4:30 am, nospam > wrote:

> Geeez I hadn't realized how thick you guys are.
> Of course the tail, elevator and tab are taken into account -

And I quote you:

"They only work "together", as you put, after a lot of careful
engineering of the individual components and the interaction between
them."

"Each item can be considered separately."

The overall impression you give is that they have little to do with
each other and can be separated as if they will act as they do without
being attached to the other parts, which is false. Sorry if I took it
that way, but I think a lot of folks would read it exactly the same as
I did.
And Maxwell needs to go do dome reading, too. Endless flaming
only makes him look like a spoiled schoolyard bully.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:FyOUj.2537$hJ1.2363
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> I won't be lurking to read it.
>>
>> Kay, see ya.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Squirt, squirt there Squirty ****drip.
>

Yes, my little yellow friend.


Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

nospam > wrote in
news:PNydnSQ4QbdIurnVnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@internode:

> wrote:
>> On May 8, 6:22 am, nospam > wrote:
>>
>>> For those who were wondering about tab effect, or indeed elevator
>>> effect on total tail lift the following may help;
>>> Each item can be considered separately.
>>> There will be a basic tail camber lift component which in many cases
>>> is zero.
>>> Then find the tailplane AOA and from the lift curve slope find tail
>>> Cl - put that into the normal lift equation.
>>> At that particular tailplane AOA, select the elevator AOA and again
>>> find the Cl from the lift curve.
>>> Then do the same for the tab.
>>> Add the 3 solutions to get total tail lift.
>>> Do this for the complete range of angle of attack for each component
>>> and you will know the total range (and direction) of tail lift.
>>> Cheers
>>
>> Sorry, but each item can't be considered separately, any more
>> than an aileron can be designed or its effect determined without the
>> wing ahead of it. Removing the elevator from the stab, physically,
>> would make the stab almost useless, especially if it has an airfoil
>> shape and/or has aerodynamic balance. Working out numbers for an
>> elevator without considering the stab's effect on the camber and AOA
>> for the whole assembly is also useless. The air doesn't decide what
>> bits it will react to or ignore; it only sees an airfoil of some
>> sort, having at any given instant a particular camber and AOA, and
>> the tab is part of that assembly, whether deflected or not. The tab
>> doesn't contribute much, if any, to tail downforce, but does affect
>> elevator float position, and that elevator position sure does affect
>> downforce.
>> Airplanes are not the sum of their parts. I wish it was that
>> simple.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Geeez I hadn't realized how thick you guys are.
> Of course the tail, elevator and tab are taken into account - AOA tail
> is wing AOA plus downwash, elevator AOA is wing AOA plus tail downwash
> plus elevator angle, tab AOA is wing AOA plus wing downwash plus
> tailplane wash plus elevator wash (at a particular elevator angle).
> Your comments on elevator float position are irrelevant when one
> decides to do calculations at a particular elevator angle. Float
> position is nice to know for stick free stability measurements, but
> both the pilot and the engineer can set the elevator angle at any they
> wish irrespective of float.
> If you really believe that aircraft are not the sum of the parts I
> would suggest that any study of serious aerodynamic theory is probably
> beyond you.
>
> References:
> Duncan W. J. Control and Stability of Aircraft
> Babister A. W. Aircraft Stability and Control
> Perkins and Hage Airplane Performance Stability and Control
>
> Get these out of your library you might actually learn something!


They don't appear to have done much for you..



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "nospam" > wrote in message
> news:PNydnSQ4QbdIurnVnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@internode...
>
>>
>> Geeez I hadn't realized how thick you guys are.
>> Of course the tail, elevator and tab are taken into account - AOA
>> tail is wing AOA plus downwash, elevator AOA is wing AOA plus tail
>> downwash plus elevator angle, tab AOA is wing AOA plus wing downwash
>> plus tailplane wash plus elevator wash (at a particular elevator
>> angle). Your comments on elevator float position are irrelevant when
>> one decides to do calculations at a particular elevator angle. Float
>> position is nice to know for stick free stability measurements, but
>> both the pilot and the engineer can set the elevator angle at any
>> they wish irrespective of float. If you really believe that aircraft
>> are not the sum of the parts I would suggest that any study of
>> serious aerodynamic theory is probably beyond you.
>>
>> References:
>> Duncan W. J. Control and Stability of Aircraft
>> Babister A. W. Aircraft Stability and Control
>> Perkins and Hage Airplane Performance Stability and Control
>>
>> Get these out of your library you might actually learn something!
>> and
>> Course Notes Empire Test Pilot School.
>>
>> The top 3 are widely used texts for aeronautical engineering degree
>> courses.
>> I know I wrote I would not be back and I now realize that this group
>> is not one where serious informed discussion can be had.
>> I really won't be back.
>>
>>
>
> Hey, don't let these to assholes run you off. There are a lot of good
> and reasonable people around here. You just have to learn who to
> ignore, and you just met two of the three most troubled children.
>
> Stick around. Just don't answer these two from now on.
>
>

Snort!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:cmXUj.2555$hJ1.1023
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:55:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On May 8, 12:17 am, Stealth Pilot >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> your questions dont have that much depth btw.
>>>> just a lot of misunderstood aerodynamics.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Naysaying is the mark of a troll wihen no facts are given to back it
>>>up.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>
>> accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a troll is so lame.
>>
>
> It's also the first thing a wanna be troll does.
>
>
>

OK wannabe boi.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On May 9, 11:57*pm, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:55:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 8, 12:17*am, Stealth Pilot >
> >wrote:
>
> >> your questions dont have that much depth btw.
> >> just a lot of misunderstood aerodynamics.
>
> >Naysaying is the mark of a troll wihen no facts are given to back it
> >up.
>
> >Cheers
>
> accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a troll is so lame.
>
> ok lets get this in proper perspective.
>
> the average GA tailplane has a span of about 8ft.
> the trim tab sits on only one side and it is about a foot span and
> maybe 2 inches chord.
>

Go and measure an Arrow or 177. Even a 172 has a bigger trim tab than
that. BUT you still don't understand the point.

> just considering the tailplane chord through the trim tab for the time
> being. you are looking at a chord of about 2 ft. *
> wound to it's full extent it would have maybe 5% effective change in
> the aerofoil characteristics. bear in mind that it lives down near the
> trailing edge where the contribution to lift is minimal.
>

With this last statement I can see there is absolutely no point to
discussing this with you as you don't know how an airfoil works.

Bye

.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:59c00842-d3d5-40be-9cec-
:

> On May 9, 11:57*pm, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:55:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On May 8, 12:17*am, Stealth Pilot >
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> your questions dont have that much depth btw.
>> >> just a lot of misunderstood aerodynamics.
>>
>> >Naysaying is the mark of a troll wihen no facts are given to back it
>> >up.
>>
>> >Cheers
>>
>> accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a troll is so lame.
>>
>> ok lets get this in proper perspective.
>>
>> the average GA tailplane has a span of about 8ft.
>> the trim tab sits on only one side and it is about a foot span and
>> maybe 2 inches chord.
>>
>
> Go and measure an Arrow or 177. Even a 172 has a bigger trim tab than
> that. BUT you still don't understand the point.
>
>> just considering the tailplane chord through the trim tab for the
time
>> being. you are looking at a chord of about 2 ft. *
>> wound to it's full extent it would have maybe 5% effective change in
>> the aerofoil characteristics. bear in mind that it lives down near
the
>> trailing edge where the contribution to lift is minimal.
>>
>
> With this last statement I can see there is absolutely no point to
> discussing this with you as you don't know how an airfoil works.

He does understand actually. your own understanding is extremely flawed.
>
> Bye
>
> .
>
Sheesh you say good bye a lot.

[Mxsmanic]

I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers, then
degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't actually
know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated info a flame war
among a few angry young males. Along the way it picked up a lot of bizarre
crossposting, which I've removed on this reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,


Useful how? You don;t fly so you can't use them.


then
> degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't
> actually know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated
> info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along the way it
> picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've removed on this
> reply.
>
That's OK,. I';lll put them back.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9A99AE13EF467E817AC3D8380227
@127.0.0.1:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g02kb9$p2k$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>
>>
>> Useful how? You don;t fly so you can't use them.
>>
>>
>> then
>>> degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't
>>> actually know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated
>>> info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along the way it
>>> picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've removed on this
>>> reply.
>>>
>> That's OK,. I';lll put them back.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Why does he assume every poster is an angry young male?
>

It's like the ink blot thing. I guess.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

gregvk writes:

> Why does he assume every poster is an angry young male?

He doesn't, but most of those who engage in flame wars or personal attacks
are.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gregvk writes:
>
>> Why does he assume every poster is an angry young male?
>
> He doesn't, but most of those who engage in flame wars or personal
> attacks are.

BULL ****!

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers, then
> degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't
> actually know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated
> info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along the way it
> picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've removed on this
> reply.

You haven't got the foggiest idea of which answers were useful and which
weren't. You don't fly and you don't know **** from shinola about flying.

[george]

On May 10, 12:15 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers, then
> > degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't
> > actually know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated
> > info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along the way it
> > picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've removed on this
> > reply.
>
> You haven't got the foggiest idea of which answers were useful and which
> weren't. You don't fly and you don't know **** from shinola about flying.

Elsewhere there is a link to a kill file that works in Google.
It works.
No more Mxsmanic.

[Benjamin Dover]

george > wrote in
:

> On May 10, 12:15 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>> > then degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly
>> > didn't actually know how anything worked, and has now further
>> > degenerated info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along
>> > the way it picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've
>> > removed on this reply.
>>
>> You haven't got the foggiest idea of which answers were useful and
>> which weren't. You don't fly and you don't know **** from shinola
>> about flying.
>
> Elsewhere there is a link to a kill file that works in Google.
> It works.
> No more Mxsmanic.
>

Yes, but you'll miss out on all the opportunites to see how the self
proclaimed expert pilot is a total ignoramus when it comes to flying. It
does have some entertainment value.

[dave hillstrom]

On 09 May 2008 23:06:49 GMT, gregvk > wrote:

>Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g02kb9$p2k$1
:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>
>>
>> Useful how? You don;t fly so you can't use them.
>>
>>
>> then
>>> degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't
>>> actually know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated
>>> info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along the way it
>>> picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've removed on this
>>> reply.
>>>
>> That's OK,. I';lll put them back.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>Why does he assume every poster is an angry young male?

im an angry middle aged male. im CLEALY in a separate demographic.

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

dave hillstrom > wrote in
:

> On 09 May 2008 23:06:49 GMT, gregvk > wrote:
>
>>Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g02kb9$p2k$1
:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>>
>>>
>>> Useful how? You don;t fly so you can't use them.
>>>
>>>
>>> then
>>>> degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't
>>>> actually know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated
>>>> info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along the way it
>>>> picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've removed on this
>>>> reply.
>>>>
>>> That's OK,. I';lll put them back.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>>Why does he assume every poster is an angry young male?
>
> im an angry middle aged male. im CLEALY in a separate demographic.


Are you sure that by trying to be differnt you're not actually becoming
more the same?


Bertie

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:59:22 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
dave hillstrom > got double secret probation for
writing:

>On 09 May 2008 23:06:49 GMT, gregvk > wrote:
>
>>Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g02kb9$p2k$1
:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>>
>>>
>>> Useful how? You don;t fly so you can't use them.
>>>
>>>
>>> then
>>>> degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't
>>>> actually know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated
>>>> info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along the way it
>>>> picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've removed on this
>>>> reply.
>>>>
>>> That's OK,. I';lll put them back.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>>Why does he assume every poster is an angry young male?
>
>im an angry middle aged male. im CLEALY in a separate demographic.

bejebus, iffen yer middle age what the hell does that make me, kid?


--

A Number 1, Grade A, Prime USDA 'Ratz
Accept No Substitute

[dave hillstrom]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:16:11 -0700, Aratzio >
wrote:

>On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:59:22 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>dave hillstrom > got double secret probation for
>writing:
>
>>On 09 May 2008 23:06:49 GMT, gregvk > wrote:
>>
>>>Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g02kb9$p2k$1
:
>>>
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Useful how? You don;t fly so you can't use them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> then
>>>>> degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't
>>>>> actually know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated
>>>>> info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along the way it
>>>>> picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've removed on this
>>>>> reply.
>>>>>
>>>> That's OK,. I';lll put them back.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>Why does he assume every poster is an angry young male?
>>
>>im an angry middle aged male. im CLEALY in a separate demographic.
>
>bejebus, iffen yer middle age what the hell does that make me, kid?

an old fart.

<traipses away>

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom

[dave hillstrom]

On 10 May 2008 03:42:33 GMT, gregvk > wrote:

>dave hillstrom > wrote in
:
>
>> On 09 May 2008 23:06:49 GMT, gregvk > wrote:
>>
>>>Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g02kb9$p2k$1
:
>>>
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Useful how? You don;t fly so you can't use them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> then
>>>>> degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't
>>>>> actually know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated
>>>>> info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along the way it
>>>>> picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've removed on this
>>>>> reply.
>>>>>
>>>> That's OK,. I';lll put them back.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>Why does he assume every poster is an angry young male?
>>
>> im an angry middle aged male. im CLEALY in a separate demographic.
>
>If you're male then how come you have such big boobs?

soy protein and black helicopters.

whats yer excuse?

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom

[Aratzio]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:22:38 -0400, in the land of
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom >
got double secret probation for writing:

>On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:16:11 -0700, Aratzio >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:59:22 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>dave hillstrom > got double secret probation for
>>writing:
>>
>>>On 09 May 2008 23:06:49 GMT, gregvk > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g02kb9$p2k$1
:
>>>>
>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Useful how? You don;t fly so you can't use them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> then
>>>>>> degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't
>>>>>> actually know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated
>>>>>> info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along the way it
>>>>>> picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've removed on this
>>>>>> reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's OK,. I';lll put them back.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>Why does he assume every poster is an angry young male?
>>>
>>>im an angry middle aged male. im CLEALY in a separate demographic.
>>
>>bejebus, iffen yer middle age what the hell does that make me, kid?
>
>an old fart.
>
><traipses away>

Cmon, I drop a BOMB of a straight line and that is it?

<pouts>


--

A Number 1, Grade A, Prime USDA 'Ratz
Accept No Substitute

[WingFlaps]

On May 10, 7:22*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:59c00842-d3d5-40be-9cec-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 11:57*pm, Stealth Pilot >
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:55:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On May 8, 12:17*am, Stealth Pilot >
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >> your questions dont have that much depth btw.
> >> >> just a lot of misunderstood aerodynamics.
>
> >> >Naysaying is the mark of a troll wihen no facts are given to back it
> >> >up.
>
> >> >Cheers
>
> >> accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a troll is so lame.
>
> >> ok lets get this in proper perspective.
>
> >> the average GA tailplane has a span of about 8ft.
> >> the trim tab sits on only one side and it is about a foot span and
> >> maybe 2 inches chord.
>
> > Go and measure an Arrow or 177. Even a 172 has a bigger trim tab than
> > that. BUT you still don't understand the point.
>
> >> just considering the tailplane chord through the trim tab for the
> time
> >> being. you are looking at a chord of about 2 ft. *
> >> wound to it's full extent it would have maybe 5% effective change in
> >> the aerofoil characteristics. bear in mind that it lives down near
> the
> >> trailing edge where the contribution to lift is minimal.
>
> > With this last statement I can see there is absolutely no point to
> > discussing this with you as you don't know how an airfoil works.
>
> He does understand actually. your own understanding is extremely flawed.
>
> > Bye
>
> > .
>
> Sheesh you say good bye a lot.- Hide quoted text -
>
You have me confused with someone else.

Cheers

[dave hillstrom]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:34:48 -0700, Aratzio >
wrote:

>On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:22:38 -0400, in the land of
>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom >
>got double secret probation for writing:
>
>>On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:16:11 -0700, Aratzio >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:59:22 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>dave hillstrom > got double secret probation for
>>>writing:
>>>
>>>>On 09 May 2008 23:06:49 GMT, gregvk > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g02kb9$p2k$1
:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Useful how? You don;t fly so you can't use them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly didn't
>>>>>>> actually know how anything worked, and has now further degenerated
>>>>>>> info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along the way it
>>>>>>> picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've removed on this
>>>>>>> reply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's OK,. I';lll put them back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>>Why does he assume every poster is an angry young male?
>>>>
>>>>im an angry middle aged male. im CLEALY in a separate demographic.
>>>
>>>bejebus, iffen yer middle age what the hell does that make me, kid?
>>
>>an old fart.
>>
>><traipses away>
>
>Cmon, I drop a BOMB of a straight line and that is it?
>
><pouts>

look. right about now, after that many tokes, yer lucky to get 3,
maybe 4 of my neurons firing per 60th of a second. not a good
percentage, you think?

pity the week, for they shall inherit the earth. with strict
licensing and regular fees.

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:bad2ae6c-30df-4ff7-ac5c-
:

> On May 10, 7:22*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote in news:59c00842-d3d5-40be-
9cec-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 9, 11:57*pm, Stealth Pilot >
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:55:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >On May 8, 12:17*am, Stealth Pilot <notranspon...
@aeroplanes.com.au>
>> >> >wrote:
>>
>> >> >> your questions dont have that much depth btw.
>> >> >> just a lot of misunderstood aerodynamics.
>>
>> >> >Naysaying is the mark of a troll wihen no facts are given to back
it
>> >> >up.
>>
>> >> >Cheers
>>
>> >> accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a troll is so
lame.
>>
>> >> ok lets get this in proper perspective.
>>
>> >> the average GA tailplane has a span of about 8ft.
>> >> the trim tab sits on only one side and it is about a foot span and
>> >> maybe 2 inches chord.
>>
>> > Go and measure an Arrow or 177. Even a 172 has a bigger trim tab
than
>> > that. BUT you still don't understand the point.
>>
>> >> just considering the tailplane chord through the trim tab for the
>> time
>> >> being. you are looking at a chord of about 2 ft. *
>> >> wound to it's full extent it would have maybe 5% effective change
in
>> >> the aerofoil characteristics. bear in mind that it lives down near
>> the
>> >> trailing edge where the contribution to lift is minimal.
>>
>> > With this last statement I can see there is absolutely no point to
>> > discussing this with you as you don't know how an airfoil works.
>>
>> He does understand actually. your own understanding is extremely
flawed.
>>
>> > Bye
>>
>> > .
>>
>> Sheesh you say good bye a lot.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> You have me confused with someone else.
>
> Cheers
>

Oooo kkkk.

Bertie

[Just go look it up!]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:27:34 GMT, Benjamin Dover
> wrote:

>george > wrote in
:
>
>> On May 10, 12:15 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>>> :
>>>
>>> > I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>> > then degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly
>>> > didn't actually know how anything worked, and has now further
>>> > degenerated info a flame war among a few angry young males. Along
>>> > the way it picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which I've
>>> > removed on this reply.
>>>
>>> You haven't got the foggiest idea of which answers were useful and
>>> which weren't. You don't fly and you don't know **** from shinola
>>> about flying.
>>
>> Elsewhere there is a link to a kill file that works in Google.
>> It works.
>> No more Mxsmanic.
>>
>
>Yes, but you'll miss out on all the opportunites to see how the self
>proclaimed expert pilot is a total ignoramus when it comes to flying. It
>does have some entertainment value.

Unfortunately, no - we won't. People keep replying to it and we all
get to see the replies. Unless that killfile works differently than
say Agent's. I haven't seen a direct posting from it in months, just
replies to the drivel.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Just go look it up! > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:27:34 GMT, Benjamin Dover
> > wrote:
>
>>george > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On May 10, 12:15 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> > I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>>> > then degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly
>>>> > didn't actually know how anything worked, and has now further
>>>> > degenerated info a flame war among a few angry young males.
>>>> > Along the way it picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which
>>>> > I've removed on this reply.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't got the foggiest idea of which answers were useful and
>>>> which weren't. You don't fly and you don't know **** from shinola
>>>> about flying.
>>>
>>> Elsewhere there is a link to a kill file that works in Google.
>>> It works.
>>> No more Mxsmanic.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, but you'll miss out on all the opportunites to see how the self
>>proclaimed expert pilot is a total ignoramus when it comes to flying.
>>It does have some entertainment value.
>
> Unfortunately, no - we won't. People keep replying to it and we all
> get to see the replies. Unless that killfile works differently than
> say Agent's. I haven't seen a direct posting from it in months, just
> replies to the drivel.
>

Here's a thought. You could just not read posts form people you don't
like.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

gregvk writes:

> And why exactly do you assume that?

I don't assume it, I observe it.

[Mxsmanic]

Buster Hymen writes:

> BULL ****!

Thank you for the example.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gregvk writes:
>
>> And why exactly do you assume that?
>
> I don't assume it, I observe it.
>

No, you don't, fjukkwit.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> BULL ****!
>
> Thank you for the example.
>

It was you who provided the example. he just identified it.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On May 9, 4:30 am, nospam > wrote:
>
>> Geeez I hadn't realized how thick you guys are.
>> Of course the tail, elevator and tab are taken into account -
>
> And I quote you:
>
> "They only work "together", as you put, after a lot of careful
> engineering of the individual components and the interaction between
> them."
>
> "Each item can be considered separately."
>
> The overall impression you give is that they have little to do with
> each other and can be separated as if they will act as they do without
> being attached to the other parts, which is false. Sorry if I took it
> that way, but I think a lot of folks would read it exactly the same as
> I did.
> And Maxwell needs to go do dome reading, too. Endless flaming
> only makes him look like a spoiled schoolyard bully.
>
> Dan

Sorry, didn't know you were one of Bertie's sock puppets.

[Just go look it up!]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:21:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Just go look it up! > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:27:34 GMT, Benjamin Dover
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>george > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On May 10, 12:15 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>> > I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>>>> > then degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly
>>>>> > didn't actually know how anything worked, and has now further
>>>>> > degenerated info a flame war among a few angry young males.
>>>>> > Along the way it picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which
>>>>> > I've removed on this reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't got the foggiest idea of which answers were useful and
>>>>> which weren't. You don't fly and you don't know **** from shinola
>>>>> about flying.
>>>>
>>>> Elsewhere there is a link to a kill file that works in Google.
>>>> It works.
>>>> No more Mxsmanic.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, but you'll miss out on all the opportunites to see how the self
>>>proclaimed expert pilot is a total ignoramus when it comes to flying.
>>>It does have some entertainment value.
>>
>> Unfortunately, no - we won't. People keep replying to it and we all
>> get to see the replies. Unless that killfile works differently than
>> say Agent's. I haven't seen a direct posting from it in months, just
>> replies to the drivel.
>>
>
>Here's a thought. You could just not read posts form people you don't
>like.

I've already killfiled the people I don't intend to read. It's others
who continue to reply to MX that mess killfiles up since they quote
his original crap in the reply. At least agent can flag threads as
ignore as well as people, so eventually when a thread gets too
annoying I just dump the thread.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:8jiVj.98$CE1.71
@newsfe23.lga:

>
> > wrote in message
> news:4815ead3-bd95-485f-8aba-
...
>> On May 9, 4:30 am, nospam > wrote:
>>
>>> Geeez I hadn't realized how thick you guys are.
>>> Of course the tail, elevator and tab are taken into account -
>>
>> And I quote you:
>>
>> "They only work "together", as you put, after a lot of careful
>> engineering of the individual components and the interaction between
>> them."
>>
>> "Each item can be considered separately."
>>
>> The overall impression you give is that they have little to do with
>> each other and can be separated as if they will act as they do
without
>> being attached to the other parts, which is false. Sorry if I took it
>> that way, but I think a lot of folks would read it exactly the same
as
>> I did.
>> And Maxwell needs to go do dome reading, too. Endless flaming
>> only makes him look like a spoiled schoolyard bully.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Sorry, didn't know you were one of Bertie's sock puppets.
>
>

Ahh, the old everyone is Bertie's sockpuppet" k00kout.

If only.


Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:31:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>WingFlaps > wrote in news:bad2ae6c-30df-4ff7-ac5c-
:
>

>>>
>>> > With this last statement I can see there is absolutely no point to
>>> > discussing this with you as you don't know how an airfoil works.
>>>
>>> He does understand actually. your own understanding is extremely
>flawed.
>>>

in any aerofoil generating lift the pressure differential causing that
lift is generated mainly in the first third of the low pressure side.
....like about two thirds of the lift. playing around near the trailing
edge has little effect.

"you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it think"
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
>Oooo kkkk.
>
>Bertie

snipe away bertie. I give up on him.
Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Just go look it up! > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:21:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Just go look it up! > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:27:34 GMT, Benjamin Dover
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>george > wrote in
>>>>news:4de3baf0-0621-4544-8a13-58b42f1ae281
@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 10, 12:15 pm, Benjamin Dover >
wrote:
>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I note that this thread started with one or two useful answers,
>>>>>> > then degenerated into an argument among "pilots" who manifestly
>>>>>> > didn't actually know how anything worked, and has now further
>>>>>> > degenerated info a flame war among a few angry young males.
>>>>>> > Along the way it picked up a lot of bizarre crossposting, which
>>>>>> > I've removed on this reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You haven't got the foggiest idea of which answers were useful
and
>>>>>> which weren't. You don't fly and you don't know **** from
shinola
>>>>>> about flying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Elsewhere there is a link to a kill file that works in Google.
>>>>> It works.
>>>>> No more Mxsmanic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but you'll miss out on all the opportunites to see how the self
>>>>proclaimed expert pilot is a total ignoramus when it comes to
flying.
>>>>It does have some entertainment value.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, no - we won't. People keep replying to it and we all
>>> get to see the replies. Unless that killfile works differently than
>>> say Agent's. I haven't seen a direct posting from it in months,
just
>>> replies to the drivel.
>>>
>>
>>Here's a thought. You could just not read posts form people you don't
>>like.
>
> I've already killfiled the people I don't intend to read. It's others
> who continue to reply to MX that mess killfiles up since they quote
> his original crap in the reply. At least agent can flag threads as
> ignore as well as people, so eventually when a thread gets too
> annoying I just dump the thread.
>

I'm impressed!

Careful, thogh, you're not supposed to be talking to me. Jay's little
okie k00k friend will be after you.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:31:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>WingFlaps > wrote in news:bad2ae6c-30df-4ff7-ac5c-
:
>>
>
>>>>
>>>> > With this last statement I can see there is absolutely no point
to
>>>> > discussing this with you as you don't know how an airfoil works.
>>>>
>>>> He does understand actually. your own understanding is extremely
>>flawed.
>>>>
>
> in any aerofoil generating lift the pressure differential causing that
> lift is generated mainly in the first third of the low pressure side.
> ...like about two thirds of the lift. playing around near the trailing
> edge has little effect.
>
> "you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it think"
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>
>>Oooo kkkk.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> snipe away bertie. I give up on him.
> Stealth Pilot
>

Nah, I got a great chew toy already!


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

gregvk writes:

> You can observe peoples' genders based solely on their Usenet articles,
> huh.

No, I can observe their behaviors.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gregvk writes:
>
>> You can observe peoples' genders based solely on their Usenet articles,
>> huh.
>
> No, I can observe their behaviors.

And then, what, use them as models for plang "The SIms"?

Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gregvk writes:
>
>> And why exactly do you assume that?
>
> I don't assume it, I observe it.
>

You lack the mental capacity to observe.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gregvk writes:
>
>> You can observe peoples' genders based solely on their Usenet articles,
>> huh.
>
> No, I can observe their behaviors.
>

No you can't. To do so would require a modicum of intelligence, which you
lack.

[Buster Hymen]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Buster Hymen writes:
>>
>>> BULL ****!
>>
>> Thank you for the example.
>>
>
> It was you who provided the example. he just identified it.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

As other's have said about MXSmoron, he doesn't know **** from shinola. He
he just proved it again!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Buster Hymen > wrote in
02:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Buster Hymen writes:
>>>
>>>> BULL ****!
>>>
>>> Thank you for the example.
>>>
>>
>> It was you who provided the example. he just identified it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> As other's have said about MXSmoron, he doesn't know **** from
> shinola. He he just proved it again!
>
>
>
>

True!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Benjamin Dover > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> gregvk writes:
>>
>>> And why exactly do you assume that?
>>
>> I don't assume it, I observe it.
>>
>
> You lack the mental capacity to observe.
>
>

He lacks the mental capacity to wipe his own ass.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> He lacks the mental capacity to wipe his own ass.
>
>
> Bertie

Another one of the MANY things, you and Mx have in common.

I can see why you Mx are buds, I just had no idea how close.

One of the daisies over on flonk flonk even mentioned a mock wedding. Is is
true?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> True!
>
> Bertie

What a suck up.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:60pVj.90$yP7.78
@newsfe18.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> True!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> What a suck up.
>
>
>

Aww, being mean again.

you do realise if you keep being mean to me I will get fed up and leave,
don;t you?


Nope!

just kidding!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> He lacks the mental capacity to wipe his own ass.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Another one of the MANY things, you and Mx have in common.
>
> I can see why you Mx are buds, I just had no idea how close.
>
> One of the daisies over on flonk flonk even mentioned a mock wedding.
> Is is true?
>

Is what true, wannabe boi? And it's "the flonk" show a bit of respect,
please.

Bertie

[Chilly8]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> True!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> What a suck up.
>
>
>

Gee, Maxwell, on break from your job at the glory hole, are you.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Chilly8" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> True!
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> What a suck up.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Gee, Maxwell, on break from your job at the glory hole, are you.
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:JTpVj.2704$hJ1.570
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> True!
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> What a suck up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gee, Maxwell, on break from your job at the glory hole, are you.
>>
>
>
>

Awww, he;s sulking again.

Bertie

[Rhonda Lea Kirk[_2_]]

gregvk wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>>
>> gregvk writes:
>>
>>> And why exactly do you assume that?
>>
>> I don't assume it, I observe it.
>
> You can observe peoples' genders based solely on their Usenet
> articles, huh. That's a very interesting skill. How exactly do you
> do it?

http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php

P.S. You're a boy.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Never attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity...

....but keep your eyes open. Robert A. Heinlein

[Rhonda Lea Kirk[_2_]]

gregvk wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" > wrote in news:g06pf9$39p$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> gregvk wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>>
>>>> gregvk writes:
>>>>
>>>>> And why exactly do you assume that?
>>>>
>>>> I don't assume it, I observe it.
>>>
>>> You can observe peoples' genders based solely on their Usenet
>>> articles, huh. That's a very interesting skill. How exactly do
>>> you do it?
>>
>> http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php
>>
>> P.S. You're a boy.
>
> It says you are, too.

I know.

> (Reality Check: It has a 50% chance of being correct even if it just
> makes a wild guess.)

If we're being serious, it isn't right even that often. Then again, I've
long suspected that some of the guys here are really women in boxer
shorts.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Never attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity...

....but keep your eyes open. Robert A. Heinlein

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" > wrote in news:g06pf9$39p$1
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

> gregvk wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>>
>>> gregvk writes:
>>>
>>>> And why exactly do you assume that?
>>>
>>> I don't assume it, I observe it.
>>
>> You can observe peoples' genders based solely on their Usenet
>> articles, huh. That's a very interesting skill. How exactly do you
>> do it?
>
> http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php
>
> P.S. You're a boy.
>
I think even he would argue the toss there. According to his website,
which is pretty funny, BTW, try looking for Anthony Atlieski, he's
asexual.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 8:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Specifically, I've been trying to practice slow flight, but it seems to be
> really hard to get the aircraft anywhere near its minimum speed. *During the
> course of this practice I noticed that even trimming for full nose up didn't
> seem to actually get the aircraft down towards the bottom of the green band,
> so I was wondering if it were really possible to trim it that far. *It doesn't
> sound like it is. *I'll have to try holding the yoke to fly really slowly.

Does the sim model the effect of CG? if so, have you tried moving it
aft? Maybe the sim CG is too far forward.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9A9B6F22A3786E817AC3D8380227
@127.0.0.1:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g076t2$85t$2
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" > wrote in news:g06pf9$39p$1
>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>
>>> gregvk wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>> gregvk writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And why exactly do you assume that?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't assume it, I observe it.
>>>>
>>>> You can observe peoples' genders based solely on their Usenet
>>>> articles, huh. That's a very interesting skill. How exactly do
you
>>>> do it?
>>>
>>> http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php
>>>
>>> P.S. You're a boy.
>>>
>> I think even he would argue the toss there. According to his website,
>> which is pretty funny, BTW, try looking for Anthony Atlieski, he's
>> asexual.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> What do you suppose "Mxsmanic" is? Let's ask!
>
>
> Female Score: 29
> Male Score: 29
>
> The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: unknown!
>
>
> Hmmmmmmmmm...
>

Trust me, he'd be absolutely thrilled to hear that.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

gregvk writes:

> It says you are, too.

Every text I tried turned out to be "male," according to this gadget, even
texts written by women.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Does the sim model the effect of CG? if so, have you tried moving it
> aft? Maybe the sim CG is too far forward.

It does model CG, I believe. I'll try what you suggest.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gregvk writes:
>
>> It says you are, too.
>
> Every text I tried turned out to be "male," according to this gadget,
> even texts written by women.
>

take the hint

Bertie